Sitting of 15 November 2000

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

    CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS]
    Ordered,
    That the promoters of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
    That, if the bill is brought from the Lords in the next session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill brought from the Lords in the present session;
    That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
    That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Aviation Industry (South Wales)
    Mr. John Smith: What assessment he has made of the impact on the aviation industry in South Wales of the possible relocation of aero-engine jobs at RAF St. Athan to the south of England; and if he will make a statement. [136862]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Mr. Speaker, as this is the first Welsh Question Time since you became Speaker, may I, on behalf of all Welsh Members, wish you well in your office?
    The workers at St. Athan are employed by the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, responsibility for which lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    922
    I understand that this proposal is subject to formal, confidential consultation between the Defence Aviation Repair Agency and the trade unions.
    Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend meet the Secretary of State for Defence at the earliest opportunity, to discuss not only the possible loss of jobs but the proposal to move DARA from RAF St. Athan to Cardiff airport? I understand that that could result in as few as half the work force being invited to move with DARA, leaving far too few personnel to run the biggest military support base in western Europe. If that hare-brained proposal was accepted—I doubt that it will be—thousands of jobs would be at risk. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to do all in his power to put a stop to it.
    Mr. Murphy: As I said previously, DARA has proposed a transfer of engine overhaul work, which comprises about 165 civilian staff, to another site in Hampshire. That is the only firm proposal of which we are aware that poses any threat to jobs, and it is subject to full consultation. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

    Fuel Duty (Hill Farmers)
    Mr. Christopher Chope: When he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union in Wales to discuss the impact of fuel duty upon hill farmers. [136863]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): In the past few weeks, I have met representatives of both the main Welsh farming unions and discussed a wide range of issues, including fuel duty. I have also met a delegation of farmers, hauliers and others, led by Mr. Brynle Williams.
    Mr. Chope: If, as he claims, the Secretary of State has been meeting hill farmers, why was he not able to secure a better deal for them in the Chancellor's recent statement? Did he read the evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry from Mr. Pratt, a hill farmer in the Brecon Beacons, who said that his total net income last year was £1,600 and that, as a result of extra taxes on fuel, his costs have already increased by £2,654 this year? Why should Mr. Pratt have to pay the highest fuel taxes in Europe so that the national health service can be subsidised?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman's last comment was unworthy, as I am sure that all the farmers in Wales are conscious of the need to make sure that the NHS and all our public services are properly funded.
    To answer the hon. Gentleman's first question, using figures that are based on cash income—the best reflection of the genuine day-to-day position of Welsh farmers—the estimated cash income for Welsh hill farmers for this financial year was £20,000. That figure is down by 5 per cent. on that of the previous year. However, I appreciate that that is an average and that, within those figures, there are considerable difficulties for individual farmers. I must say that, thanks to the Conservative party's

    923
    economic policies, many of my constituents were forced in the 1980s and much of the 1990s to live on incomes that were well below the level that I have cited.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: In my right hon. Friend's talks with hill farmers on the impact on their livelihood of fuel duty, was there any discussion of the decisions of the previous Government, with their totally London-centric, overbearing attitude of omniscience? They pushed aside the advice of the chief medical officer of the then Welsh Office that there was something badly wrong with the handling of the BSE crisis. If they had listened to Wales, hill farmers would not have half the trouble that they have today.
    Mr. Murphy: All of us have read the report and are conscious of the fact that officials in the Welsh Office at the time were extremely diligent in the advice that they gave. As it turned out, their advice was timely but, unfortunately, it was not followed by their colleagues elsewhere in Whitehall—although I guess that is a matter for another debate.
    Mr. Robert Walter: Mr. Speaker, as this is your first Welsh Question Time as Speaker, I echo the personal good wishes of the Secretary of State.
    Hill farmers and all those who live in rural Wales have been severely affected by the 34 per cent. increase in fuel duty that has occurred since the Government came to power. Hill farmers cannot take their sheep to market by public transport, and those who live in isolated rural villages have to use their car to go to work, to take their children to school and to go shopping. The Chancellor has not cut the duty on fuel—he has created the mirage of ultra-low sulphur fuel. How many filling stations in Wales stock ultra-low sulphur petrol, and how many does he estimate will have it by April next year?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom were governed for two decades by the Conservative party. Many of the difficulties that are now facing us in Wales are a direct consequence of decisions taken by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues.
    On the availability of low sulphur fuels, the hon. Gentleman knows that low sulphur diesel is generally available and that decreases in the duty on low sulphur petrol will come into effect in March next year. We are assured by the industry that that fuel will be available throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: After 50 years of generous and very large subsidies for farmers in this country, how is that farmers in New Zealand, who have not received a penny in subsidies for the past 15 years, can produce meat, have it transported across the world and offer it on the British market at a lower price than that charged by farmers in Wales? Is not the truth that subsidies are not the answer to but the cause of farmers' problems?
    Mr. Murphy: Happily, it does not fall on my shoulders to answer questions on New Zealand agriculture. Although I accept my hon. Friend's point, I am sure that he is aware that the farming community in rural Wales faces genuine problems, which the Government are doing their best to overcome.

    Rail Services
    Mr. David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on rail services to Wales and the west country. [136864]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport.
    Mr. Heath: Must not Isambard Kingdom Brunel be turning in his grave at what has happened to God's wonderful railway? There have been broken rails, a criminally dangerous signalling system at Paddington and clapped-out locomotives that simply break down half the time. Do not the people of Wales and the west country deserve a better railway system? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it his business to talk to his colleagues and to authorities in Wales, and on the other side of the bridge in the west country, to ensure that we have the railway system we deserve?
    Mr. Murphy: I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more, especially because, many years ago, I had the privilege of fighting his seat in the west country. As I am now Secretary of State for Wales, he will be aware that I failed to win that seat.
    The task facing this country is to get a safe and efficient railway system working at full capacity as quickly as possible. That imperative was made crystal clear to railway companies by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport. The whole House is aware of the serious problems in Wales and the west country. The regulator has said that by next Monday there will be a sustainable timetable, so that people will be conscious of the amount of time they have to spend on trains. By the end of this week, I hope to have further information on how best to repair track and ensure the safety of the system. I hope that the bulk of repairs will have been completed by Christmas.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Does my right hon. Friend accept that our constituents want railways to be run as a public service, whereas those who currently run railways are interested not in providing a service but in making a quick profit?
    Mr. Murphy: I am sure that most hon. Members believe that many of the problems that we are currently facing were the direct result of the ideological and misguided policy of railway privatisation, which was carried out by the Conservative Government during their final years in power. They were warned that privatisation would be a disaster, and that turned out to be the case.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I, too, offer you our congratulations on your appointment, Mr. Speaker, and wish you well in your responsibilities.
    Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there have been improvements in the rolling stock on the north Wales line recently and that Virgin Trains will again introduce new stock, next year? Does the right

    925
    hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if the best use is to be made of the new rolling stock, we need to upgrade the line in north Wales?
    The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are plans to upgrade the line between Crewe and Bangor. Will he impress on Rail track and the Strategic Rail Authority the need to extend the work to Holyhead?
    Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more. Our railway system across north Wales, and the section of the trans-European network from Ireland to England, is one of the most important links between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, as well as between different parts of Wales. I hope that the Strategic Rail Authority will take that into account in considering bids for the single franchise.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the removal of all Virgin services to north Wales constitutes major discrimination against my constituents and others? Yesterday, two people from north Wales wanted to travel to the House of Commons to attend a reception connected with lupus, a serious medical condition. The only way in which they could have come to London was by reserving seats, and that facility was not available to them, although it is available on some Virgin services between London and other parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend please undertake to investigate this unsatisfactory state of affairs?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is, of course, right about the inconvenience caused to her constituents, which is also experienced by Members and their constituents throughout Wales. As she knows, following a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister last Thursday, Rail track announced that the bulk of the necessary track repairs would be completed by Christmas, and the remainder by Easter. It also announced that the industry planned to publish a national track recovery plan this Friday—which, as I have told the House, will include details of a sustainable timetable that will come into force next Monday.
    The main problem is the lack of reliability. Even if it takes longer to travel from one place to another, ensuring that people know how long the journey will take constitutes a big improvement in itself.

    Employment
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When he last met the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the current employment prospects for the country; and if he will make a statement. [136865]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I meet the First Minister regularly and discuss a wide range of issues, including employment in Wales. There has been a steady increase in employment. The number of people of working age in employment in Wales has increased, from more than 1,181,000 in May 1997 to more than 1,215,000 in May 2000. Figures published today by the labour force survey of the Office for National Statistics show that the number of people in work in Wales is now 1,261,000.
    Mr. Llwyd: Gross domestic product in Wales has fallen by 3 percentage points since new Labour took
    926
    office, and we have lost several thousand jobs in the Japanese hi-tech industries in south Wales recently. Have the Minister and the Secretary of State made any representations to their colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry? If not, why not?
    Mr. Hanson: We have regular discussions with all Departments about the economy in Wales.
    Employment in Wales has increased by 80,000 since the general election. Youth unemployment has fallen by 75 per cent. since the election, thanks to the new deal, and long-term unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. Genuine difficulties occasionally occur in industry in Wales and elsewhere, but we are dealing with the fall in GDP through objective 1 funding, and we will do all we can to ensure that employment in Wales continues to rise.
    Mr. Chris Ruane: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Welsh development agency and the Devonshire county council economic development committee on the creation, in the past four weeks alone, of 480 jobs at WTS Holdings in Prestatyn, 170 jobs at Hotpoint in Bodelwyddan, 150 jobs at TRB in St. Asaph, 1,000 proposed jobs related to Devonshire county council objective 1 projects, and 300 jobs at Morrison's superstore?
    Mr. Hanson: I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating those companies on creating jobs—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Hanson: The job opportunities in Denbighshire and my hon. Friend's constituency are in no mean part due to his efforts. The employment increases that have occurred are part of the strong, stable economy that we have in Wales—as, indeed, are the 80,000 new jobs that have been created since the general election. We now have the lowest level of unemployment in Wales for some considerable time—certainly, lower than that throughout the Conservative years.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given last week's finding of the National Centre for Social Research that 80 per cent. of those who have supposedly found jobs through the new deal for young people would have got them any way; that people completing the training and education option of the new deal are twice as likely not to get a job as to get one, and that the average cost for each job through the new deal is about £17,000, why does not the hon. Gentleman give up the unequal struggle and admit that the new deal for young people provides a rotten service at a rip-off price?
    Mr. Hanson: I should be surprised if a Question Time went by without the hon. Gentleman whingeing about the new deal. The real issue is that youth unemployment in Wales has fallen by 75 per cent. since the general election. That is in no mean part due to the efforts of the new deal and the Employment Service. I have met new deal workers throughout Wales, all of whom benefit from the scheme. Employers enjoy the scheme and find it worth while, as do the people on it. Given what the hon.

    927
    Gentleman has said, they know that the Conservative party would abolish it. That will help us no end at the general election.
    Mr. Alun Michael: Last week, I met some young people on the new deal—people who have been given hope and opportunity as a result of being taken into work by the new deal. They are the sort of people who were abandoned by the Conservative party. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be rather nice if the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) were to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who is sitting next to him, and persuade Plaid Cymru in the National Assembly for Wales to start helping this Government and the Government of Wales in the Assembly to make the most of the opportunity provided by objective 1 to create jobs and opportunities for young people and all people in Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: Whingeing is not the prerogative of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow); with regard to objective 1, it is also that of Plaid Cymru Members. The new deal is working in Wales; it has created jobs and reduced unemployment, especially among young people. It is worth while, but the Conservative party does not support it, and Plaid Cymru is a little lukewarm about objective 1.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Sadly, today's figures show that unemployment is on the rise and, indeed, that unemployment in Wales is on the rise, with thousands of job losses in the manufacturing sector. The M4 corridor used to be a magnet for inward investment. Now, unfortunately, it is job-loss alley, with Panasonic, Sony, Hitachi and Corus announcing recent job losses. Does the Minister think that the introduction of the climate change levy as proposed by the Government will help or hinder job creation in Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: From the Ribble Valley, unemployment may appear to be rising in Wales, but those of us who represent seats in Wales know that it is definitely falling. The figures announced today show that unemployment is lower than it was yesterday. That is a genuine fact for the hon. Gentleman to chew on in due course. Despite the difficulties with Sony and other companies, there is still a great deal of high-tech investment in Wales. It should not be forgotten that 3,000 people still work for Panasonic and Sony in Wales.
    On the climate change levy, the hon. Gentleman knows the views of the House. The House has voted for it. Many businesses will benefit from the levy, as will the environment, and I support it.
    Mr. Evans: Does not that response show that the Government are simply not listening? While the Labour-dominated Welsh Assembly is spending more than £40 million on a new building for itself—three times the original estimate—businesses are being attacked by the Government on several levels, with £5 billion of extra taxes, as well as £5 billion of extra regulation, being heaped on them. Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to sign up to anything in Europe, which will make Britain less competitive than other countries. That means that we are exporting jobs from this country to our competitors. Will the Secretary of State meet
    928
    representatives of the employers—the CBI, the Institute of Directors and especially the Federation of Small Businesses—and listen to them, particularly in regard to their campaign to ensure that the climate change levy does not damage Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has yet again missed the point. If he had listened to what I said, he would have heard that unemployment has fallen by 80,000 in Wales since the general election. There is positive investment in our community in Wales. It is creating jobs. The Secretary of State meets businesses, the CBI and small businesses regularly—I was with him on Friday evening last week—to discuss issues. They know that the way to a strong economy is through the Government's policies. The Ribble Valley ranter can rant on all he likes, but he will not get far.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my hon. Friend, when he meets the First Secretary, raise with him the recent report that the venture capital firm 3i has closed its offices in Cardiff because of a lack of business opportunities and moved to Bristol? Will he press the First Secretary to do everything that he can to remedy the situation that created that?
    Mr. Hanson: I will look into my right hon. Friend's points. I am not aware of the situation that he has raised, but I will look into it and discuss it with the First Minister.

    Flooding
    Mr. Richard Livsey: What recent discussions he has held with the Environment Agency regarding river flooding in Wales and England. [136866]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): In recent weeks, the Under-Secretary and I have discussed the matter with the Welsh Minister for the Environment, Transport and Planning and others. I am pleased to tell the House that, last Friday, while visiting flood-affected areas of north Wales, I was able to announce that the Welsh block would be increased by some £3 million over the next four years, consequential on additional funding for flood prevention in England. On that visit, I was able to see the results of the dedicated hard work of the emergency services and local authorities in dealing with that serious state of affairs.
    Mr. Livsey: I reiterate the words of welcome that you, Mr. Speaker, have been given today.
    Does the Secretary of State not agree that the greatest possible sympathy needs to be given to flood victims and, indeed, that more money needs to be allocated to the Environment Agency? Much more than the £3 million that he has achieved needs to be allocated; about £12 million is my estimate. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the hard-pressed local authorities are not in a position to fund the Environment Agency properly for flood prevention schemes in Wales? Will he do something to ensure that the agency is properly funded by direct funding from Government, so that it can do the job properly?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the £3 million is not the only money that is going into flooding in Wales. That is for flood defences over the next number of years, but, only this week, the Assembly has indicated that it will look carefully at all the points, including the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman. In addition, the Bellwin formula has been improved. It will help local authorities and help directly all the people affected by the floods.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: As well as talking to the Environment Agency, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with his friends in the Cabinet and with the Association of British Insurers to see if help can be obtained for those unfortunate people in my constituency and elsewhere who have not been able to obtain insurance against flooding?
    Mr. Murphy: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he is aware, the Government are committed to discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry can respond more quickly and effectively to such emergencies.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: In his discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, has the Secretary of State extracted a date for the implementation of new national planning guidance policy—PPG25—and considered the impact on drainage, in particular of new houses being built on flood plains?
    Mr. Murphy: No, but I am aware of what the hon. Lady is referring to. This week, the Minister for the Environment, Transport and Planning made a statement to the National Assembly. She is aware of the points that the hon. Lady has made and is looking carefully at future planning applications in areas affected by flooding.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: May I inform my right hon. Friend that my constituents in Tintern, Usk and Maesygwartha, near Gilwern, were affected by the recent flooding? Although they commend the work of the emergency services and the county council, who helped in the clear-up, there is clearly a need for local authorities to have more powers and more resources, on the same basis as those provided to the Environment Agency, to invest in flood prevention work.
    Mr. Murphy: Yes; I am very conscious of the points that my hon. Friend has made. His constituency is next to mine, and I know the problems that his constituents have faced. I shall ensure that the points he has made are taken up with the First Minister.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Proportional Representation
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What his policy is on proportional representation.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): We set out our position in October 1998, and again in June 1999, and it has not changed.
    Dr. Lewis: Why is it that the Prime Minister is so much more reticent about his position on proportional representation with Members of this House than he used to be with the former leader of the Liberal Democrats when he was trying to carve out a shady deal for a permanent Lib-Lab coalition based on PR? If he will not answer that, will he at least answer this? Will he give an assurance that he will not give his support in the future to a system based on the alternative vote—which is not even proportionate, but simply exaggerates the winning party's number of seats even more than the first-past-the-post option does?
    The Prime Minister: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question betrayed a certain nervousness. On the first point, we have introduced proportional representation for the European elections and for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. In relation to PR, however, I am not in favour of any system that breaks the link between constituency and Member of Parliament.

    Engagements
    Angela Smith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 November.
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Angela Smith: Does the Prime Minister recall the dire warnings from Conservative Members that the national minimum wage would cut the number of jobs in this country by more than 1 million? [Interruption.] Does he therefore share my scepticism about their apparent conversion now that we have the highest employment levels for a generation? Nevertheless, many young people, including those who came to my youth forum just last week, feel somewhat disadvantaged. Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider removing the temporary differential youth rate for those who are under 22?
    The Prime Minister: As we said at the time, we shall keep that under review. However, I think that it is important to recognise that the way in which the minimum wage has been implemented should not, and currently does not, affect youth unemployment levels. Indeed, long-term youth unemployment has been more than halved under this Government. As for my hon. Friend's comment on Conservative Members, as she read out the prediction that they made before the general election, some of them were shouting, "We were right." I do not think they realise that the position has changed, and that there are now 1 million more jobs in the economy, with the introduction of the minimum wage, than there were at the time of the general election.
    Mr. William Hague: Last week, the Prime Minister tried to blame everyone but himself for the dome disaster. Now, we have had the National

    931
    Audit Office report and a full account of his Cabinet meeting. Can he confirm that the member of the Cabinet who insisted that the project should proceed and said that it "could even make money" was him?
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly true that I said that it should proceed. It is also true, however, as we demonstrated conclusively last week, that funding for the dome, financial management, the dome and the site itself were all agreed by a Cabinet committee when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of it. We still have not had his admission that he was a member of that committee. Perhaps he will admit it, or not, when he asks his next question.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minster did not only say that it should proceed. From the minutes of that meeting, we know the following:
    Blair: We are already getting more inquiries from the private sector. There could be a billion pounds of revenue for the UK.
    Blair: It is a bit of fun and a bit of learning.
    In that meeting, should not the Prime Minister have listened to the Foreign Secretary? He said:
    We can always blame the Tories if we stop now. If we go ahead we'll have to take the blame if the whole lot goes wrong.
    It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary is not here to tell him that again.
    We also know from the National Audit Office report that, in July, when Lord Falconer told Parliament that the dome was trading solvently, he must have known that that was not the case. As Ministers who do not tell the truth in Parliament are meant to resign, when is he going?
    The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman should not confuse Cabinet minutes with what appears in The Mail on Sunday, Secondly, if he is in the business of quotes, this one is from December 1999:
    But the decision was made by the previous government and this one to do it. Having spent that money, I think it's now the job of all politicians to make a success of it. So we shall go there and join the party.
    Who was that? It was the Leader of the Opposition.
    Hon. Members: More!
    Mr. Hague: Of course we enjoyed the party: we were laughing at the right hon. Gentleman. So there we have it: no resignation and a special exemption from the ministerial code for the Prime Minister's old flat mate. We used to have government by Parliament, then it was by Cabinet. Now we have government by clique. Is not the only reason that the right hon. Gentleman clings on to the discredited dome Minister that, although he may be a useless Minister, he is very convenient as a human shield? Should not the Prime Minister now be man enough to stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise to the nation without blaming it on somebody else?
    The Prime Minister: Last week we had the major economic statement for the country and one might have expected the right hon. Gentleman to have asked about it. It is interesting that, this week, he cannot ask about the economy or public services.
    932
    As for the dome, we have said already what the difficulties were and why we still proceeded with it, but if we want to quote at each other across the Chamber, since last week we have discovered something else. In the past few months the shadow culture Secretary has been travelling around the country telling people that the dome is a disaster, asking how we could ever have done it and saying what a waste of money it is. What does he turn out to be? He was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the National Heritage Secretary in the last Conservative Government, and this is what he has said:
    From the outset, I was a supporter of the dome…I know that there are domophobes—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Maclean, be quiet.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said:
    From the outset, I was a supporter of the dome…I know that there are domophobes on both sides of the House—people who think the whole project was destined to be a failure…I am not one of those people.—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1306.]
    Why does not the Leader of the Opposition take his bandwagon and drive it off somewhere else?
    Ms Julie Morgan: While I welcome the extra money for schools in the pre-Budget report, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that it is paid out as quickly as possible? Assuming that the Welsh Assembly uses the £9.9 million allocated to it by the Chancellor for schools, schools in my constituency will get a welcome and much-needed boost.
    My constituency includes Whitchurch comprehensive school, the biggest comprehensive school in Wales, ysgol Glan Tâf, the Welsh medium school as well as Corpus Christi Catholic school and Llanishen and Caathay schools. Does my right hon Friend agree that allowing schools to decide their own spending priorities will assist staff, teachers and parents?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to read out the list of schools in her constituency because each one of them will get extra money from the Labour Government. What we now know, courtesy of the shadow Chancellor, is that the Tories would take that money back off those schools. That extra money is there. It is going into the largest real-terms rise in education spending that this country has seen for years.
    I know that my hon. Friend has a certain influence in the Welsh Assembly. I hope very much that the Assembly will make sure that that money gets through to the schools that need it to improve our children's education.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: On the national health service, is the Prime Minister aware of the number of so-called excess winter deaths that occurred last winter, and will he confirm the figure?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by the term "excess winter deaths," but it is of course the case that there were severe pressures on the NHS last winter. Those pressures will be easier this year, at least in terms of our being prepared for them,

    933
    because of the additional money that has been put into the NHS. As many people in the NHS have been saying over the past few days, in winter there is always more pressure. However, we are better prepared and the health service is better funded.
    In addition, I can tell the House that there are now some 10,000 more nurses in the health service than three years ago, and that 5,500 nurses are returning to the service as a result of the nurse returner campaign.
    Mr. Kennedy: Successive Governments have recorded the numbers of excess winter deaths occurring in the December to March period, when the number of unfortunate deaths rises as a result of climatic and other conditions. Last year, the figures showed that there were 54,000 deaths in the period. There will be another national winter crisis this year. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge in the House this afternoon what he has acknowledged elsewhere—that the persistent under funding of the health service in the first half of this Parliament means that doctors, nurses and patients will have to cope with excess winter deaths again? Does he not accept that there is a degree of urgency about the need for a national plan to combat this disgrace in our country?
    The Prime Minister: This Government have put far more money into health service funding than the Liberal Democrat party has ever asked for. However, we had to make sure that any funding that we put into the national health service could be sustained year on year on year. For far too long, there was boom and bust in health service spending, with money put in one year being taken away the next. Now, over a four-year period, there will be the largest sustained increase in health service investment, and we will be able to keep it up. As a result, there are more nurses, doctors and beds. However, it will take time for those people to be trained fully.
    In relation to hypothermia, the winter fuel allowance, the cut in VAT on fuel and the extra measures on home insulation show that the Government are doing our best to minimise the pressures. Those pressures will continue, but it is wrong to suggest that we have done nothing to correct the problem.
    Mr. Denis Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending our best wishes to the remaining British miners and their families, following today's announcement that the European Union has accepted the Government's aid package to the coal industry? I am sure that he will agree that that package will secure the jobs of many thousands of people. However, would he also agree that it is to the eternal shame of the Conservative party that, when in power, it set out to destroy not only Britain's mining industry but the people who relied on it totally?
    The Prime Minister: People will remember the record of the Opposition. Many people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other constituencies who are dependent on coal mining will welcome today's news. It is a case of the Government helping the industry restructure and make change in a way that preserves jobs
    934
    and the fabric of local communities. That stands in sharp and stark contrast to the policies of the previous Government.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: The people of Guildford are deeply concerned by plans to put a giant incinerator in our county town. This month, we learned that Government officials have tried to hide the health hazards caused by such incinerators. Why does that culture of secrecy still fester? Why did Labour and Liberal Democrat peers vote last night for a Minister's right to hide information, and against the people's right to freedom of information?
    The Prime Minister: So now the Conservatives are the champions of freedom of information. [Laughter.] No, let us be fair. It is just that for 18 years, it slipped their minds somehow. Indeed, at the last election, I seem to remember that in their manifesto they called it an unnecessary gimmick.
    I do not know about the actual case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I will look into it and write to him about it, but, really, let us have no lessons from the Conservative party about freedom of information.
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: Many hon. Members will have seen the media coverage of the village of Gowdall in my constituency, which has been submerged by the worst floods in more than 300 years. Residents are concerned and angry at some of the actions of the Environment Agency, fuelled by its refusal to meet villagers last night. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will ensure that there is an investigation into the actions of the agency; that the flood defences will be looked at and improved if necessary; and that the Government will play a full and active role in regenerating communities such as Gowdall, including fast-track support wherever possible?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to look into the issue of the Environment Agency's refusal to meet residents in my hon. Friend's constituency who have been affected by the floods, and I will be in touch with him about it.
    As for the efforts that we are making generally and nationally, we are spending a substantial additional sum of money on flood defences. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced new money—more than £50 million—to help with that. The rate of Government support under the Bellwin scheme, which reimburses local authorities for the costs of flood damage, used to be at 85 per cent. and is now at 100 per cent. I hope that that shows my hon. Friend and his constituents that we will give them some hope for the future.
    Mr. William Cash: Will the Prime Minister explain how a European super-power would not be a European super-state? In his speech on 13 November at Mansion House, he said that it was obvious to him. Will he give the British people a White Paper on the constitutional and political implications of the process towards European integration?
    The Prime Minister: Where nation states acting in unison can do more in common than they can alone, that, it seems to me, is the reason for the European Union.

    935
    Examples of such states being able to exercise more power and strength together than alone include the current negotiations over Kyoto, world trade and areas of foreign policy where, as a result of us operating together, we are more powerful than individual nations. In other words, we are a super-power.
    Ms Julia Drown: The Prime Minister will know that last month Amnesty International launched its global campaign against torture. What steps will the Government be taking to meet the objectives of the campaign? Will my right hon. Friend be working in this Parliament to ensure that we have legislation to ratify the International Criminal Court statute and to outlaw the broking of torture equipment?
    The Prime Minister: We are, of course, committed to making sure that we introduce legislation for the International Criminal Court. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks on acts of torture. This country has fought a very strong, solid campaign over a number of years in respect of human rights abuses wherever they occur, and we will carry on doing so.
    Mr. William Hague: Will the Prime Minister expand on his definition of a super-power which he offered a few moments ago? He said on Monday that he wanted Europe to be a super-power. Can he name a super-power at any time in the history of the world that has not had its own currency, its own taxes, its own army and its own Government?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot name another institution like the European Union, which is precisely why it is a unique union of member states which are nation states coming together to exercise more power than they can alone exert. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an example of Europe as a super-power, he should look at trade negotiations. We are not able, as the United Kingdom, to make a real impact on world trade, but we are as the European Union. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, perhaps he can get up and say so.
    Mr. Hague: We did not ask the right hon. Gentleman for two minutes of waffle about Europe. We asked him whether any super-power ever had not had those assets which we listed. We take it from his response that the answer is no. There has never been a super-power without its own currency, taxes, army and Government, just as there has never been a Prime Minister who used words so carelessly to please the audience of the moment. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has argued for a super-power, all he could say when the German Foreign Minister called yesterday for an elected head of Europe was that the "time was not right" for that idea. Can he think of a super-power, as he would have it, that has not had an elected head? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: In view of the events of the past week, that is a rather unwise question to ask me. Of course, Mr. Fischer has his view. He wants a European federal super-state. That is true. What is the response of Conservative Members? They hitch up their skirts, go to the sidelines and say, "Get on with the debate, we'll have
    936
    nothing to do with it." We should enter into that debate and say why we are against the super-state but in favour of more co-operation.
    The idea that we have no support for that position is absurd. A few weeks ago, President Chirac said:
    I do not think that one can have a federal Europe…The creation of a United States of Europe is not realistic, because not a single nation is prepared to give up its identity.
    I agree entirely. So we have Mr. Fischer arguing one thing and Mr. Chirac arguing something else. I am on the side of those who want Europe to co-operate more closely because it is in our interests to do so, but not to have a federal super-state. Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand?
    Mr. Hague: We can get a straighter answer from a Florida recount than from the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House. He says that there is a difference between a super-state and a super-power, but there is no example in history to support him. Those who favour a super-state have taken support from his words. The truth is that he wants Europe to be a super-power when the only possible result of such a policy is the creation of a super-state and the end of Britain's independence. Cannot we now see that in the Government's handling of European policy we have a disaster in the making, a distinction without a difference and a Prime Minister without a clue?
    The Prime Minister: As usual, with the right hon. Gentleman's pre-rehearsed little jokes, he makes his point. However, he has mentioned the negotiations that are coming up at Nice. His position is to be against any extension of qualified majority voting.
    We have done a little research. In the course of the Maastricht treaty, there were 30 items of qualified majority voting agreed, including on free movement of capital, visas, economic guidelines, public health, education—shall I go on? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—consumer protection, European transport and European regional development funds. In all 30 items. How many times did the right hon. Gentleman vote against them? Well, it is a round number that equates roughly to the Conservatives' economic and foreign policy credibility.
    The best way to secure the best deal in Europe is to fight for British interests on issues such as tax, border controls and social security, but where it is in our interests to have qualified majority voting, to have that too.
    The choice is simple: a Conservative party in the grip of those who would damage our country's true national interests or the Labour party, which will get engaged, and therefore get the best deal for Britain.
    Hon. Members: More!
    Mr. Speaker: Ann Cryer.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mrs. Ann Cryer.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear.

    937
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that following the severe flooding of more than 200 homes in the Stockbridge area of my constituency two weeks ago, it is singularly unfortunate that the Conservative leadership of Bradford council is seeking to make political capital out of my unfortunate constituents?
    The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition went around the country a couple of weeks ago claiming that we were in crisis because of the floods, proving only that bandwagons can be amphibious. I do not know the circumstances of the Conservative leadership of Bradford council, and can only hope that it soon changes back to Labour.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Is the Prime Minister aware that his proposals to scrap community health councils—independent watchdogs for NHS patients, such as Cheshire Central and Chester and Ellesmere Port—is bitterly opposed by my constituents, by patients and by staff? Will he drop those plans?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that there is bitter opposition, which is why the proposals are being consulted on. If he goes round the country, however, the hon. Gentleman will find that people in certain areas do not believe that community health councils have been as effective as they might have been. It is precisely because we want to consult that we have issued the health plan. We will report back to the House in due course on the consultation.
    Mr. Mark Todd: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the better regulation taskforce report on environmental regulation and farmers? Will he take from it the need further to improve control of British bureaucracy's implementation of European regulations?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I welcome that report, because it makes it clear that we should be careful in implementing European legislation to ensure that we do so with the lightest possible touch. However regulation is extremely important in such areas as safety issues, for example BSE. A balance must be struck, and we are trying to get it right. I very much welcome the report and believe that we shall act on it.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: On 13 July, the Prime Minister gave the House an absolute commitment that on the Liaison Committee's report on parliamentary scrutiny there would be free votes on the Government side. Last Thursday, the Leader of the House shaded that commitment by saying that it would be contingent on the Government putting down substantive motions. Will the Prime Minister honour his July commitment by ensuring that the Government put down substantive motions?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons tells me that she did no such
    938
    thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes she did."] Well, there is always a free vote on House matters, and the right hon. Gentleman has my assurance that that will remain so.
    Ms Claire Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that pensioners face in claiming their full entitlements? The measures announced last week are to be welcomed, but we know from the 60,000 currently claiming the minimum income guarantee that they still have problems in receiving what they are entitled to. What will the Government do to ensure that more people will be able to claim the minimum income guarantee?
    The Prime Minister: There has been a problem, which is why we launched a campaign to ensure that pensioners entitled to the minimum income guarantee should receive it. I understand that about half a million more pensioners are now claiming it. Those measures, together with additional money for pensions, the winter fuel allowance and free television licences, are an important signal of our commitment to Britain's pensioners. In relation to the winter fuel allowance, free television licences and the Christmas bonuses, the Conservatives' policy is to take those things away from Britain's pensioners.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Royal Ulster Constabulary on intercepting the mortar bomb at Derrylin and the bomb in west Belfast that was destined for the City of London? Will he join us in calling for a moratorium on changes to policing until peace is assured in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: On the first point, of course the work of the RUC has, as ever, been absolutely invaluable in stopping acts of terrorism. On the Patten reforms, we think that it is important that the reforms should proceed and that, at the same time, all the varied aspects of the agreement into which parties have entered should be implemented properly.
    Mr. Speaker: Caroline Hint.
    Caroline Flint: My question has already been asked, so I shall sit down.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is due to make a speech today in which he will point out that there is a winners' circle of prosperity in London and south-east England to the detriment of other areas in the country. However, if 700 jobs go at Biwater Industries of Clay Cross, which manufacturers pipes, for no reason apart from a rip-off effect, north-east Derbyshire will become a losers' circle. Will my right hon. Friend therefore have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get that matter referred to the Competition Commission, which is the last means of saving those jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the issue in my hon. Friend's constituency and get back to him as soon as possible.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On today's Order Paper there are 29 questions to the Secretary of State for Wales, including five which refer to discussions that he may have had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and two which refer to someone called the First Minister. Section 53(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 states:
The Assembly shall elect one of the Assembly members to be Assembly First Secretary.
Section 53(2) states:
The Assembly First Secretary shall appoint Assembly Secretaries.
The Act's only reference to Ministers is to Ministers of the Crown, and section 43 states that when those powers are devolved, they are devolved to the Assembly, not to individual office holders. There is a clear distinction between the powers and definitions in the Scotland Act 1998 and those in the Government of Wales Act.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the correct way in which the First Secretary and the Assembly Secretaries should be referred to in the House. Should we use the titles in the legislation passed by the House, or can we call the First Secretary and Assembly Secretaries whatever we like?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. Normally, the Table Office would have corrected the notices to use the First Secretary's correct title. I hope that the proper designation will appear on the Order Paper in future. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter.
Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that a confusing precedent is not set, may I ask you to advise the House under which Standing Orders a Member may be evicted from the House, even if he has not said anything on the record of the House in violation of its procedures or Standing Orders?
Mr. Speaker: I really do not know the incident to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. However, if he is referring to a previous incident of mine, I have discussed that with the hon. Gentleman concerned and we have come to an understanding. I will ensure that there is good order in the House: that is the important thing. There will be occasions when, perhaps, I request that an hon. Member leave the Chamber even though he or she may not have broken any rules. However, for the sake of order, I will ask that hon. Member to leave. There again, that is a request, and it is up to the hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady to accept it. I hope that that helps.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you perhaps invite the Prime Minister to ensure that the record is corrected, and that his reference to half a million new people claiming the minimum guarantee is altered to the 24-plus thousand who, in fact, have got it, according to a House of Commons answer.
Mr. Speaker: These are matters of argument. However, I suspect that the hon. Lady has managed to put something on the record.

Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability (No. 2)
3.34 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to the safety of and liability for the deliberate release or marketing of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food; to establish a genetically modified organism compensation fund; and for connected purposes.
Let me turn the clock back a moment. It was late in the afternoon of Friday 31 March that Mr. Petersen reserved a telephone call from the German authorities notifying him that genetic contamination had been found in the oilseed rape seeds supplied by his company, Advanta UK. The House will recall that, in the furious debates of the following two months, the Government decided that the crop planted in the United Kingdom should be destroyed. In the UK alone, more than 5,000 hectares of oilseed rape had to be ploughed in, along with the entirety of that season's plantings in Germany, France and Sweden.
The question that remained was who was liable for the damage and loss caused in that exercise. When Advanta came to give evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it said that it had supplied what it thought to be non-genetically modified seeds. The crop had been cultivated on land never used for GM crop growing, and with separation distances 20 times that required in the United Kingdom. In turn, farmers had grown in good faith crops that they believed to be non-GM. They were as shocked as anyone else to discover that their crops were contaminated by the Aventis herbicide-tolerant gene.
I hope that the House will excuse the pun when I say that the crunch in deciding what to do about the issue came when the oilseed crushing industry announced that it was refusing to buy any of that season's contaminated crop. That was great news for consumers, but pretty frightening news for the farmers who faced financial disaster.
To its credit, Advanta told the Select Committee that it had stepped in and picked up many of the bills relating to those losses. However, it was adamant that in doing so it accepted no legal liability for the damage or loss. That is the contradictory position that we are currently in and which my Bill seeks to address. The biotechnology industry has spent millions of pounds trying to convince society that its products are safe, yet, when asked whether they accept producer liability for the products, the answer is absolutely no.
When we turn to UK law to find out who is liable, the answer is unclear. The issue threatens to become one of the big whodunnits of our time and, sadly, our position as a Parliament appears to be that we neither know nor care what is the answer to that question.
I have recently taken part in the Chardon LL hearings elsewhere in London. They are destined, I fear, to descend rapidly into farce. On the day on which I gave evidence, MAFF issued a press release pointing out that it was unable to identify not the fields in which the crop trials had taken place but the countries. This situation risks making a mockery of the issues of scrutiny and liability that are central to how we view the introduction of GM crops into the food chain and the arable and animal system.

941
My Bill would fill the loopholes in our legislative framework, and it would do so in five ways. It would place a duty on Government to apply the precautionary principle to which we signed up as a country in the biosafety protocol negotiated in Montreal this year. It would require the Government to introduce a new scrutiny regime that was at least equal to the paradigm shift into which biotechnology and genetic manipulation have taken us. It has to be the case that, when faced with a technology that can cross all the frontiers that nature has set for us, we introduce a scrutiny system to test the technology at least as rigorously as we would test a new drug, rather than looking at the technology as a novel form of cake decoration.
For industry, three critical changes would have to be made vis-à-vis its relationship with consumers and farmers. The Bill would require companies to accept that they were corporately liable for the harm or damage that resulted from the release of GM organisms that they had produced or marketed. We would make it a condition of any marketing consent or licences that the companies be in possession of full public liability insurance in respect of any damage that followed.
Finally, we would require the companies to work with the Government in the creation of a compensation fund to ensure that, at least where damage from genetic contamination could be identified, even though its specific source was unclear, the farmer and the consumer would not be left to pick up the bill.
Why is the Bill needed? The current arrangements leave farmers hanging out to dry. NFU Mutual, the largest insurance company for the farming community, has already stated that it will not insure against genetic contamination or damage. Supermarkets have turned their back on purchasing genetically contaminated seed supplies or crops. Recently, Iceland went even further: it will no longer honour contracts to purchase non-GM cattle food if it turns out to be contaminated.
To add insult to farmers' financial injury, a legal opinion supplied to Friends of the Earth states that the idea of farmers seeking financial remedy or redress through civil action in the courts is pretty much a non-starter. Those farmers who were not bankrupt at the start of the process certainly would be long before they were even close to the possibility of obtaining redress.
That is why the Government must take a lead. We must place producer liability in the lap of the biotechnology industry rather than with the farmer or the community. We must do that now because the issue will not go away. The danger is that if we do not address the problem, it will move alternately between tragedy and farce.
Two weeks ago, Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, came to the UK to deliver a message to the Prime Minister, warning of the inherent danger that the UK could end up in the same position as the United States. That farmer has never planted, grown or tried to market GM crops, but he found that some of Monsanto's GM seeds were growing on his land. He was even more astonished when Monsanto decided to sue him for that. The company wants to levy fines on farmers of up to $30,000 for the adventitious arrival of GM crops on their land, even though the farmers do not know that the crops are growing there.
If we are to avoid being caught up in such farcical situations, the Government must give a lead. In the social climate set by the Phillips report after the crisis and
942
tragedy of BSE and CJD, the public expect a lead from the Government on the definition and appraisal of risk, and on scrutiny, responsibility and liability. We must do that by taking the path of legislation, not that of litigation. I hope that the Government will hear and respond to this message, and that the House will endorse it.
3.43 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak on this measure, as I do not want to take too much time from discussion of our main business today. I also assure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) that my opposition to his Bill will have no bearing on my selection decisions for the parliamentary football team.
I have some reservations about GM food, but I do not accept that it presents any more difficulties than those that arise in conventional breeding. My views were sharpened recently, when I led a parliamentary science and technology delegation to China where we saw GM cotton fields and learned of the advantages that had resulted. There is less use of pesticide and insecticide, and the flourishing cotton plants are not savaged by insects.
Conventional breeding is imprecise, but it has been successful because plant breeders have learned how to test and evaluate plants, selecting only those with desirable characteristics and rejecting the rest. All the tests in conventional breeding are practical, and there is a wide range of additional safety assessments for GM crops. The tests evaluate actual and potential impact on food, human and animal health and the environment. Although trials are still continuing, there is as yet no evidence that would lead us to assume that GM crops are less safe than conventionally bred crops. The demonisation of genetically modified crops and the deification of organic foods are unacceptable at the current time. All food crops should be subjected to thorough examination for benefits, and effects on health, the environment and so on.
I share my hon. Friend's views about multinational companies and the undermining of traditional farming practices. I repeat that I strongly agree that we need to provide crops that are of clear benefit to the consumer, taking into account price, health implications and effects on the environment. However, the Bill should address all crops, whatever technology is used in their production. The Bill is particularly limited on the liability issues.
There is no crop that we eat, however we produce it, that can be deemed natural. That is another reason why I believe the Bill to be flawed. The truth really is that we cannot say what food, however it is produced, is absolutely safe and carries absolutely no risk. I welcome the Food Standards Agency and its assessment of the problems of all crops. John Krebs has made an illuminating start in the arena of organic foods, and other foods will now be subjected to the same rigid scrutiny.
If we deter scientific experimentation by passing such a Bill, which is so narrowly focused, we may one day find that the world population has doubled, and that nutritional needs cannot be met by food redistribution. However, I am not arguing that transgenic foods are the answer.
The Bill is far too limited, and we should vote against it today.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 30.

Division No. 334]

[3.46 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Jones, Ms Jenny

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Barnes, Harry

Keetch, Paul

Beggs, Roy

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

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Kidney, David

Bercow, John

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Berry, Roger

Kingham, Ms Tess

Brake, Tom

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Brand, Dr Peter

Livsey, Richard

Brazier, Julian

Llwyd, Elfyn

Breed, Colin

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Burstow, Paul

McDonnell, John

Cable, Dr Vincent

McWalter, Tony

Chaytor, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Chidgey, David

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Moore, Michael

Cohen, Harry

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Cotter, Brian

Mudie, George

Crausby, David

Oaten, Mark

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Pond, Chris

Dismore, Andrew

Pound, Stephen

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Donohoe, Brian H

Quinn, Lawrie

Drew, David

Rendel, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Robertson, Laurence

Evans, Nigel

Ruddock, Joan

Foster, Don (Bath)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

St Aubyn, Nick

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Sanders, Adrian

Godman, Dr Norman A

Sawford, Phil

Hayes, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Hepburn, Stephen

Skinner, Dennis

Hopkins, Kelvin

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Illsley, Eric

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Stinchcombe, Paul

944

Stunell, Andrew

Wareing, Robert N

Swayne, Desmond

Webb, Steve

Tapsell Sir Peter

Welsh, Andrew

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Wills, Phil

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Thompson, William

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tyler, Paul

Mr. Huw Edwards and

Walley, Ms Joan

Miss Anne McIntosh.

NOES

Ashton, Joe

Jenkins, Brian

Blizzard, Bob

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Cawsey, Ian

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

McFall, John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

Maxton, John

(Copeland)

Moffatt, Laura

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Curry, Rt Hon David

Page Richard

Dalyell, Tam

Sheerman, Barry

Dobbin, Jim

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Flynn, Paul

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Gapes, Mike

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Tellers for the Noes:

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mrs. Anne Campbell and

Iddon, Dr Brian

Mr. Nigel Beard.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Norman Baker, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. David Drew, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Llew Smith, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. John McDonnell, Mr. David Chaytor and Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews.

Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability (No. 2)
  GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AND PRODUCER LIABILITY (No. 2)
  Mr. Alan Simpson accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the safety of and liability for the deliberate release or marketing of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food; to establish a genetically modified organism compensation fund; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed [Bill 184].

Transport Bill [Ways and Means]
3.59 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport Bill, it is expedient to authorise

(1) the imposition of charges in respect of the execution of works in a highway, and

(2) the charging of fees in connection with driver training courses.

The resolution relates to two amendments to the Bill that were made in another place. The Government tabled them to fulfil commitments made in response to amendments tabled by others at an earlier stage. I shall speak to them briefly.
The provision in the resolution on the execution of works in a highway arises from the fact that the Bill now contains a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations so that local authorities can charge utility companies from the start of any works that they undertake on the street; that is known as lane rental.
The provision on driver training courses arises from the fact that the Bill now enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require drivers of specific types of vehicle to undertake training as part of obtaining their licence. Fees could be charged to recover the Secretary of State's costs for supervising such training, which includes assessments of trainers authorised to provide courses. There are also powers to cap the charges that trainers could make for those training courses. We already have similar requirements for motor cycle training, and the powers mean that they could be extended to other vehicles, in fulfilment of an important part of our road safety strategy.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: It is highly premature, but how can I resist the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Bercow: I am always enticed by the Minister's words, as he should know by now. I simply wanted to ask him whether the regulations that he is helpfully describing will be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure.
Mr. Hill: It often seems as if the hon. Gentleman is positively obsessed by me. I am delighted to tell him that the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
Both the amendments to which the resolution relates were welcomed by all parties in another place, and I commend them to the House.
4.2 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: I do not believe that this matter should detain us too long because there is broad agreement on it. Clearly, utility organisations cause disruption to traffic, and the motoring public will believe that giving them an incentive to get on with the work is good.
946
There is a slight difference between setting a small charge to incentivise and another stealth tax. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us about the levels of charging and confirm that the utilities will not ultimately have to turn to the hard-pressed public and add substantial amounts to bills for water and electricity. As the matter must be tackled through statutory instrument, perhaps the Minister can tell us the likely timetable for its implementation.
4.3 pm
Mr. Hill: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, we have always said that we regard the powers as residual. Our first move will be to introduce provisions under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to set out penalties for overstaying in street works.
On the question about charges, it is too early to say. If we decide to proceed with lane rental, we shall want to discuss an appropriate level with highway authorities and undertakers. On the usual question about stealth taxes, I point out that each utility is subject to a regulator to prevent abuse by any monopoly power.
Let me make a minor correction: lest I be accused of misleading the House, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Question put and agreed to.

Transport Bill (Supplemental Programme)
4.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [9th May] be supplemented as follows:—

Transport Bill (Supplemental Programme)

  Lords Amendments
  1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be completed at today's sitting.

  (2) If not previously concluded, the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

  (3) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order—

  Nos. 27 to 29, 31, 1 to 26, 30 and 32 to 235.

  (4) Each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in this Table.

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  Lords Amendments Nos. 27 to 29.

  Three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Stephen Timms relating to the Transport Bill [Ways and Means] (No. 3).

  Lords Amendment No. 31.

  Four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion.

  Remaining Lords Amendments.

  Six and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion.

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

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

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

  (4) The Speaker shall put forthwith—

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Subsequent stages
  3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further message from the Lords on the Bill.
  (2) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
  4.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
  (3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the question already proposed from the chair.
  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords message.
  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords proposals.

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

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

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

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

  Miscellaneous
  7. The following paragraphs apply to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill.

  (b) proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill, and

  (c) proceedings on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons (and the appointment of its chairman) and the report of the Committee.

  8. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  9. The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  10.—(1) If on a day on which any of the proceedings take place a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (emergency debates) would stand over to seven o'clock—

  (a) that motion stands over until the conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time, and

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

  (2) If a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day to such a day, the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings on that day is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.
  11. No dilatory motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion made by a Minister of the Crown shall be put forthwith.
  12. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any of the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order.
  The motion has been agreed through the usual channels. Its aim is to ensure consideration of the amendments made to the Bill in the other place in a logical manner, and in a way that provides time for debate on the issues that are most likely to be of concern to hon. Members. Thus we begin with part I, and especially with the two groups of amendments—Nos. 27 to 29 and No. 31—that will doubtless excite most attention. The proportion of time allocated to debate those groups reflects their significance.
  However, time is also allocated to debate the other amendments that were introduced in the other place and there will be an opportunity to consider them, too. Although the vast bulk of the amendments are, as usual, of a technical, minor and consequential nature, the most important deal with, for example, the extension of concessionary fares to the disabled, bus lane enforcement, street works and quiet lanes, and relate to latter parts of the Bill. They were either introduced by the Opposition and accepted by the Government or are the subject of an all-party agreement.
  The overall total of six and a quarter hours to consider the amendments and the Ways and Means resolution is appropriate and reasonable and will allow proper consideration by the House.
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I do not want to detain the House for longer than is necessary because we want to get to the substance of the amendments.

  949
  The timetable was negotiated through the usual channels and there is a good reason for dealing with the most contentious items at the beginning of our debate, not least because that will cause the relevant Minister, who should be present, the least inconvenience. The relevant Minister is, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister himself, but he is not in the Chamber and has no plans to come here to discuss these matters. That raises the question whether the timetable is relevant.
  The Deputy Prime Minister's absences have become something of a regular occurrence. He ducked our debates on the fuel crisis and, on Monday, on the London Underground public-private partnership. As I predicted then, he is now ducking this debate. On Monday, I drew attention to the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks made a fortnight ago:
  I am constantly available to discuss such matters either in statements or other debates…There are many matters that I am prepared to debate, and I commonly come to the House.—[Official Report, 24 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 150.]
  In fact, the right hon. Gentleman was in the House a few moments ago during Prime Minister's questions, but he is not here now. His private office does not even try to offer an excuse for his absences. I thought that the Government were against truancy, but he is playing truant. The situation is getting beyond a joke.
  On Monday, we welcomed the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), to the Dispatch Box. He at least has responsibility for London and railways. I like dealing with him but, as I said on Monday, he is not the organ grinder of his Department.
  I understand that we shall later enjoy debating with the Minister for Housing and Planning, but, with regard to transport responsibilities, he is not even the monkey—he comes from a different zoo. I have a document issued by the Cabinet Office, entitled "List of Ministerial Responsibilities", which states that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is
  Minister of State (Minister for Housing and Planning).
  His responsibilities, which are clearly highlighted with bullet points, are for "Housing and planning" and "Construction". By no stretch of the imagination could he be held responsible for the policies that we are likely to debate when we consider the most contentious amendments that were introduced in the other place and which relate to National Air Traffic Services.
  The document states that the Deputy Prime Minister has
  Responsibility for the overall direction of the Department and its agencies
  but he is not here. We cannot cross-examine the Minister for Transport, who is responsible for integrated transport policy and strategic responsibility for all transport matters, because he is a Member of the other place. The Minister for Housing and Planning serves, to put it not too kindly, as the ventriloquist's dummy. I leave it to the House to decide whether the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport or the Treasury is pulling the strings on this occasion.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not think that personal abuse helps to make a serious case.
  Mr. Jenkins: I do not regard my comments as being particularly personally abusive, so I reject the hon.
  950
  Gentleman's charge. However, I am sure that he would be the first to agree that it is one thing to accept timetabling of such debates and another for the Deputy Prime Minister to snub the House and, of course, the British people—that we cannot accept. The Deputy Prime Minister is snubbing right hon. and hon. Members, who have a constitutional duty to express their concerns and those of their constituents about NATS privatisation to the author of that policy.
  This is clearly an important debate. According to the front page of The Daily Telegraph:
  Labour Whips are understood to have ordered all ministers back to London.
  It goes on to report that the Whips have
  offered a day off to MPs who might vote against the Government, in an attempt to head off the rebellion.
  That makes me wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister is one of those who have been let off—or is he just out of control? This occasion was important enough to have dragged him from his Department to a private meeting to address Labour Members this morning, so where is he now?
  Mr. David Winnick: As one who, in fact, will not be supporting the Government tonight, may I observe that the hon. Gentleman is trivialising the issue? We want to deal with the substance. We will reach our own views and vote accordingly, or abstain, as the case may be. The petty stuff that the hon. Gentleman is dishing out does not impress anyone. It certainly does not seem to impress his own side—the four Back Benchers sitting behind him, that is.
  Mr. Jenkin: That intervention took up extra time needlessly.
  As we discuss the motion, Members should bear in mind the fact that it relates to the Deputy Prime Minister's policy, and that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to discuss it. He—not the Minister for Housing and Planning—bears responsibility for it. This occasion is marked by yet another denial of proper scrutiny and proper accountability. I know that that does not matter to some Members, but it should matter to all of us.
  Who is the Deputy Prime Minister hiding from? Who is he more frightened of? Is he hiding from the public, or just from the House—or, indeed, from some of his own Back Benchers? The Government are avoiding democratic accountability to the House.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Ministers who are present are a couple of very agreeable Members who work hard, debate matters extremely courteously and thoroughly, and give proper answers when they can. Today's unanswered question, however, is, "Where is the Deputy Prime Minister?" We do not doubt the Ministers' integrity or their quality; it is just that they do not hold the job of the man with whom we wish to debate.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. The Government shelter their Minister for Transport by appointing to that post someone from the other place, and prop up the

  951
  Secretary of State who has increasingly become a stooge Deputy Prime Minister incapable of carrying out his proper duties in the House.
  Mr. Hill rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Other Back Benchers wish to speak.
  4.13 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: I agree with the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that we do not wish to delay the proceedings unnecessarily, but, as he says, there is a great deal at stake. This is an important debate, and I think that rather more time should have been provided for debate on the Lords amendments. The air traffic control set-up could jeopardise safety, if the privatisation goes ahead. It involves major issues of national security. No other country apart from Fiji has privatised its air traffic control system. I do not think that the House doubts the significance of what we will shortly debate.
  I welcome the deliberations in another place, which have given the Government a window of opportunity—a chance to think again before making what is potentially a big mistake. No matter what happens in the Chamber today, that window will still exist, and I hope the Government will take advantage of it. However, although I think we should have been given more time, I do not intend to vote against the motion, and urge others not to do so either, so that we can begin the main debate as soon as possible.
  4.14 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I endorse what was said by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) about the need to get on with the substance of the debate, but, as a signatory to the motion, I want to say a word about its significance. First, however, let me say that I find it extremely difficult to take seriously the comments of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I can only imagine that his diatribe was intended to disguise the fact that he was the only Conservative Member who had the honesty to admit guilt about the privatisation of the railway system. All his colleagues seem to have disappeared. He talked about others hiding, but he was trying to disguise his own integrity and honesty by going off on that extraordinary tangent.
  We, too, regret the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to debate this extremely important issue.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way; I want to get on.
  We acknowledge the fact that the two Ministers who carried the burden of the day in Committee are here, and I hope that they will listen carefully to the concerns of many Members on both sides of the House, including distinguished Labour Back Benchers.
  The programme motion is indicative of the way in which the House can improve its consideration of legislation. As has been said, there is a consensus about
  952
  several measures in the Bill, not least those on lane rental and penalties for the way in which the now privatised utilities can hold us all to ransom. I pray in aid the chaos that has been caused in my own county, Cornwall, by the cable contractors—profit-making utilities that are nothing to do with public services in the old sense. That is why a programme motion is so helpful in concentrating on the matters about which opinion is still divided.
  I acknowledge the fact that some Conservative Members are here in support of the motion, and it is helpful for us to reach agreement on the proper way to debate the issues that remain contentious. That is why it was such a lot of hot air the other night when Members said that occasionally reaching agreement on the proper way to debate such Bills was an outrageous affront to the dignity and proper responsibilities of Members of Parliament. We welcome the programme motion. More time could have been allowed, but there will be opportunities to consider the big issues, such as public safety.
  4.17 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I hope that there will be time to clarify a very important issue of fact. Not long ago, in answer to a question about the pilots' attitude, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said—I shall be told whether I quote him wrongly—that the British Air Line Pilots Association's view did not necessarily represent that of the airline pilots. I should like the Government to clarify precisely whether or not they believe that BALPA speaks for the pilots.
  My own experience is that on the 18 separate occasions that I have gone into the cockpits of either British Airways or British Midland aircraft on the Edinburgh-London run and asked the captains—they are senior captains—whether they support BALPA, the answer has always been yes in relation to such proposals.
  I hope that time will be given to considering whether the proposals constitute a danger. I choose my words extremely carefully and after due consideration. Of course the Government do not mean this to happen, but I think that the proposals represent a path to possible manslaughter because, in the pilots' view, they are dangerous. The issue of possible manslaughter must be addressed because my constituents and those of every other hon. Member in the north certainly did not send us to the House to acquiesce in possible manslaughter.
  4.19 pm
  Mr. Hill: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is verging on tedious repetition on such issues. We heard a diatribe on Monday, and we are hearing it again now. I suppose that he has to do that because he has already issued his press release, but the truth of the matter is that the Deputy Prime Minister is a most frequent attender in the House, not least on issues such as this. The hon. Gentleman is on pretty thin ground in pursuing that particular question. I suppose that he is seeking to avoid the substance of the debate because he does not want the public to be reminded that his party is for the total sell-off of NATS—lock, stock and barrel.
  As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) pointed out, it was my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning who took part I of the Bill—that dealing with NATS—through the Standing Committee stage. This is the

  953
  team that took the whole of the Bill, over a period of 87 hours, through Committee. This is the team that it is most appropriate be present to deal with those matters in the Chamber.
  If we are talking about who is and who is not in the Chamber, where, as a number of my colleagues have asked, is the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman)? After all, I thought that he was responsible for the environment, transport and the regions in the shadow Cabinet—not that he would be likely to add much punching power to the debate.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hill: No; we have heard quite enough from the hon. Gentleman.
  May I persist with the boxing analogy that I drew earlier in the week? The hon. Gentleman will have to be satisfied on this occasion with both bantam and middleweight performers. That flatters him, too. I suggest that we should now get on with the serious business that is before the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Transport Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 81, 86, 112 to 114, 120, 125, 170 to 183 and 194. If the House agrees to any of those amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Transport Bill
    Clause 40

      TRANSFER SCHEMES MADE BY CAA
      Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 27, line 5, at end insert—
      ("() No direction to make a transfer scheme shall be given under subsection (1) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.")
      4.22 pm
      The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.
      Mr. Raynsford: The purpose of the three amendments is to ensure that no transfer schemes are made or approved before the first Session of the Parliament following that in which the Bill receives Royal Assent. Transfer schemes involve the transfer of assets, rights and liabilities to relevant parties in readiness for the NATS public-private partnership. That cannot be set up until those transfers have been effected. Therefore, the amendments have the effect of delaying the PPP until the next Parliament—until after the next general election.
      I am sure that it will come as no surprise to hon. Members that the Government do not think that that delaying tactic is helpful. We do not see the need for any further delay in proceeding with the establishment of the PPP. We made our first announcement of the proposal for a partial sale of NATS on 11 June 1998. That was followed by a public consultation on the proposal in October that year and a statement was made following that consultation.
      There are other instances of consultation. There has been a Select Committee inquiry. The sale documentation was made available to the House, and certain parts of it to other interested parties, and was subjected to lengthy debates in Committee. There has therefore been ample time for public scrutiny of both the policy and its detail.
      In addition, it has been necessary to introduce legislation to enable the partial sale of NATS to take place. There have been lively debates on the Bill in the House, in Committee and in another place. That in itself has enabled the Government's proposals to be subjected to further detailed scrutiny.
      I turn to the main purposes of the PPP. There is an urgent need for investment in NATS and for the injection of new project management skills. Important investment

      955
      decisions need to be made now in respect of major projects. The ability of a strategic partner to make a meaningful contribution to those may be lost if the PPP is delayed.
      Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister confirm that the Government now intend to put the air up for sale?
      Mr. Raynsford: If my hon. Friend waited a little while, he would hear a full explanation of the Government's policy, including our absolute commitment to maintaining full safety in all United Kingdom air traffic services. I hope that he will form a proper and considered judgment when he has heard all the arguments.
      There have already been delays in introducing new technology at the Swanwick centre, and there is a pressing need for the contribution from the strategic partner both here and at the new Scottish centre at Prestwick. NATS has an excellent reputation and record on safety, but it would benefit from a strengthening of its capabilities in the introduction of new technology. A delay in the introduction of the PPP, which the amendments would cause, could jeopardise the prospects for both centres.
      Moreover, further delay and uncertainty will not be helpful to NATS or its staff, who have had to live with uncertainty for far too long. The previous Administration started questioning the future of NATS some years ago. We have tried to put a stop to that uncertainty by making an early announcement on the PPP. To add further delay now would be unfair to NATS staff, and could jeopardise the urgent need to recruit more air traffic controllers.
      Dr. Gavin Strang: I ask this question because I would genuinely like to know the Government's latest view on the matter. My hon. Friend has rightly reminded us that the new en-route centre at Swanwick is well behind schedule. As he will know better than me, although development of the centre is NATS' responsibility, all the software, hardware and equipment—which we hope will be a quantum advance in air traffic control—are the responsibility of the private sector, including the main private contractor. How does he apportion blame for the delay between the private contractor and National Air Traffic Services? Is it still the Government's view that the centre will come on stream not this winter but next winter, and that, when it does, it will indeed be a quantum advance in air traffic control?
      Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend has studied this matter carefully because, if I may remind him, he was the Minister who, on 11 June 1998, made the statement to the House on the Government's decision to proceed with the public-private partnership. At that stage, he acknowledged the fact that there was a need for a partnership both to secure investment to develop services and to mobilise private sector resources.
      My right hon. Friend said on 11 June 1998—and I entirely agree with the position that he took at that time—
      Our preference is that 49 per cent. of the shares, and a golden share, are held by the Government; and 51 per cent. by private investors including employees.—[Official Report, 11 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 637W.]
      956
      That is exactly the model with which the Government are currently proceeding. The logic that led my right hon. Friend to that conclusion remains the logic that has led the Government to the current proposals.
      As for Swanwick, we are five years behind schedule and have over-expenditure of several hundred million pounds. That is not a cause for congratulation. It is essential that we have in place a proper management structure that can ensure that, in future, procurement of the necessary information and other technology to provide services to guarantee effective and safe air traffic control systems is handled better than it has been.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I would like to finish my reply to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang).
      Whatever the merits or failures of individual contractors, ultimately it is the responsibility of the commissioning body to ensure that it gets the brief right and introduces the appropriate technology and systems on time and on budget. We believe that we need to strengthen national air traffic controls with the new arrangement of a public-private partnership to ensure that new technology is commissioned on time and on budget, rather than to repeat the rather unhappy experience that we have had at Swanwick. It is equally important to ensure that the new Prestwick centre goes ahead. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh and others who represent Scottish constituencies are particularly keen to see that happen.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Before the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) intervened, the Minister was saying that the Lords amendment that we are discussing was unfair to NATS staff. Can he tell us, therefore, why the NATS staff whom I and other hon. Members have met support the amendment?
      Mr. Raynsford: Some NATS staff probably do support the amendment, but I was making the point that prolonging the continuing uncertainty about the future of NATS, which would be the effect of the amendment, would not create a climate of confidence in the future. It would certainly not be in the interests of recruiting new staff. NATS and others have made the point forcefully that there is an urgent need to recruit new air traffic controllers. I believe that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the people doing that hugely important job can have the confidence to look ahead and know the framework in which they will be expected to operate.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is not a question of some NATS staff; it is a question of the considered view over many briefings

      957
      of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists and the British Air Line Pilots Association. In particular, why have Ministers been unable to persuade the IPMS on the issue of the willingness of the PPP to maintain public interest services, notably to general aviation users, which are uneconomic but essential for safety reasons?
      Mr. Raynsford: I have to tell my hon. Friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that it is not the Government's responsibility to ensure the adherence of every particular body to the proposals. It is their responsibility to take a view on this. I cannot answer for the decision of the IPMS, but I can assert firmly that the Government have made it absolutely clear from the outset that the safety of air traffic control systems in this country is the top priority. We have said it again and again and, in order to show our bona fides, we have accepted amendments that we will be debating later this evening which give effect to that by putting it clearly and unambiguously in the Bill.
      Safety will be paramount. It will be the No. 1 priority under the new proposal. I can assure all right hon. and hon. Members of that because there has been a certain amount of misinformation on the subject from people who have suggested that safety might be compromised.
      Mr. John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way in a moment, but first I should like to make this absolutely clear to the House, because there has been some uncertainty: Safety will be the No. 1 priority. The Government are absolutely committed to the maintenance of the safest possible air traffic control system. We are also committed to ensuring that it is a modern, up-to-date and efficient system which is able to cope with the many pressures that it will face in the years ahead as traffic increases.
      Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend has stated that part of the motivation for the proposal is to provide security for the staff and to respond to their concerns. Has he visited the air traffic control centre in West Drayton in my constituency in the past two years? I may have missed his visit. Has he consulted the staff? If he has not, why not ballot the staff and ask them for their views on the issue? Their view is very clear. The unions involved have consulted their members and made it clear that they are opposed to the Government's proposals.
      Mr. Raynsford: I have not visited the air traffic control centre at West Drayton, but my ministerial colleagues have. We have listened very carefully indeed to the views that have been expressed by all interested parties. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that a range of different parties all have a view on the matter. The Government clearly have to take a balanced view in the light of the evidence and, above all, in the national interest. It is our considered view that the necessary investment to secure an effective future service of air traffic control systems in this country is best served by a public-private partnership which can bring in the benefits of additional private sector investment and private sector
      958
      project management expertise, while at the same time ensuring the most rigorous safety regime which, as I have already made it clear to the House, is the No. 1 priority.
      Mr. David Winnick: Given that we are now seeing the results of the Tory privatisation of the railways, does it really make sense at this time to go for the semi-privatisation of a public service? That is what some people call the Government's proposed public-private partnership. I should have thought that the Lords' decision would have encouraged Ministers to reflect and seriously reconsider the proposal.
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend airs understandable and justifiable concerns about safety on the railways, which many of us share. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that effective action is taken to deal with the problems, which have been much in evidence. However, the model that we propose for the NATS public-private partnership is very different from the privatisation model adopted for the railways.
      These are very important issues. Specifically, under the model that we propose, the private sector will be invited to supply investment and project management skills. They will be hugely important in the procurement of efficient new IT systems to enable the service to operate as we want it to in the future. I have already explained why that is so vital.
      However, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill ensures that the whole issue of safety remains in the public sector. The Civil Aviation Authority will retain the primary responsibility for safety and will set the safety standards. Safety will remain its No. 1 priority, as the Bill makes clear. That is the difference between the framework that we propose and that adopted for the privatisation of the railways.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the framework proposed in the Bill is different, and that it has been designed to take account of the special needs involved in providing safe and efficient air traffic control systems. The framework will ensure that we can expand the system to meet changing pressures and needs, while at the same time guaranteeing the maintenance of the safest service possible. That has always been our No. 1 priority.
      I understand that in another place a precedent was cited for delaying the implementation of transfer provisions. In 1982, during proceedings on the Telecommunications Bill, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that neither the transfer of assets and obligations to the new company nor the issue of shares to the public would take place before the general election that was coming up.
      There is, however, a major difference between the British Telecom case and NATS. The former was a flotation in which the Government were selling off their interest in the business in its entirety.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The British Telecom arrangement would nowadays be called, in modern parlance, a public-private partnership. Only 51 per cent. of shares were sold, with the Government retaining 49 per cent. for a considerable time.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am perfectly happy to stand corrected on that point, but it was the intention of the then

      959
      Government to dispose of their entire holding, and British Telecom is now an entirely privatised utility. That is not the Government's intention with regard to NATS. As the hon. Gentleman will know from our lengthy and enjoyable debates in Committee, the Government intend to retain a significant shareholding in NATS at all times. That difference is very important.
      In the case of the PPP, the Government are proposing to dispose of a proportion of our interest in NATS, but we will retain a substantial stake to ensure that the public interest remains protected.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: That very substantial interest may amount to only 25 per cent. Will my hon. Friend explain that? Moreover, is not the crucial difference between the privatisation of British Telecom and the Government's proposals with regard to NATS that these proposals were never mentioned in the 1987 Labour manifesto?
      Mr. Raynsford: First, as my hon. Friend will have noted, the Bill sets the level of Government shareholding initially at 49 per cent. The Bill allows for that to be reduced if it is felt appropriate to do so, through dilution, to a figure no lower than 25 per cent. The purpose of that was made very clear in Committee and right hon. and hon. Members who were there will understand the reason. We have frequently made the point that air traffic control systems in Europe will change dramatically in the years ahead. We will inevitably see a consolidation. We will see a reduction from the large number of current air traffic control centres to probably only a handful.
      We want to ensure that NATS is in a strong position so that it can play a leading role in the process of consolidation. There may well be, as part of that process, a case for some further disposal of shares to enlarge the number of interested parties. However, the Government have been clear that they will always retain a minimum of 25 per cent. of shares, which is the sufficient shareholding to ensure that they are capable of blocking any activities that could threaten the whole basis of the operation. That is the framework, and that is why the figures of 49 per cent. and 25 per cent. appear in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend's second point was about the manifesto. He will be aware that the Prime Minister made a clear commitment in our manifesto. He said:
      We will search out at every turn new ways and new ideas to tackle the new issues … how to put the public and private sector together in partnership to give us the infrastructure and transport system we need.
      That is a pretty clear indication that we were ready to consider public-private partnerships in relation to transport services.
      Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, the hon. Gentleman had better listen to this, because he will not necessarily like it.
      Let us compare that commitment with the Conservative proposals. The previous Government proposed the total privatisation of air traffic control services without having made any such proposal in their election manifesto. It is sheer cant for the Conservative party to claim that there
      960
      is anything wrong with bringing forward a proposal without its having previously been in the election manifesto. That was how they behaved when they were in Government.
      Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: Of course I will—if the hon. Gentleman wants to come back on that point, he is welcome to.
      Mr. Jenkin: The Labour party manifesto can be accused of being a little misleading, while ours was perfectly clear. The Labour manifesto says, under "Shipping and Aviation":
      The guiding objectives of our aviation strategy will be fair competition, safety and environmental standards. We want all British carriers to be able to compete fairly in the interests of consumers.
      I do not think that anyone reading that will have got the impression that the sale of National Air Traffic Services was on the agenda. The hon. Gentleman should at least admit that this was a little thin.
      Mr. Raynsford: I have quoted directly from the Prime Minister's words in the Labour party manifesto. He made it perfectly clear that public-private partnerships to give us the infrastructure and transport system we need would be pursued at every turn. That, in my view, is a clear commitment to consider such options. We considered them but had not reached conclusions at the time of the manifesto. However, when we were in government we concluded that an appropriate public-private partnership was the right way forward. That was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh in a statement to the House in June 1998, and we stick by that commitment.
      Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister now quote directly from the Labour party conference, when our spokesperson gave a commitment that we would not be selling off the air?
      Mr. Raynsford: I recall very well the Labour party conference endorsing our public-private partnership recently. That is a clear commitment by our party conference, and the Government are acting in line with it.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Just for information, what did the phrase "the air is not for sale" mean?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am not sure what it means. It is one of those phrases that people use glibly and repeat. However, there is an absolute commitment on the part of the Government to ensure that there will be a safe system for air traffic control. The public sector will continue to oversee the safety issue through the Civil Aviation Authority, which will remain in public ownership; and the public-private sector partnership will be there for the purpose that I have outlined—to bring in the necessary finance and new management expertise.
      This is a genuine partnership, by strong contrast with the Conservative party's view that total privatisation is the preferred option. We reject that option. We have a way

      961
      forward that guarantees the improved service that is so vital for the future and unquestionably guarantees public scrutiny and control of the safety issue, which is equally vital for the future.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: If there is to be monitoring, the self-regulation group will require a huge increase in human resources to regulate all NATS activities. As I understand it, 17 inspectors are employed for air traffic control and 10 for engineering. NATS employs 1,800 controllers and 1,300 engineers. How is regulation to be effected in terms of human resources?
      Mr. Raynsford: We have made it clear on many occasions, and I am happy to give a further commitment now, that the Government will ensure that resources are available to maintain the safe system that we are committed to achieving. We will not allow human resource levels to fall below those that we regard as appropriate to meet the objectives.
      Mr. Michael Moore: I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), what plans there were to alter the number of safety inspectors after privatisation. He replied:
      The Air Traffic Services Standards Department … employs 27 inspectors dealing directly with operational safety issues…The CAA currently has no intention to alter the number of inspectors as a result of the completion of the National Air Traffic Services Public Private Partnership.—[Official Report, 10 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 419W.]
      How can that give the public confidence?
      Mr. Raynsford: I think that the public would want the confidence of knowing that the Government are committed to ensuring that manpower resources will be sufficient to maintain appropriate standards. If the CAA were to come to Government seeking additional resources, its application would be examined extremely carefully and sympathetically. However, the hon. Gentleman is referring to something quite different—that is, the current basis for staffing expectations. That does not relate to concerns about the adequacy of the staff to do the job. I have given the answer, and I hold by it.
      Perhaps not sufficient attention has been given to the suggestion made by the other place that it would be appropriate for it to pass amendments that would prevent the Government from implementing certain provisions in the Bill until the next Parliament. It is my view and that of the Government that it would be entirely inappropriate for such amendments to appear in the Bill. It is even more inappropriate for such amendments to be proposed by a body which has not been subject to the judgment of the electorate. It is for the elected Government to determine the speed at which they can implement their legislation. Were the proposals of the other place to remain in the Bill—I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider this carefully—we would be straying into dangerous constitutional territory, and creating a precedent that could be used again and again to damage the Government's good intentions. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to remember that when they consider how they will be voting at the end of the debate.
      962
      There are some in another place who have argued that we do not have a mandate from the people to pursue our proposals for NATS. That is rich, coming from a Chamber which has never been tested by the electorate. We look to that Chamber to act as a revising body, not as a body that dictates when Government legislation can or cannot be implemented.
      I move on to the public interest. Under the Bill's provisions, the public will be protected through a range of measures, including the licensing regime, the strategic partnership agreement, the special share and the powers of direction. As all the necessary public protections are in place, no additional benefits for the public interest will be gained by delay. However, there will be considerable detriment. The PPP was included as a commitment in the White Paper on integrated transport, which was published in 1998. The focus of the White Paper was on transport safety and improvement of current regulatory systems. Implementing the PPP will make a positive contribution to safety by effecting a complete separation between safety regulation and service provision. I see no sense in delaying the split, which has overwhelming support from all those who have looked seriously at the issue, including the Select Committee.
      The Bill contains several provisions that are important in their own right, including those that subject NATS to economic regulation irrespective of when the PPP is completed. The amendments would delay the PPP and the introduction of an improved incentive-based system of economic regulation, which is intended to benefit users.
      I hope that I have explained why the Government are unable to accept the amendments.
      Ms Sandra Osborne: If the amendments were agreed to, would my hon. Friend see any prospect of the Government changing their mind and considering, for example, a trust? Would he expect Labour policy on NATS to change at the general election?
      Mr. Raynsford: We have considered a range of options and models proposed by various parties. We have also considered options proposed in other countries, notably the NAVCAN system in Canada. We fully understand that there are advocates of those systems, but we have concluded that the public-private partnership set out in the Bill is the right way forward. We believe it essential to proceed with it. My hon. Friend has been a forceful advocate of the new provision and investment in her own constituency which will guarantee the two-centre strategy. We wholly endorse that, and the PPP will make possible the investment necessary to ensure that we take forward that commitment and have effective operations at Swanwick and Prestwick. That is our commitment, and I am sure that the House will, on reflection, recognise that it is the right way forward. I urge the House to reject the amendments.
      Mr. Jenkin: Now that I have seen the difficulty with which the Minister defended this proposal. I understand why the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions did not want to be here. The House is entitled to express concern at the fact that we do not have at the Dispatch Box a Minister who has ever visited the London air traffic control centre or Swanwick or met air traffic controllers. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Minister, is playing the role of paid counsel rather than that of a policy-making Minister. That is unsatisfactory.

      963
      I speak with absolute authority over Conservative transport policy. [Interruption.] That may invite a wry smile from the Minister, but there is a clear contrast between his position and mine. I am a member of the shadow Cabinet, and the Secretary of State is the only Minister in his Department who is a fully fledged Cabinet Minister. He should have been here to discuss this matter.
      I should pick up one minor point. I do not accept that the split will be unable to go ahead if the amendment is accepted. The operational split could certainly go ahead, although the split of ownership admittedly would not.
      There is no need to rehearse in detail all the arguments against the proposed botched privatisation. Although Ministers pretend that it is something other than privatisation, it compels businesses to seek strategic partnerships that might result in a conflict of interest. Having heard a debate for the past month or so on the unnecessary complexity of a previous privatisation, I find it strange that the Government should inflict on us a privatisation with a structure that is so complex. That structure leaves open the question of who is responsible, as the management have a shareholding of only 5 per cent., the strategic partner has a shareholding of 46 per cent. and the Government hold the biggest shareholding of all. When push comes to shove and there is a fundamental disagreement between the Government and the strategic partner, how will that break down? It is not obvious, as there is no clear chain of command.
      This privatisation is being delivered with assurances that cannot be kept. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) pointed out that the assurance that the Government will constantly retain 46 per cent. of the shares is not in the Bill. Clause 48 offers the possibility of a reduction in the Government's shareholding to 25 per cent. and includes a Henry VIII clause, as that 25 per cent. can be altered by a simple order laid before the House, which can now be voted through by a paper ballot in the No Lobby on a Wednesday afternoon, separately from a proper debate on the issue. The Bill puts absolute power in the hands of the Government, subject to only one tiny parliamentary check, so that they can sell 100 per pent. of the business if they wish. As a result of that Henry VIII clause, nothing in the Bill is immutable.
      There is also the question of the golden share, which is supposed to be of great comfort. When the Bill was in Committee, the Minister for Housing and Planning scoffed when I pointed out that BAA's golden share was subject to infraction proceedings. On 11 October, the European Commission issued a notice that stated:
      Commission decides to refer UK to Court concerning BAA.
      The Commission is taking a stage further infraction proceedings against the UK concerning the golden share held in BAA. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments again, but it is clear from legal advice to the Commission that is freely available to Ministers that the golden share will not stand the test of a judgment by the European Court of Justice, so that is another assurance that cannot be delivered.
      We have heard a lot about investment, but the preparation for privatisation has been heralded by a move to impose on the business an RPI minus formula that requires cuts in prospective capital investment. The NATS
      964
      management response to the economic regulation group's second consultation paper points out that the Civil Aviation Authority's proposal in that paper requires
      savings of between 16 per cent. and 29 per cent. in capital expenditure.
      The privatisation will be very strange, as it will be the first privatisation to have required cuts in capital expenditure to get going. Every other privatisation has been premised on the prospect of substantially increased capital expenditure. However, we have seen the matter in black and white, as set out by the hand of NATS management.
      Finally, there has been discussion of the continued assurances that the Government are giving about the two-centre strategy for the United Kingdom. There must be uncertainty about that, as we have heard in the background that NATS management have a vision of a four or five centre strategy for the whole of Europe. One wonders why the Prestwick investment has been constantly delayed and never put on the table. The Government will not be in a position to deliver their current assurance, even though they are saying that it is in the plans. However, once the business is in the private sector, we must ask whether they will be able to deliver their assurance, even if they continue to hold 46 per cent. of the shares.
      Ms Osborne: That is exactly why I asked the Government to amend the Bill to ensure that the new Scottish centre would go ahead, but I cannot cast any light on previous delays, which were caused by the Conservative Government calling into question the two-centre strategy and introducing a vastly expensive and unworkable private finance initiative.
      5 pm
      Mr. Jenkin: Well, at least we had a PFI. The Government scrapped the PFI and now we are on a wing and a prayer. The hon. Lady will have to believe the promise of an industry in the private sector. She must explain that to her electors.
      Safety is a constant refrain in this debate. I wish to place it on record that I have 100 per cent. faith in the safety regime of NATS and the way in which it is supervised by the Civil Aviation Authority. I do not believe that we will face the difficulties caused by the change in working practices and relationships as occurred on the railways because the safety culture in aviation is much stronger than it ever was on the railways.
      Concerns about safety bring up questions of public and staff confidence. Whatever the merits of privatisation, this privatisation is certainly the wrong scheme. I do not know whether we will include privatisation of air traffic services in our next manifesto. I say that genuinely and openly. The promotion of solutions that do not command public confidence is a serious matter, and one that should affect the Government at this stage. I give the Government an absolute assurance. Whatever our policy is for air traffic control, it will be in our manifesto. We will be explicit.
      Mr. Raynsford: It was not in 1992.
      Mr. Jenkin: Well, it was in 1997, when we planned to carry out the privatisation. To accuse us of not including in our manifesto something that we subsequently did not

      965
      do is not a strong point, if I may say so. The fact is that we included privatisation of air traffic services in our 1997 manifesto, and it is necessary to include a policy of such importance in one's manifesto.
      We may well include the trust proposal in our manifesto. It seems to be an option that will provide the disciplines of private sector management without the alarm that would be caused by creating a profit-making company.
      Mr. Raynsford rose—
      Mr. Jenkin: If the Minister wants to make fun of me for an apparent U-turn, let him go ahead, but I believe that the issues are much too serious to make fun of.
      Mr. Raynsford: I have no intention of making fun of the hon. Gentleman or of indulging in the cheap and personal jibes that he has made such a hallmark of his speeches this evening. The point that I was making was that the criticism from the Conservatives that our 1997 manifesto did not contain an explicit policy commitment in relation to NATS comes a bit rich from a party that proposed the privatisation of NATS during the 1992–97 Parliament without having made any commitment in its 1992 manifesto. What it put in its 1997 manifesto is a different matter. The electorate certainly took a pretty dim view of the Conservative party's 1997 election manifesto.
      Mr. Jenkin: That is a pretty double-edged sword. First, the Minister accuses us of not doing something that was not in our 1992 manifesto and then takes credit for the fact that we were beaten in the last general election, when privatisation was in our manifesto. Now, he proposes the privatisation of NATS when it was not in his manifesto.
      I will come now to some of the comments that have been made. Fundamentally, these amendments are about only one argument—democratic accountability. It is always an exquisite irony—one that the hon. Gentleman seems unable to stomach—when the other place delivers a rebuke to this elected House about our democratic duties. The amendments offer just such a rebuke.
      At the 1996 Labour party conference, the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, then Labour's Transport spokesman, proclaimed to ecstatic Labour cheers:
      Labour will do everything we can to block this sell-off. Our air is not for sale.
      There is not much cheering at present.
      Later that month, the right hon. Gentleman issued a press release stating that the scheme
      will undermine confidence in Air Traffic Control…Labour is determined to safeguard quality public service. We shall raise this in the Commons and make it a General Election issue.
      Why did Labour not make it a general election issue? Because Labour had a covert plan to privatise air traffic control.
      In February 1997, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), now a member of the Government, but then a shadow Transport Minister, said:
      I would like to confirm that the Labour Party are completely opposed to the privatisation of the National Air Traffic Services and under a Labour Government they will remain in the public sector.
      Nothing could have been clearer than that. There was nothing to suggest privatisation in the election manifesto.
      Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend has alluded—entirely appropriately—to the views of the
      966
      hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). Does my hon. Friend believe that the hon. Gentleman changed his mind on the subject before or after he was appointed Deputy Chief Whip?
      Mr. Jenkin: Those are murky matters; they are best left to individual hon. Gentlemen and their shaving mirrors.
      During the general election campaign, a little skirmish took place on this matter. A Labour spokesman said:
      What Andrew Smith said last October was criticism of the particular scheme offered by the government. John Prescott, Margaret Beckett and Andrew Smith have made clear that we don't rule out looking at the privatisation of air traffic control.
      Will the Minister tell me where Labour made it clear that they were looking at the privatisation of air traffic control? I suppose he—
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman invites me to respond, but seems reluctant to hear the answer.
      I have already quoted the Prime Minister's comments in our manifesto. On 4 April 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that the Government would consider a scheme for the privatisation of NATS; his remarks were reported in The Times.
      Mr. Jenkins: One quote in one newspaper hardly constitutes a mandate. What is significant is the comment made by the Prime Minister when he was fighting the previous general election as Leader of the Opposition. In typically opaque fashion, the right hon. Gentleman said:
      We would have to review this sale because we inherited it from the Conservatives.
      I do not follow the syntax of that sentence, but it confirms just how double-dealing and two-faced new Labour can be; it certainly does not constitute a mandate for the privatisation that we are considering today.
      We are now offered the choice of deferral of the proposed sale. The Conservatives set a precedent for such a deferral: the idea for the privatisation of British Telecom germinated during the 1979–83 Parliament, but the Conservative Government knew that they lacked a mandate for such a privatisation. The Minister has already quoted from a debate that took place at that time. So it was a case of "not in our manifesto, no sale."
      As Lord Brabazon of Tara pointed out in the other place, that view appears to be reflected by the Deputy Prime Minister in connection with the sale of Railtrack. Last month he told the House of Commons:
      In fact, our argument was that the then Government waited to sell British Telecom until after the election, so they could have done the same with Railtrack.—[Official Report, 24 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 151.]
      What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, and if the previous Government could have done it with Railtrack, the present Government could certainly do it with National Air Traffic Services.
      This sale is every bit as controversial as that of Railtrack—possibly more so, as the election of the present Government was preceded by such explicit denials that such a sale could possibly take place.
      This proposal should appear in a manifesto that wins the approval of electors before it goes ahead. The other place is right to make us think again about this matter,

      967
      and it has every right to do so. After all, it was the Labour leader in the other place, Baroness Jay, who said that, following the Government's reforms of the upper House, it
      will be able to speak with more authority…A decision by the House not to support a proposal from the Government will carry more weight because it will have to include supporters from a range of political and independent opinions. So the Executive will be better held to account.
      She clearly did not envisage that Ministers would stand up at the Dispatch Box in this place and continue to demand fealty from the House of Lords as though it was some kind of patsy to be put back in its box at the first opportunity.
      I wholeheartedly agree with Baroness Jay's comments, and I urge the House to reject the Government's motion.
      Dr. Strang: I, too, oppose the Government's motion.
      There are some very good practical reasons, some of which the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned, for delaying the transfer. As was pointed out, National Air Traffic Services is facing two major challenges at present. The first is to get Swanwick—the new en-route centre near Southampton—into action as soon as possible, and senior management time should be devoted to that challenge. The second is to press ahead with the new Scottish centre.
      The private finance initiative was initially proposed by the Conservatives, and for some time we continued to try to make it work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) that it would have been a mistake. It is a mistake, in air traffic control, for the whole centre, let alone the software and hardware, to be owned by one company while the controllers are employed by someone else, as would apply under PFI.
      Therefore, top management in NATS should be preoccupied with getting on with bringing Swanwick on stream and getting ahead with the new Scottish centre, and they should not be diverted, at this of all times, by this complex privatisation. It is indeed complex and, as we all know, has been described by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs as the worst of all options.
      In addition, if the measure is driven by financial considerations—as we know it is—it does not make sense to sell off Swanwick when the whole place could have been operational in about a year's time. I emphasise that I am against privatising at any time but I ask the House to consider the following. Suppose that we are in the business of maximising capital receipts to get the best deal from the privatisation for the country and the Government. After all the trauma and all the problems, and whoever is to blame, whether NATS or the private sector—I am inclined to believe that both must accept some responsibility—if the Swanwick centre is going to be operational in the next year or so, surely it is sensible to wait until then before seeking a capital receipt for it.
      On that financial issue, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning for recalling what the Government were saying on the subject just before I left the Administration in July 1998. I have no intention of breaching any of the confidential discussions that took place between Ministers before I left the Administration
      968
      and, as I have said time and again, I accept complete responsibility for any answers that I gave or anything that I said on the issue, but let me place the matter in context. My hon. Friend will recall that the announcement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his comprehensive spending review; that was the significant thing. Of course, as the then Minister of Transport, it fell to me to set out, as I did in a written answer, that the Government would consult. I emphasised—I remember the words vividly—that we were going to consult not just on the practicality, but on the principle behind the proposal.
      5.15 pm
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) took over from me as the Minister of Transport, but the post was no longer a Cabinet position. He duly published a consultation document that made it clear that the Government were examining alternatives. It was a genuine consultation and he made it clear that other options would be considered. However, the announcement was finally made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who had taken over as Minister of Transport, and, as we were rightly reminded, it was made on the last sitting day in July 1999. Governments tend to make a clutch of important announcements on the last day before the recess, but—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—I think that she had to be summoned to the House to respond to a private notice question from the Opposition.
      The history of the proposal is in the public domain, but the important point is that we all know that it has been driven by financial considerations. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning quoted what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the general election campaign. That shows that the proposal is all about finance. It is about the so-called "black hole" in the finances that the Labour Government inherited from the Conservative party's programme. It is important to understand that, for the Government, this proposal has been driven by financial considerations. There was the prospect of significant capital receipts and the Government wanted borrowing to be transferred from the public to the private sector.
      NATS is profitable, and the Government still had the option of the Post Office solution if they wanted to choose it. Many people find it hard to understand how they accepted that option for the Post Office, but not for NATS.
      We know that the proposal has been made for financial and not for safety reasons, and there is no point running away from the safety issue. To put it briefly, privatising NATS is not like privatising an airline. Make no mistake about it: the Government fully intend that the so-called private strategic partner will have complete strategic control of the service. With a privatised airline, such as British Airways, the private owners can maximise profits for their shareholders by improving the service. They can increase the frequency of the service, make it more reliable and improve comfort and in-house catering. That option does not exist for air traffic control. All that air traffic controllers do is keep planes apart and our skies safe. The only way a new private owner can obtain a

      969
      higher return on the capital deployed and make even more profit from the service for private shareholders than it is making in the public sector is to cut costs.
      That is why there is a concern that—not immediately, but in the long run—the conflict between private profit, which means driving down costs, and safety standards could put safety in jeopardy. If anyone is any doubt about that, I remind the House of what has emerged. In preparing for privatisation, the Civil Aviation Authority has proposed major cuts in NATS' prices. That information was leaked over the summer, and NATS said that that would
      impose major operational difficulties on the business. NATS is not a standard utility—safety in the ATC industry is undoubtedly of a different order of importance. One simple distinction is that manning levels are absolutely critical to ATC safety and service delivery, whereas that is not nearly so true in other utilities.
      That is what the management of NATS—probably the safest air traffic control system in the world—is saying about the threat of privatisation and the specific, complex partial privatisation scheme proposed by the Government. It will not wash to say that safety is not an issue, because it is, and that is why the scheme is opposed by airline pilots, air traffic controllers and the British people. On safety, let us not forget that, as far as the airlines are concerned, the crucial dialogue is between the airline pilot and the air traffic controller on the ground.
      As for regulations in the public sector, the standards achieved by NATS are substantially higher than those laid down by the CAA as regulator. Everyone in the industry believes that if privatisation takes place, NATS standards will initially continue to be higher than those laid down by the regulator, who will remain in the public sector, but that, over time, they will inevitably come down to the level set by the independent regulator. That regulator will be responsible not just for NATS but for private airports and other groups that are in the business of air traffic management and control, although NATS is, of course, dominant. All the onward traffic—every plane in our air space—has to go through NATS. We should not get the exaggerated idea that because private airports are able to manage their inflow of planes, that is comparable to the national job that our nationalised, and therefore publicly owned, air traffic control does for this country.
      Safety is an issue, but so is national security, and I believe that that is why no other country—certainly no major European country—has taken this approach. I have been told that the only country with a privatised air traffic control service is Fiji. The United States has not privatised its service because national security is involved. It is not just civil planes that have to be managed, but military planes—Royal Air Force planes and other military planes—that are based in this country. Our system is a model for Europe, if not the world. We manage to get RAF controllers and NATS civilian controllers to co-operate by working from the same premises. I, like most people, believe that that co-operation is best facilitated by having NATS and RAF controllers in the public sector.
      There are other national security issues. What if there is a crisis? I do not want to be overdramatic, but we have to accept that we are planning for the long term. We are not merely concerned with what is going to happen in the first two or three years of privatisation. If we had information that a plane was coming into the country that had been hijacked or was carrying—dare I say it—a bomb
      970
      or a substance that could be a threat to the civilian population, our Government, security services, police and military would have to take complete control and act as one with the air traffic control system. That is undoubtedly best facilitated by retaining NATS in the public sector.
      We cannot rule out the possibility—we dealt with this in the Standing Committee—that the privatised company will eventually come under foreign ownership. The Minister confirmed that the Bill provides for the public stake in NATS to fall to 25 per cent., which means that more than 60 per cent.—two thirds—of the service will be owned by the private sector. The foreign-owned company could be based in a country where, in the event of a crisis in the middle east, the population and the Government might support, to put it crudely, a different side to that supported by the British Government. In such a situation, there could be a conflict of interest between the directions given by the Secretary of State, who has powers in the Bill to direct the new privatised air traffic control system, and the management—the foreign ownership—of the company.
      We cannot run away from those issues. We are not legislating on a minor or inconsequential matter. We are not passing legislation that will have an effect just for the next two or three years. If the proposal goes through, the worry is that, in the long term, our people will pay a heavy price.
      Mr. Jenkin: I did not refer to the threat of hostile foreign ownership in my speech, but the right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point on national security. Does he agree that the weak golden share provisions are not sufficient to withstand that threat? We would certainly not countenance any transfer to the private sector unless the golden-share provisions could be made absolutely watertight, which means insulating them from any threat from European Community law.
      Dr. Strang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; that is an important point. The Government would argue that we could rely on the golden share.
      Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
      Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend indicates that that is not true; I withdraw my comment. I thought that there was some protection. Presumably, he is saying that there is no protection. The golden share relates to the articles of the new privatised company.
      Mr. Raynsford: I was shaking my head because I was disagreeing with the interpretation of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who implied that only the golden share provided the security. As my right hon. Friend will know, having studied the Bill carefully and been a member of the Standing Committee, specific clauses—clauses 86 and 87, I think—give the Secretary of State very clear powers to intervene in a national emergency to safeguard national interests. That is the proper safeguard.
      Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but that is a tangential point. Who is to say that there would be such intervention if the private company, which may be owned initially by some British-based company—I think

      971
      that a United States-based company is also in the frame now that the Government have got the list of potential private owners down to three—were sold to, for example, a Hong Kong-based company? Frankly, the Government of the day would not regard that as an emergency. The sale would go through and the worry would be over any subsequent national emergency.
      Mr. David Chidgey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a further, perhaps even more worrying, dimension? It is possible that part of NATS could be acquired not just by a foreign company but a company in the public ownership of a foreign country. Who is to say—I look forward to the response—that we can guarantee that another country's foreign policy will be at one with our own?
      Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He will understand if I do not go too far down that road, although he enables me to make this point: there is all this talk about privatisation helping us to facilitate European co-operation, almost implying that the new privatised air traffic control system will take over some of the European systems, but does anyone believe that the French will privatise their air traffic control system or that a private British air traffic control company will be allowed to buy the nationalised air traffic control system in France? No one believes that France is at all likely—certainly not in my life time—to privatise its air traffic control system. The danger is the reverse.
      Mr. Jenkin: The Minister's reaction to the right hon. Gentleman's comments cannot stand uncorrected. The provisions that the Minister says give the Secretary of State powers to intervene in a national emergency are not insulated from any European Community injunction either. The Government insist that the provisions are so insulated, but they will carry on losing their cases in the European Court of Justice on those matters, just as they have in the past.
      Dr. Strang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will recall some fun in Committee at the expense of his Euro-scepticism, but he is right that the golden share is threatened by the European Union. I have correspondence with the appropriate Treasury Minister confirming that. One only has to read Lord Lawson's book on the golden share of the British National Oil Corporation to understand that such provision is a very tenuous line of defence. That is what history shows—and it is even more the case for NATS privatisation given the statements that are emanating from the European Commission, which has plans for Europeanisation of air space. That strengthens the case for ensuring that the service provider is under the Government's complete control. The only way to do that is to retain it in public ownership.
      I shall conclude, because many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. Let me be up-front: I support the amendment because I believe that delay means that privatisation will disappear. I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, whose constituency includes Prestwick, that I distinguish between the Government's policy and the Labour party's manifesto for the next general election. I do not believe that the Labour party will fight the next
      972
      election campaign on a policy of privatising our air traffic control system. The amendment would prevent the Government from selling off any equity in our air traffic control system before the general election. That would have the effect of preventing a future Labour Government from selling our air traffic control.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Moore: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who has again passionately presented the important arguments against privatisation from his perspective. From Second Reading last December and throughout the Bill's passage through the Commons, Liberal Democrat Members have opposed the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. Our colleagues in another place continued that vigorous opposition. Like the right hon. Gentleman, our preferred option is the abandonment of privatisation and the creation of a trust or an independent publicly owned company. However, we acknowledge that delay is currently the only option, and we believe that a virtue can be made of that.
      We share the right hon. Gentleman's view that delay greatly enhances the chances of the whole process falling through. Regardless of that, there should be a delay not least because privatisation did not appear in the Labour party's manifesto at the last election. I did not nick the Enigma code-breaking machine, but one would need to have possessed it to interpret the Prime Minister's introduction to the manifesto as meaning that air traffic control would be privatised. Thousands of others took a similar view. To put it bluntly, we were told that our air was not for sale. More fool us for believing that.
      NOP conducted a recent poll on behalf of a leading trade union, the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists. It showed that 76 per cent. of the public remain opposed to a sale of air traffic control, and only 14 per cent. support the proposals. That says everything we need to know about wider concerns outside the Chamber.
      As we have debated the privatisation at length in the Chamber, in Committee and in another place, we have gleaned more and more details of what will happen under privatisation. Those details have come out grudgingly or through leaks, rather than through Government openness. We have mounting anxieties about the way in which NATS will be regulated after privatisation. There are serious questions about the suitability of some of the strategic partners who have come forward for consideration.
      At the outset, the Minister raised an issue that was a feature of broadcasts outside the House earlier today. He made it almost a point of principle that sending back the Bill would be an insult to another place. He said that the popular will should prevail. The popular will, as reflected in opinion polls, does not support the measure. Their Lordships rightly pointed out that there was no manifesto commitment to privatisation. However, the most important point is that this Government have done more than any other in the past 50 years to reshape the other place in a manner that suits their purposes. There is, therefore, a sweet irony in the fact that the other place is kicking stuff back for us to reconsider.
      At the heart of this debate is the investment requirement of NATS, which must be satisfied if the paramount objective of ensuring safety in our skies is to be

      973
      maintained. Liberal Democrats have consistently accepted that investment is required, but we continue to deny that privatisation is the only way to achieve that. Our central concern, and that of many people throughout the country, is that privatisation could have a dangerous impact on safety.
      Mr. Dalyell: My life, the hon. Gentleman's, and those of many of our constituents are constantly in the hands of the captains of British Midland and British Airways who fly us between Edinburgh and London. What is his view of their reaction?
      Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman refers to the trips that he and I frequently make between Scotland and the House. I have sat beside him on many occasions, and he has carried out an informal poll of the pilots of British Midland and British Airways, which he kindly shared with the rest of the cabin. I agree with him in this instance—I have done so on many occasions previously—that there is strong opposition among pilots to the proposals. The Government should listen carefully to that message. I support the hon. Gentleman's comments.
      I was drawing attention to the fact that financial considerations are at the heart of this debate. The most recent accounts for NATS show that the service increased turnover to £566 million in the past year and produced an operating profit of £63 million and a net cash inflow to the business of some £9 million. The point is that NATS has consistently paid for itself.
      We believe that the investment requirements could also be paid for—a case could be made directly to the Treasury about the need simply to provide such investment. However, we do not believe that that is the only route. One could, through a trust or an independent publicly owned company, secure the financial regime that would allow the organisation to borrow against the strength of future cashflows. The Deputy Prime Minister and others have argued for months that they have advanced the only option, but it is increasingly clear that that is not the case. The Government's option does not bear much analysis.
      Air traffic control after privatisation will remain heavily regulated. To all intents and purposes, it is a monopoly, and rightly so. As the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh said, demand and growth in that sector are severely constrained and outwith the control of NATS. The commercial concern that takes over the organisation must find its return and improve profits by focusing on costs. The public throughout the country are concerned about the matter to the extent that cost cutting will focus on areas that are essential to safety—as yet, they remain to be convinced.
      Politicians on both sides of the House and elsewhere have argued about that matter for months, but we do not need to worry about who is right or wrong because we can turn to NATS itself, as hon. Members who spoke earlier have already done. Earlier this year, the economic regulatory group at the Civil Aviation Authority sent out a second consultation paper on setting en-route services charges in United Kingdom airspace for the first five years after privatisation. As has already been said, it contained significant average price reductions and real cost-per-flight reductions in the charges that would be allowed. It also opposed making massive capital expenditure reductions to obtain efficiency gains.
      974
      The response of NATS to that paper was, to say the least, rather blunt. Its response document in May contains a paragraph that gets to the point. It states:
      The cuts in cost and investment currently being proposed by ERG have little foundation in the reality of NATS' business and licence obligations, and so pose very serious risks to the delivery of services to NATS' customers. NATS could neither accept nor implement these proposals.
      As recently as 16 October, in a presentation to the air traffic control work force, NATS management repeated those criticisms. They said that ERG was proposing a tougher average annual real price reduction
      than was set for any other utility at privatisation—this is especially inappropriate for a safety activity where service depends on adequate investment.
      Cost efficiency—ERG places too much emphasis on cost reduction and neglects the risks to service delivery.
      Incentives to invest: ERG's proposals send confusing signals to investors and do not provide the necessary incentives for capital investment.
      NATS could not have been any clearer about its position. It concluded that the severe cuts in operating costs and investment were inconsistent with the proper carrying out of NATS functions.
      Apart from the concern of NATS about how it will be regulated after privatisation, there is our serious concern about the nature of the strategic partners who want to be part of the privatisation process. One of the key players in the Novares consortium is Lockheed Martin, a huge American multinational. It is the prime supplier at Swanwick, it has the contract for the new Scottish centre, and it is greatly involved in telecommunications and other systems. It is not in the habit of running air traffic control services. Its only motivation in this instance can be to ensure that it controls the paymaster of a service which, through overruns and delays, has already cost it some £150 million at Swanwick. That surely represents a major conflict of interest—a fact which the Government have yet to see fit to countenance.
      The Airline Group—one of the other significant players—has been set up as a not for profit consortium. Most of the important United Kingdom airlines, including British Airways and British Midland, are part of that consortium. They do not themselves believe that the profit motive is appropriate in the case of this privatisation. The other side of the coin, is the fact that there is naturally a conflict of interest, because they are far the most significant customers and it would be handy for them to control the whole operation to the potential disadvantage of competitors.
      How can such conflicts of interest be overcome? A document sent out by the Government inviting tenders stated clearly that those with a real or perceived conflict of interest would be eliminated from the process, but the Minister and his colleagues have yet to explain how the Government have dealt with concerns about very real public sector conflicts of interest.
      There has been silence in response to criticisms, even those from NATS. Just as worrying, however, is the silence from the other part of the CAA with a direct interest in the process—the safety regulation group. I can trace no public statement of the group's observations about the proposed structure, or about the serious points made by NATS and others. Does the group agree with the current approach, or does it disagree? We do not know. Checking the Department of the Environment, Transport

      975
      and the Regions website earlier today, I did not find even the NATS response to the economic regulatory group. I certainly did not find anything from the safety regulation group. The information concerned, however, goes to the heart of the debate, and until it is in the public domain the public are right to be suspicious.
      When the Minister kindly gave way to me earlier, I had an exchange with him about the number of safety inspectors who will be employed after privatisation. He defended himself by saying that the Government would devote more resources to safety if more were asked for. That is a hugely complacent attitude. If the Government really believe in the safety case, which they have put passionately on many occasions, they should ensure that they—or at least the CAA—take steps to increase resources and, in particular, increase the number of inspectors who will be required to check what is going on after privatisation.
      Ms Osborne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he agree that the number of safety inspectors should be increased whatever structure is adopted for NATS?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Moore: I welcome the hon. Lady's intervention, especially as it gives me the opportunity to remind the House that we support another provision that will ensure the separation as between the CAA and NATS of the overriding responsibility for safety. That is welcome, regardless of whether or not NATS is in the public sector. Whatever the structure—whether it is that proposed by the Liberal Democrats or by other Members—additional inspectors are clearly needed, even if only to give the public the confidence that such matters are being treated seriously. Frankly, the Government's complacency undermines whatever fine words they may occasionally use to show that they believe in safety.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is there not a related problem in that most NATS standards are above the minimum standards maintained by the safety regulatory group? Therefore, the SRG will have to extend its monitoring role to a huge range of activity that it does not have to inspect at present. Where will the resources come from?
      Mr. Moore: It beggars belief that the Government have not asked those questions. The process is summed up by the suggestion that the Government are waiting for the CAA to ask them for more resources, rather than proactively investigating whether more resources should be provided or whether more inspectors should be recruited. More details are emerging about how the privatisation will take place and how the regime will operate afterwards, but the Government are failing not only to provide good answers but to provide any answers at all.
      The public are greatly concerned about transport safety generally. The public, the pilots, the air traffic controllers and many Labour Members, as well as Opposition Members, do not support the measure. There are growing concerns about the ability of NATS to cope with the regulatory regime after privatisation and serious problems
      976
      about the suitability of possible strategic partners. Privatisation raises more questions, not less. We want the process to be stopped, and we shall at least support its delay.
      Mr. Mark Todd: I have listened carefully to the contributions so far, and some valuable points have been made about the relationship between the CAA and any contractor that provides air traffic control services in this country. However, I want to turn first to the principle involved and then—to the misfortune of those hon. Members who heard my previous speech—return to how we should define the relationship with the private sector in delivering out safety services.
      Air safety involves a complex web, comprising the design, manufacture and maintenance of aircraft, flight crew competence, and the operation of airlines and airports, as well as the management of traffic in the air. We allow aircraft to be designed, built, flown and maintained by private businesses. We allow them to be flown on behalf of private operators. We allow them to fly into privately run airports. I do not understand the qualitative argument of those who want to disbar the private sector from any role in the ownership or management of air traffic control. Of course, we do not even make that judgment consistently now—we allow private contractors to develop key systems for NATS.
      It could be argued that NATS has not performed the task of managing those projects particularly well. We allow NATS to win contracts competitively, in a private sector environment, for a large proportion of its work. We also allow other contractors to operate air traffic control services in other parts of the United Kingdom, including at East Midlands airport. Although that airport is just outside my constituency, the aircraft fly over my home and many air personnel of various kinds live in my constituency.
      In the previous debate in the House, it was suggested that a private sector owner—we must bear it in mind that only 46 per cent. of NATS would be sold in trade terms, the other 5 per cent. being sold to employees of the company—would seek to press operating savings on the service, impacting on safety, and that that would have an inevitable consequence for the safety record of the service. I worked in the private sector for 20 years before coming here. I recall an intervention that I took in the previous debate, implying that the private sector simply drove down costs and maximised shareholder value, and that that was the only interest it had in any business that it ran. No sound private sector business deliberately jeopardises its core activity through cost-cutting.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: I wonder what my hon. Friend would make of the statement by Gerald Corbett from Railtrack:
      We cannot actually keep our shareholders happy at the same time as fulfilling our public service obligations, and that tension is just massive.
      He also said—I invite my hon. Friend to comment on it:
      In the early days after privatisation I think we probably did concentrate too much on shareholders and the profit agenda.
      Mr. Todd: That is a fair point, which I anticipated might be raised. There is clearly a tension. We would be unrealistic if we did not recognise that, but that is why

      977
      we have a regulatory framework. One of the points that we must recognise about Railtrack—I think that there is reasonable consensus on it in the House—is that the regulatory framework for safety in the rail sector was poorly designed. Anyway, it was built for an industry where the safety impetus was of a lower strength than it is in the air sector. Therefore, the comparison, although well made—I take my hon. Friend's point—does not directly apply in this instance.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am listening to my hon. Friend's thoughtful speech, as I listened to his speech last time, but what bothers some of us is the ability of the private owner that he talks about to finance investment that may be uneconomic but very important for safety reasons.
      Mr. Todd: If that company's core business is the provision of safe services, it will have to factor into the basis on which it funds the company the acquisition of such systems—but let me counter the argument by an alternative line. The public sector is not immune from the discipline of cost-cutting. The equation that appears to be made sometimes is that the private sector is driven by the desire to drive down costs and the public sector has money spilling over to carry out new service development and uneconomic investments.
      Those of us who have represented people—I have in the House and did so as a councillor before that; I have done it throughout my adult life, pretty much—are well aware that the public sector has the same, if not more, disciplines and has to find savings, often at the jeopardy of convenience, and, sometimes—dare one say it—at the jeopardy of the safety of the citizen. There is the issue of how the national health service is funded and the difficult choices—I buy into that—that must be made in a public sector organisation about who to help and who to save. We must face that sort of equation within the public sector, too. Drawing that line between the public and private sectors, saying, "Good on one side, bad on the other; it is cost-cutting on one side and affluence on the other" is simplistic. We need to set it aside.
      Mr. Moore: May I return to the extract that I referred to from NATS submission to the CAA, based on the regulatory regime that is supposed to apply after privatisation? In that document, it says:
      NATS' prime duty is the safe provision of air traffic control.
      Severe cuts in operating costs and investment are inconsistent with the proper carrying-out of NATS' functions. Surely, in those circumstances, it is not a question of public or private. The public sector is criticising its own Government's regime.
      Mr. Todd: I think I am right in saying that that dictum has been set out regardless of the ownership framework of NATS. I stand to be corrected. I will willingly give way if the hon. Gentleman says that it is specifically premised on the basis that the ownership will change, but, as I understand it, that is a dictum regardless of the passage of the Bill. I may be wrong. I see some Ministers nodding, so I am probably correct. I have not heard anyone dissent.
      I shall spell out the issue a little further. Direct public sector ownership does not equate to maximum safety provision. Nor, sadly—again, we must recognise it
      978
      as public representatives—does it always equate to maximum accountability. There was a time—I have been in my party for a long time—when we probably had simpler views on the strengths of the public sector and the weaknesses of the private sector. Over years of exposure, I have found it to be more complex than that.
      Mr. Martin Salter: Patronising.
      Mr. Todd: I will give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes to intervene. I think he wishes to speak later.
      Mr. Salter: My hon. Friend will get to hear it all soon enough.
      Mr. Todd: I am sure I will.
      I return to the core point because I do not want to detain the House for long; many Members wish to speak. The case that I touch on in a little more detail is East Midlands airport. As I have said, it is owned by the private sector. The air traffic control system there is operated by the private sector. It is the largest freight airport in the United Kingdom. It was said in the previous debate that it was a small operation, but those who live near it would deny that.
      The fact is that that airport has, out of its own funds, recently invested in a completely new control tower and systems which are the envy of most airports in this country. That was done by private finance. It was not forced on to the airport by a public sector body, nor was it carried out by a public sector contractor.
      I see no logical basis for excluding the private sector from NATS ownership. We take no such stance in any other part of the air safety network. We do not even take a consistent position on that within the air traffic control system itself, as I have said.
      I recognise the strength of some of the arguments that my colleagues have made; I heard the word, "Patronising". I am not wedded to the view that the proposal is the only possible solution to our air traffic control needs. There is consensus that massive new investment is required in the service and that there is a range of possible solutions, but I have sought to point out that the somewhat dogmatic position that has been adopted—that private sector means dangerous, unaccountable or higher-risk—is simplistic. Therefore, on balance, on the basis of the intellectual argument that I have heard, I will continue to support the Government—but I say "on balance". I understand the points that have been made by my colleagues.
      Mr. Chidgey: I oppose the Government motion, but, before I make my contribution, may I refer to the speech by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who spoke with great clarity? I recall earlier in the Parliament when he and I spoke on transport matters from opposite Benches. Listening to his speech, we got an insight into what the real policy was behind the proposal.
      6 pm
      I have a constituency concern in the issue. As some hon. Members may realise, my Eastleigh constituency borders the new Swanwick centre. Many of my

      979
      constituents work at the Swanwick centre and, on various occasions in past months and years, have contacted me to express their concerns about the plan for NATS. Not the least of their concerns is that they will not be able to do their jobs as well as they do now. They have genuine concerns about the safety of the general travelling public, whom they feel it is their fundamental task to protect.
      The Minister knows what has happened at Swanwick. Although those facts are pretty much public knowledge, it is worth reminding ourselves of them. The new centre is forecast to be six years late, and it has already cost hundreds of millions of pounds more than it should. As we know, Lockheed Martin, which is a multinational concern, is both the prime supplier at Swanwick and a leading bidder in the Government's part-privatisation proposals for NATS. Those facts should suggest to the House and, I hope, to the Government that there is some variability of competence in the private sector.
      As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said, there is more than one solution. The hon. Gentleman very eloquently and rightly pointed out that no particular part of our economy is perfect. However, neither the public sector nor the private sector is perfect. I say that with more than a quarter of a century's experience of working in the private sector on projects rather similar to Swanwick, although they may not have had the same outcome.
      Ministers seem to have an almost childlike faith in the ability of profit-motivated private companies to cure the ills that we see in NATS. They seem to be claiming that only a public-private partnership can meet the necessary investment targets and deliver the modernisation programme that is necessary to cope with the growth in air travel.
      Today, I was a little alarmed to hear the Minister say that the controversy in the debate—in which the House is rightly engaged—on when and how the proposals should be implemented are in themselves causing a decline in recruitment of trainee air traffic controllers. Although it may not have occurred to the Minister, perhaps the prime reason for declining recruitment is that potential recruits do not want to join an organisation that is no longer in the public sector or known to have as its fundamental aim the safety of the public whom it serves. Potential recruits may be concerned that a profit-driven company would not maintain the standards that they would wish to achieve. Either of those may be a key factor in people's decision whether to join NATS. Recruits who believe that the safety of the airways and of millions of passengers is paramount are perhaps particularly turned off by those considerations.
      We should deal with NATS' response to the economic regulatory group's consultation. Does the Minister know of any organisation that has been able to achieve the type of targets set by ERG in its consultation paper? ERG proposes that there should be significant initial and subsequent price cuts leading to reductions of between 21 and 35 per cent. by year 5; assumed operating cost efficiency of the same order; and assumed savings of between 16 and 29 per cent. in capital expenditure. ERG is proposing that, in an organisation that is crying out for capital expenditure, there should be a saving of between 16 and 29 per cent.
      980
      ERG is also proposing not only that a 7.5 per cent. efficiency gain should be assumed in NATS' plan, but that NATS should make a profit. Where does safety come in in such a regime? I do not know of any organisation that has been able to achieve such targets and make a profit, let alone maintain safety levels. Let us face it—air travel is pretty risky. Aircraft do not stay up on their own. They are not like a No. 9 bus when its engine fails on the Clapham road and it just stops. Aircraft have a nasty habit of falling out of the sky, particularly if they are too close together and hit each other.
      Ministers say that they have constructed a Bill that they believe makes safety the paramount issue in NATS' future, and I do not doubt their sincerity at all. I am quite sure that the Minister is absolutely convinced that he has done everything he can to ensure that safety is paramount. However, experience tells us that saying something does not make it happen.
      I am sure that, when the railways were privatised, Ministers in the previous Government and Railtrack were equally sincere in their belief that they had created a structure that maintains as a paramount feature the safety of the travelling public. However, we do not have to be reminded of what happened at Paddington and at Hatfield to realise that one can get it wrong, and that saying it does not make it happen.
      The official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—who has left the Chamber—said that the railways have a different safety culture, but I have to correct him. Anyone who has been involved in the engineering side of the railways will know that, whatever faults British Rail had, it was determined to run a railway. In BR's culture, although passengers may have been a bit of a nuisance and had to be put up with, safety was absolutely paramount. Any BR regional engineer who allowed his section of track—his permanent way—to get into the state that caused the Hatfield accident would have been sacked on the spot. Safety is built into public transport systems.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have complete trust in the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to enhance maritime, rail, road and air safety. However, many of my constituents have a deep distrust of privatisation, private finance initiatives and other public-private partnerships. I fear that the Government have failed to win over constituents who have that distrust, which I share.
      Mr. Chidgey: Such public perceptions should greatly concern us. Members of Parliament are, after all, the guardians of the public good and the public need. Clearly, the Government have failed to win that argument on the public's safety concerns.
      The question is not whether privatisation is the solution, but whether we need a solution. The issue is not to decide whether public ownership is the only way forward, but to determine what is wrong with the current system and how to improve it without a wholesale sell-off. As the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh said, the issue is being driven by financial considerations, not by considerations of how best to develop and improve our National Air Traffic Service. That is the key issue.
      The PPP has been debated at great length and with great clarity in the other place. Although I shall not rehearse those arguments, the point that has come through in

      981
      parliamentary debates on the issue is that we do not have to sell off a substantial chunk of NATS to get the things that Ministers rightly say are needed—such as project management skills and an investment stream, which are what the Minister said he is most concerned about.
      Anyone who has been involved in the type of projects undertaken by NATS knows that it is possible to procure high-quality management teams who have experience not only in the United Kingdom but around the world. One can buy in those services. One can even buy in greater expertise than that which would be available to the particular bidder who won the contract to run NATS. One can also find the income stream necessary to finance improvements to NATS.
      There is absolutely no reason why NATS—it is a rock-solid organisation with a substantial guaranteed income stream; last year, its profits were almost 15 per cent., which is not bad in most organisations—could not raise the money that it needs to reinvest and to develop. However, it needs the Treasury's permission to do that. That is the nub of the issue. If NATS could raise money in its own right, there would not be a problem. NATS could develop equally well as a not for profit organisation.
      We do not have to sell off half of NATS to raise the necessary money. We can ensure that it remains in public ownership, which is what the public clearly want. Most important, we can ensure that NATS remains publicly accountable.
      Given that in the House and across the country there is great controversy and concern about the Government's plans, and given the horrific example of rail privatisation and what happened when safety was disregarded because of the pursuit of other interests, including profit, surely the Government should take a step back. They should invite the National Audit Office to review the PPP plans. We in the House do not have an answer to every problem; we would be incredibly stupid and arrogant if we assumed that, just because we have the power to make decisions, our decisions are necessarily right. This is the time to step back and allow people with no vested interest to look deeply into what the Government are trying to achieve, no doubt with the best interests of the public at heart.
      Unless the Government can make sure that their plans provide for the public a solution that is sound, safe and robust, and unless they can show that their proposals are in the interests of the taxpayer and, most important, those of the travelling public, I fear that they are going down a slippery slope. They should let the NAO look at the proposal carefully and come back with an answer in which the House can have confidence. Otherwise, I fear that in a year or so the Minister could well be back at the Dispatch Box, just as the Deputy Prime Minister was recently, having to apologise to the House and the public for a failed privatisation that compromised public safety, with all that that entails.
      Mr. Salter: I have now spent the best part of two years examining the future of our country's highly acclaimed and widely admired air traffic control service. In that time, I have visited the biggest control centre in the world at Heathrow airport, only a few miles from where I was born and where I once worked. I have spoken to pilots, controllers, managers, union representatives, air safety experts, Government Ministers and airline executives—
      982
      in fact, I have spoken to almost anyone and everyone connected with the industry. Above all, I have spoken to my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members who live directly under a flight path. Our skies are already overcrowded and the lives of those people may depend on the decisions that we take tonight. I have also spoken with my hon. Friends, to whom, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this short contribution is primarily addressed.
      Let us look back to just over a year ago. I was in the middle of organising groups of Labour Members who were desperately unhappy with what the Government were and still are proposing to do to air traffic control. The Paddington rail disaster had occurred. The wreckage was still being cleared from the tracks, and my constituents who survived that awful crash were trying to come to terms with the wreckage of their lives. I have lost count of the number of my hon. Friends who spoke to me at the time; the conversations were always the same. They said, "Surely the Government won't go ahead with the privatisation of air traffic control now. Surely they are bound to drop it. There must be a better way." As we all know, they will, they are not and there is, so long as Labour Members who remain unconvinced do something about it and vote with our consciences and not, as we usually do, with our Whips.
      I can well understand the argument that is being put about by the Government's business managers that Labour Members should think carefully about supporting amendments proposed by the Conservatives in another place. It has a certain resonance; it appeals to the tribal core. But I would suggest that there is a more powerful argument that my hon. Friends should weigh in the balance: what on earth is any Labour Member doing supporting a Tory proposal that we vehemently opposed at the last election?
      While the House of Lords, for as long as it remains unelected, has no political mandate, nor do this Government have a mandate to push through a privatisation that we opposed so publicly and that was the subject of that famous speech at the last Labour party conference before May 1997. Let us remember how we all applauded the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), and those carefully crafted arguments about commercial pressures compromising safety. We still hear those arguments from Government Ministers, but not today.
      6.15 pm
      Let me take a moment to praise not only the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, but the highly efficient operation that has been mounted by the Government Whips Office. I have absolutely no doubt that the Government will win the vote tonight, but, as we all know, winning the vote and winning the argument are not necessarily the same thing.
      The case has not been made for this partprivatisation—not remotely. The Government have three clear objectives: first, to deliver an investment stream that is essential for the modernisation of the operation; secondly, to take National Air Traffic Services out of the public sector borrowing requirement; and thirdly, to invigorate the project management by bringing in private sector expertise so that the service would be in a position to

      983
      compete for a possible single European sky. All those objectives are entirely laudable and supportable, and entirely achievable without resorting to privatisation. That is the tragedy of the situation—we do not have to be here.
      A solution is at hand. It is tried and tested and it is the preferred option of the Select Committee. It has the support of everyone in the industry. It is, of course, a not for profit trust based on the Canadian model. Established in 1995, NAV Canada delivers the Government's objectives in spades.
      Financially, under current arrangements there is a 7 to 8 per cent. growth rate in air traffic. It is a highly profitable industry. Those running air traffic control in this or any western European country would have to try extremely hard not to make a profit or a surplus. In fact, NATS currently returns to the Treasury a surplus of between £30 million and £40 million annually. In 1998–99—these are the most recent figures I have available—NATS returned a pre-tax profit of £64 million. We need to modernise and we need private sector involvement, but let us not forget that the private sector involvement in Swanwick, which led to the delays and the fiasco, was carried out by none other than the US defence corporation Lockheed Martin, which is on the Government shortlist as a preferred strategic partner.
      Let me tell hon. Members that when Lockheed Martin was in the frame for the running of AWE Aldermaston, which is just upwind and upstream from my constituency, I received an e-mail from someone in the United States with the simple words, "God help you." Lockheed Martin was the corporation responsible for Three Mile Island, a famous nuclear disaster. Its defence establishments have been suspended and are under investigation by the federal Government in the United States for breaches of safety procedures. I would suggest that it is not so much a case of biting the hand that feeds you, as of feeding the hand that bites you.
      Of course we want air traffic control to be taken out of the public sector borrowing requirement. That is an entirely laudable objective, and, as I have said before, entirely achievable. Why should air traffic control compete for hard-earned public cash with police officers, firefighters, the national health service and schools? No one wants that and there is no need for it. The Post Office investment plans are already outwith the Treasury rule. The borrowing requirements for some of our regional airports have already been exempted from the PSBR. The trust model delivers freedom from the Treasury's financial straitjacket. That point is not in dispute. In fact, NAV Canada was so successful that in its first year it raised from the market in the private sector $3 billion, twice the amount needed, according to Government calculations, to fund the UK's investment requirements for the next 10 years.
      NAV Canada has a board of directors who concentrate exclusively on the safety regime of national air traffic control. People with private sector expertise are involved, but they are balanced by representatives from the Government, the airlines and the unions, and some members of the board are independent. NAV Canada delivers gain without pain. Its structure works. I must therefore ask, as the Transport Sub-Committee has asked, why the Government are so against adopting it.
      984
      I am aware that other hon. Members want to participate in the debate, but I want to commend to the House the report from my colleague Lord Brett. He took the time and trouble to examine the Government's very derisory response to the trust option proposed by the Transport Sub-Committee. The report comprehensively demolishes the objections to the trust model. I hope that Ministers will return to it.
      As I said earlier, winning the vote does not necessarily mean winning the argument. Good politics is about taking people with us, but there is massive opposition in the Labour party to the proposals. The NATS PPP is not something that will appear on a pledge card, and no one who supports the Government in the Lobby tonight will be proud of proposals that no one will mention in an election manifesto or personal address. A vote will be taken, and many people will want to forget that they ever participated in it.
      The opposition in the Labour party is replicated out in the country. The latest poll shows that 76 per cent. of the population is against the proposals—hardly surprising after what happened at Paddington and Hatfield. Only 14 per cent. of people are in favour of the proposals to privatise air traffic control, which makes them more unpopular than fox hunting. We know what passion that issue arouses among Labour Members and out in the country.
      There is deep hostility to the proposals among pilots, who do not belong to a Marxist trade union and who are not a group of workers renowned for their militancy. There is implacable opposition from air traffic controllers—the men and women who have given us the safest, most efficient and best service in the world.
      We in this House make bad laws and bad decisions when we do not listen. We must remember the 75p pension rise and the poll tax. It is not too late, but the consequences of not listening when it comes to the future of air safety in this country are extremely serious.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Salter: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not; I have sought no interventions and have taken none. However, my hon. Friend is allowed one heckle, if he so desires.
      I make no apologies for drawing parallels with the reduction in safety standards directly caused by the privatisation of the railways. I am genuinely worried that history is about to repeat itself. It is still not too late, and there is still time for the Government to listen.
      Ms Osborne: As the House will be aware, I am deeply worried about the future of the new Scottish air traffic control centre, and I want to concentrate mainly on issues related to that. However, I want to repeat concerns raised by several hon. Members earlier, most notably by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), about the cuts in capital proposed by the economic regulatory group. Those proposals are very worrying, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to them.
      I cannot agree with the comments made by hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who talked about a dogmatic response among those—myself included—who have set out other alternatives. Perhaps I

      985
      could buy his argument if people were suggesting that the status quo was the only option, but several alternatives have been laid out. Most notable among them are those set out by Lord Brett, whom I congratulate on his work. As far as I know, therefore, it is not true that any Labour Member is guilty of responding dogmatically.
      The Tory proposal on deferral would delay the sale and the PPP for NATS until after the general election, and would have implications for the new Scottish centre. The Tories say that they made their proposal because the PPP was not part of the Labour manifesto at the last election. Like my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, I find that a bit rich.
      The Tory proposal also shows the Opposition's contempt for the future well-being and security of air traffic control, for the urgency with which investment is needed, and for the 700 jobs in my constituency that would be jeopardised if the amendments were accepted. Previous Tory Governments can take the credit for getting NATS into the position it is in today. There has been a chronic lack of investment, and constant delays have cost an astronomical amount of money and caused ever-mounting pressure on the system.
      The Tories now want to delay the PPP even longer, although they claim to have no safety concerns arising from privatisation per se. Their only possible motivation, therefore, is to make a pathetic attempt to reap political capital, whatever the cost to jobs and investment.
      The Tory party's obvious aim is to delay the PPP, and it would bring in full-scale privatisation if it had half a chance. I note that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said earlier that the Tories would now consider adopting a trust framework for NATS. At this late stage, such a change of face is astonishing. They have always opposed and voted against that option in the past, but now they bring in the possibility purely for bandwagon reasons.
      Mr. Jenkin: In fact, we supported a proposal for a trust tabled by a Labour Member on Report.
      Ms Osborne: I accept that, but Conservative Members did not support the amendment relating to the trust option that was tabled in the Lords and which could have been considered in this House this evening. Tory Members have a strong record of supporting full-scale privatisation, not trusts.
      I do not believe that the amendments would allow an alternative solution such as trust. In that, I differ from some of my hon. Friends. We have argued for three and a half years about the various options. I have played my part in those discussions, but it is clear this evening that the PPP is the only show in town. I fail to see what can be achieved by further delay. Accepting the amendment would only cause further delay, and it would play into the hands of the Tory party.
      Mr. Don Foster: I understand that the hon. Lady, inevitably, has to be worried about the impact of the proposals on her constituents, but will she reflect on what has been said about safety by many hon. Members of all parties? Does she truly believe that the PPP will provide a safe way forward for air traffic services?
      Ms Osborne: There has been much discussion about safety and about proposals alternative to the PPP, and I
      986
      have taken part in that discussion. The amendment does not deal with those issues, but proposes delay. I do not see how delaying the matter further will aid safety.
      My greatest fear is that further delay will jeopardise the new Scottish centre and 700 jobs in my constituency. I cannot stand back and watch that happen. The new Scottish centre has been subjected to years of procrastination, delay and speculation already. It was for that reason that I campaigned for the Government to accept an amendment ensuring that current investment plans would be honoured.
      In the past week, the competition to design the new Scottish centre building was won by Gibb Developments. The winning design was the work of Ron Moncrieff, who hails from Prestwick and whose first job was at Atlantic house there. My local newspaper, the Ayr Advertiser, carried a picture of the winning design, but people in my constituency have seen many pictures before. I want work to begin on the ground now, and I challenge any hon. Member to guarantee that the new Scottish centre will go ahead if the PPP is delayed any longer.
      Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend will recall, from times when she has raised this matter before, that my hon. Friend the Minister responded by saying that funding for the Scottish centre would come by the traditional route. Does she not agree that it cannot therefore be dependent on a PPP?
      Ms Osborne: That is not entirely true: £60 million of public money has been put forward, but that amount is predicated on the fact that the PPP will fund the remainder of what is needed.
      Last week, I asked the trade unions in my constituency what guarantees there were that the new Scottish centre would go ahead if the PPP were delayed any longer. Dave Carty, vice chairman of the local branch of the trade union to which NATS employees belong, told the Ayr Advertiser last week:
      If it gets underway, great. We have heard so many promises up until now. Seeing is believing. It will another five years with the present conditions. There is quite a lot of work going on. Our traffic has increased by eight per cent. every year. That's with no extra staff. The waiting is constant.
      Yes, the waiting is constant, and Tory party policy in this House and in Scotland is for further delay and full-scale privatisation. For the sake of jumping on yet another political bandwagon, 700 jobs in my constituency would be lost for good. The Tories are joined by the Scottish National party, which also supports delay, no matter what the cost. Do not play politics with 700 Scottish jobs. They should keep their hands off those jobs or they will never be forgiven by the Scottish people.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) spoke earlier, and while I respect his every contribution—they are very considered—I have to say that there are others of us who also come from private and public sector backgrounds. Even when I was a chief executive in local government, I managed a commercial operation within the private sector. I bring to this debate that experience, as does my hon. Friend.
      The issue for us is not about the dogmatic approach of "public good, private bad" but about the decision-making process of this dangerous policy. In the passage from

      987
      policy to legislation, I believe that politics, policy making, Government and Parliament have been shown at their worst. The development of the initial political commitment was based on a deceit. This is not just about the statement at the Labour party conference about the air not being for sale. Air traffic controllers in my constituency received letters from Labour party spokespeople saying that there will be no sell-off.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) did not divulge what went on when he was on the Front Bench, and I honour him for that. However, we all know what happened. During the election campaign, the Tories found a black hole in our Budget proposals, and every Labour Front-Bench spokesperson was supposed to come up with a proposal to fill that black hole. The air traffic control sell-off was brought back on to the agenda to plug the gap. It was panic selling as a knee-jerk reaction to an issue in the election campaign.
      If this does not show policy making or politics being degraded, it is government by fix. We know that the Government have the resources to avoid making this sale but the Treasury is demanding that the Deputy Prime Minister go ahead with the policy. It is allowing him to swing in the wind. This is about high politics in Cabinet—it has nothing to do with the policy itself. The tragedy is that the determination and commitment for which we all admire the Deputy Prime Minister—his ability to see things through to the end, as he has done on so many occasions—has become a terrible weakness and liability. It has become a determination not even to countenance the possibility of being wrong.
      This issue has shown Parliament at its worst as well, although some good speeches have been made. We used to say that ambassadors were honest men sent abroad to lie. Junior Ministers have come to the House and, although I do not want to be rude, it is a case of the production of bovine faeces. The statements that have been made time and again in a serious debate are unbelievable. They have not addressed the issues and concerns that have been raised.
      I say to my fellow Back Benchers that there are issues of principle here. Tonight we cannot allow principles to be put up for sale as well as air traffic control: this is too important. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said that we should have learned our lesson after what happened in the summer and the ensuing claims about arrogance. We are still affected by the 75p pension increase. I think that in some constituencies we are also still affected by the mayoral election stitch-up. We are still affected by asylum vouchers and lone parent benefit cuts. We must learn our lesson.
      The Government have put forward three arguments. They are selling off NATS to introduce new management. They are selling it off because they need the capital. As for our counter-argument, they say that the sale will not affect safety. The last refuge of a defeated intellectual argument is that this is suddenly a constitutional issue.
      As for the management argument, we know that NATS is an operational success story. Its annual report for 2000 shows a record number of flights being handled, with a record low number of risk-bearing airprox incidents. In other words, NATS has achieved the highest safety level
      988
      in our history and across the world. Passenger delays have fallen over the past five years. NATS has also achieved the best level of customer satisfaction in our history.
      Mr. Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend talks about the safety record of NATS, which is to be welcomed and praised. I ask, in all innocence, whether there is a difference in the safety record of airports that use NATS as a public service, those which use it as a contract service and those which use private providers instead. If so, would he advise us to avoid certain airports?
      Mr. McDonnell: That point has been made time and again. It relates to experiences in the mining industry. I was a full-time officer for the National Union of Mineworkers at one period in my career. We had private mines then, but they were relatively small and insignificant. We set the safety standards in them by ensuring that the major mines stayed in public ownership. Safety standards were dependent upon the scale of public ownership and regulation that set the standards for others in the nationalised industry.
      We are talking about 2,000 air traffic controllers, of whom fewer than 200 work in the private sector. Safety standards are set by the 2,000—they are set to standards operating across the country. The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) described Luton as a safe airport. Luton has just come back under NATS control. NATS is winning contract after contract based upon reliability and guaranteed safety.
      The issue here is the failure of project management—we understand that. That is why we want to look for solutions for project management rather than simply selling off NATS. The argument is that project management in the public sector is particularly weak. Yet the channel tunnel was hardly a wonderful example of project management in the private sector. Lord Macdonald argues that there needs to be a shareholder. It did not work with the channel tunnel. There was a single shareholder in the dome, and it did not work there. The argument does not hold water.
      We have looked at other forms of contractual arrangements in the public sector to undertake proper project management. They have not even been explored in this debate. If shareholders are required for project management, why is that logic not extended across the health service, the police service and the fire service? Are we really into the full-scale privatisation of public services on a scale not envisaged even by the Opposition?
      Reference has been made to these wonderful potential shareholders. I do not even want to mention Lockheed Martin. Serco is just pulling out of Liverpool airport. Earlier in the year, a report was leaked from the Airlines Group in which it examined how contributors to the group could gain preferential treatment in the sky—a lunatic proposal, yet it was being considered seriously.
      This takes me back to our experiences as a party when the Conservatives introduced compulsory competitive tendering. There was no market—it had to be invented in order for companies to come forward. That is what is happening here. Yet some companies—Boeing and others—have pulled away because they do not see it as a practical option.
      Lord Brett's report is very interesting with regard to the NAVCAN proposals. When the NAVCAN board meets, the airlines press time and again for cost-cutting measures

      989
      and reductions in charges. In every paragraph of that report, the other partners reject those proposals because the trust binds them into a safety role.
      Anyone who knows anything about the airline industry knows that this proposal is already an anachronism. It is a United Kingdom solution, whereas no one is interested in individual in-country solutions. There must be an integrated solution to air traffic control at least across our continent; otherwise we shall not be able to cope with the year-on-year growth of 5 to 6 per cent. A doubling of air traffic is predicted within 10 years. The argument within the industry is based on enhanced technological possibilities, of course, with a Europe-wide solution. Most of the European partners involved in the discussion argue for a public sector solution. We are alone in arguing for a private sector solution.
      The International Air Transport Association has said that it looks to a solution through more co-operation between nations in managing pan-European air space. It says that there will be a rationalisation of air traffic control centres. It believes that there needs to be a co-ordinated strategy to create more capacity in the skies: liberalisation but not privatisation. That is the view of one of the organisations of which we are a constituent part.
      There needs to be a general technological leap forward. Boeing is arguing for a satellite system. I do not fully understand the merits of that argument, because I believe that there must be a ground-based system at the end of the day. The investment needed to solve the problem goes far beyond the £1.3 billion maximum that we expect to raise through the Government's proposal. We are talking about £20 billion to £30 billion on a European scale. We are leaping ahead of the European discussions about how we arrive at that amount of investment.
      It is interesting that the only opportunity for such a level of co-operation is to retain the public sector operation within the UK while the debate continues or to opt for the NAVCAN solution. At least others will have confidence that the priority is safety and service, not privatised profit.
      As regards overall capital investments, the NAVCAN solution produces twice the amount of income in terms of the sale. It is bizarre that we are selling off the organisation cheap. We attacked the Tories time and time again for cheap sell-offs, yet we are doing exactly the same thing.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) talked about the Scottish air traffic control centre. We were given a commitment that the traditional route would be taken. To me, that means money direct from Government. If that means borrowing on the market through a Government bond, for example, that is another form of the traditional route. If £60 million is required, the NAVCAN solution would provide triple that sum from a sale.
      I live among people who work at Heathrow as technicians and at air traffic control centres. What motivates the controllers? My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister attacked me on this issue and said that industrial reasons lay behind the Government's proposals. My constituents may be passing up the opportunity of up to £50 million in a share-out. Why are they doing that? The issue is not confined to the protection of jobs; it is about doing the right thing for the community. None of them want to live in a community that they may have helped to put at risk. It is as simple as that.
      990
      What is the position of some of the ex-members of the Health and Safety Executive? Baroness Gibson, formerly of the TUC, made it clear. She said that when profit comes in, safety is always at risk of going out. That is why she argues so cogently for a not for profit trust.
      The argument has been advanced that other parts of the airline industry have been privatised without a decrease in safety. British Airways has been privatised. A report on aviation safety was debated in the House and we found that pilots said that commercial pressures on them were impacting upon safety. The British Airports Authority has been privatised; it is like a city in my constituency, and I work well with it. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has twice called the chief executive of BAA to his office during the Government's term of office to reprimand him for security failures at Heathrow airport. They were the result of commercial contracts involving security. Privatisation lessons have been learned even in the airline industry.
      6.45 pm
      There is the argument about safety achieved solely through regulation. We seem to have overlooked the fact that, in this instance, safety through regulation is safety at the last stage. Safety must come from within an organisation. That is the lesson that we are learning from Rail track. The HSE and others were incapable of bringing Rail track to heel and making it accept its safety responsibilities. In NATS, everyone is trained to ensure that safety is the first priority. It is deep within the culture of the organisation. As soon as we try in any way to undermine that commitment by introducing the profit element, that culture, built up over the years, will be put at risk.
      We were told that there would be a quadruple security lock. We were told that safety regulation would be retained in the hands of the state. We argued for that anyway. We have campaigned for that for ages. That does not undermine the argument that the safety culture must be retained within the organisation.
      We have been told that there will be a golden share. That is being challenged in Europe. It is no longer effective and cannot be implemented. The argument has been lost. We were told that there would be a Government director on the board. We have said time and time again that, when the sale takes place, the Government will have only a 20 or 25 per cent. voting option. When we tried to introduce a share voting option in the other place—in other words, some form of majority option vote for Government shareholders—it was rejected. We are left with the licence, which is ineffective if a company is operating in a market and there is no confidence in it.
      The Government's final desperate argument is that of constitutional confrontation. If it were up to me, there would be no House of Lords. However, we owe it to the electorate to be honest and straight with them. We need properly to engage in consultation with the NATS work force, who have never been balloted on this issue, except by their own union. As a Labour Government, we should ask the work force what they want. I thought that we stood for that—industrial democracy and a commitment to workers' rights. My hon. Friend the Minister has not visited air traffic control at West Drayton. I live near it. Almost 99.9 per cent. of the work force will be opposed to the Government's proposal. The only person we can

      991
      find within the organisation who supports it is the chief executive, and he was brought in to carry out what the Government propose.
      Some Members may vote with the Government. However, in my view and that of pilots, air traffic controllers, technicians and the public, the proposal will put my constituents at risk. Heathrow is in my constituency, and I must look after my constituents' interests. There were no apologies forthcoming—well, perhaps one—over the sale of Rail track following the accidents at Hatfield, Paddington and Southall. There seems to be less pressure now for accountability over that sale. If the proposed legislation results in one member of my community are being harmed, there will be no absolution from me, and no forgiveness from my community. I will come for those responsible. At the end of the day, as I have said, my job is to look after my constituents' interests. If the Government's proposals are implemented, I believe that their interests will be put at risk.
      I am not alone in saying this. My view is shared by every expert in the industry. It is not acceptable to distort party discipline and loyalty by a demand for blind allegiance when the issue is one that puts my constituents at risk.
      Mr. Tony McWalter: I support the Government on this matter, and I feel a chill wind from my own Benches as I say so. We must address some of the matters that have been raised tonight. Hon. Members should perhaps think about their qualifications and motivations for speaking in this debate. Many Labour Members will know that I am not a serial loyalist and am perfectly happy not to support the Government sometimes. I did not do so on freedom of information, and I probably shall not do so on local government, unless they do something about the poor performance they have given my local community recently.
      The question is whether we should consider this matter in a different way to that portrayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). What are my qualifications for talking about this matter? I cannot pray in aid the time that I spent making sandwiches in the crew canteen at Heathrow airport, although that does at least prove that I have known the airport for a long time. Indeed, many of my family and friends and members of my local community have worked there. I can pray in aid my experience as manager of an information technology unit. In addition, through the parliamentary armed forces scheme, I have had an opportunity to visit many naval establishments at which air traffic control functions are conducted. I had the chance to talk to many of those involved in that process.
      I have also examined equipment used by air traffic controllers in the military sector. It is, to put it mildly, antiquated. To put it rather more strongly, it should clearly have been pensioned off long ago. Those systems are inherently dangerous, and people with first-hand expertise say that underinvestment and ancient technology characterise the current system. Yet that system is extraordinarily safe, and I pay tribute to the military sector for its contribution to a staggeringly good record. The people who operate the systems are marvellous. They deal with those systems in ways that counteract the defects. Sometimes, air traffic controllers have to display
      992
      extraordinary judgment and an ability to deal with a huge number of factors at once. Sometimes, too, they must display real courage. Circumstances can threaten their own lives, and they know that if their decision brings about a crash, they must live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. They are fantastic.
      The pilots who work with those controllers know how marvellous and reliable they are. There is a personal relationship between pilots and those on the ground and a confidence built on extraordinary competence. Each year, though, the system gets nearer to the point at which their competence and their adjustments and their capacity for dealing with inherently unsafe technology becomes increasingly necessary. An 8 per cent. annual rise in air traffic is putting ever more demands on the system.
      If one asks air traffic controllers whether they want to change their systems, they will say no. They know the system and have been trained in it. They know what to do to keep planes safely in the air. Pilots, if asked to change their systems, will say no. They rely on a system that involves crucial personal contact with someone in whom they have confidence. As the volume rises, however, the dangers of decrepit technology become ever more severe.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that under privatisation the national en-route centre that is about to come on stream and changes at the London air traffic control centre will be accelerated, changed or improved? There is no indication of that being so.
      Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She, and everyone, surely accepts that we need radical change in how services are delivered, and that change is needed soon.
      If a fairy godmother appeared before air traffic controllers and pilots and waved her wand to give them a new system that was much better able to control the ever-increasing volume of air traffic in our skies, they would say that they did not want it. They would be receiving something that they could not operate. Pilots would say that they did not want it. They would say, "I know the old system and can rely on it. You are putting me into the sky with something that I am not sure I can rely on."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington talked about holding people accountable, and even about coming for them if there were some air catastrophe. Let us be blunt: in any change to an inherently dangerous and complex system, there will be danger during the transition. No matter what system is put in place, there will be a period of transition in which there are dangers. That applies whether the change is privatisation, a public-private partnership or wholly in the public sector.
      We should not castigate those who must take difficult decisions at a time of risk. At the very least, they deserve our tolerance and understanding. We should all work to ensure that the decisions that we take are as well informed as possible rather than lining up to blame other people when a plane falls out of the sky.
      Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is keen to use the word "tolerant". Does he believe that air traffic controllers, whom he has praised to the hilt, should be

      993
      tolerant towards having to cope with an 8 per cent. increase in the number of flights, towards being required under the new regime to make cost savings of between 21 and 35 per cent. over five years, and towards contributing to the profits that the organisation must now make? Should they be tolerant towards all that?
      Mr. McWalter: If the description given by the hon. Gentleman is accurate, no.
      Mr. Foster: It is.
      Mr. McWalter: The issue, in part, is what level of investment will be appropriate, relative to need. I share the feelings expressed by some hon. Members that the plans are insufficiently ambitious, given the huge difficulties that the system will face. Beginning to negotiate that and adjusting it as it goes along are two different things.
      7 pm
      Earlier, I mentioned that my background is partly in information technology. We could tell air traffic controllers, not that we are going to wave a magic wand, but that we are going to give them a new system for which they will be trained and appropriately skilled, over, say, a three-year period. If, however, that IT system is entirely from the public sector, will they feel that they had been given the safest system imaginable? Labour Members know the history of IT projects that are entirely in the public sector and are aware that those projects have a lamentable record, partly because of problems with underfunding and under-investment. When we employ people in IT in the public sector, we underpay them by a factor of three or four and then wonder why we often get a poor product.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Did Siemens do a good job for the UK Passport Agency?
      Mr. McWalter: Siemens did a terrible job for the Passport Agency, partly because the commission that it was given was drafted by civil servants who failed to understand the most elementary facts when dealing with the process of commissioning IT projects. There is an important issue that relates directly to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). If one contracts out an IT system and pulls in a product from Siemens, the Electronic Data Systems Corporation or whoever and says, "Thank you, very kind of you to have done this, now we will operate it," it will go bottom up. As we all know, systems so delivered are virtually useless. When one commissions an IT project, one must not simply draft a spec and get people to deliver it, but must get them to operate it so that when it starts to fall down they are responsible for fixing it.
      Trying to have that kind of relationship with the appropriate IT provider pushes one in the direction not of old-fashioned commissioning but of involving IT providers and other appropriate providers in matters on a continuing daily basis. That relationship should not be about giving the private sector the job and taking delivery of a product that we operate ourselves, as that would be unsafe and taking heinous, unnecessary and culpable risks. Instead, we should try to ensure that we learn from
      994
      our mistakes in IT projects in the public sector and have a new management structure that reflects the fact that, for some years to come, the public sector will not have the appropriate IT expertise to commission products or take them and run with them as appropriate.
      Some hon. Members have said that there are no arguments in favour of the Government's proposals. However, I have suggested that there are such arguments and that people must think about safety first. Delivering safety involves looking out for the best possible expertise and availing oneself of it at an appropriate cost. If it eventually becomes clear that the relationship between the Government's cost projections, their ambitions and the expertise that they seek to commission involves a mismatch in plans, I will join my colleagues who are going to vote against the measure tonight. However, I will not do that on the basis of the plans that are before us.
      Mr. Don Foster: I shall be brief, as I know that other Members wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman has just said that if he is not happy with the funding arrangements for the measure, he is prepared to reconsider how he will vote. May I assure him that the cost reductions of 21 to 35 per cent. in the first five years that I asked him about are the figures in the economic regulation group's recommendations that are currently being talked about.
      Mr. McWalter: Tonight's vote is about whether or not to defer the proposals. Issues regularly arise on whether or not projects are effectively funded. I have already said that there is an IT expertise shortfall in much that goes on in such circles. I will be as vigilant as many other hon. Members in ensuring that there is not a shortfall at any stage when those matters are dealt with. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for his comments and shall bear them in mind as the project unfolds.
      Mr. Dalyell: As our debate ends at 7.29 pm and as so many important points have been made by my colleagues, I feel that, on reflection, it is more important that the Minister for Housing and Planning has time to reply than that the House has a speech from me.
      Dr. Desmond Turner: I am going to be almost as brief as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and make one or two quick points.
      The Secretary of State has presented the issue as a constitutional one. However, for Labour Members who are deeply unhappy with the PPP proposals, it is not a constitutional issue—indeed, that is a smokescreen. It is an issue of safety and corporate governance, on which the PPP arguments have unravelled day by day, with further powerful darts being slung in tonight. If the Secretary of State wants us to go into the Lobby, not in support of the PPP—which would be difficult—but to support the Government against a motion for deferral, he must give us an assurance on safety. That assurance must not just be about saying that safety is in public control when regulation is in public control, because the operation is equally crucial.
      There is no reason to say that if the PPP does not go ahead, there will be terrible consequences, which the

      995
      Secretary of State has laid out. That is unnecessary, and there is still time to go down alternative routes, such as that of a trust. If the Secretary of State will say that he is prepared to do that, we shall by all means vote for what he proposes. However, if he does not do that, we have a real problem on the Labour Benches.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate with contributions from both sides of the House. However, it is noticeable that there has been a surprising dearth of Members on the Conservative Benches, despite the fact that we have been debating Lords amendments that were tabled by their colleagues. There has been a fairly significant attendance on the Liberal Democrat Benches and large attendance on the Government Benches, but the House will note that the Conservative Benches have been largely empty for most of our debate.
      The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), speaking for the official Opposition, started out with a rather curmudgeonly series of personal attacks, and then became prickly when it was suggested that his position might not be that of the absolute arbiter of Conservative party policy on the subject. His reluctance to recognise that he is part of a team led by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) has become familiar to us. It reminded me of the line from Shakespeare—Richard II, I think:
      Man, proud man,
      Drest in a little brief authority.
      We welcome the hon. Gentleman's presence, but I hope that he will recognise that he has to prove himself by his performance rather than his stated claim to a particular status.
      The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions. He took the view that the operational split could go ahead without the change of ownership. I disagree with him. Only if we implement the transfer schemes will we be able to take NATS out of the ownership of the CAA. It is essential, therefore, to proceed with the legislation to enable that to happen.
      The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about shareholder dilution, and claimed that the power of the Secretary of State to amend clause 48—a Henry VIII clause—would make the safeguards worthless. I have to remind him that the power to amend the Crown shareholding section can be exercised only by affirmative resolution and is thus subject to parliamentary approval and the full parliamentary process. The Government take that seriously, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) started by giving a fairly detailed explanation of the circumstances leading up to his written statement to the House on 11 June 1998. He expressed concern throughout his speech about safety issues. It was in that very statement on 11 June 1998, whatever his concern may have been about the background to it, that he said:
      This package, taken together,—
      he was referring to the PPP proposal—
      will guarantee the highest safety standards as air transport increases in the future.—[Official Report, 11 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 637W.]
      996
      He said in a press release issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions:
      Safety will remain the overriding priority with NATS subject to independent safety regulation to a very high standard.
      He was right in that statement, and that remains the case today.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: In 1997, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who was then Minister of Transport. I recall vividly his saying to me, "We should not be doing this." He mentioned it to me a number of times. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to accept that as the truth.
      Mr. Raynsford: That may well be the case, but if so, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh will have to explain why he made it clear on the record in the House that the package would guarantee the highest safety standards, and explain his other comments that I have quoted. If he believed that that was not the case, we would all have to say that he should not have put his name to that statement.
      Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that, even if my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) was in favour of what is being proposed, it would not make the slightest difference to my views and the way in which I will deal with the matter when it comes to voting? Although I can understand my hon. Friend quoting my right hon. Friend, the fact remains that what matters is the substance of the matter, as I said when the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was talking about the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister, not who said what or when. What matters is whether the proposal is right or wrong, and I happen to believe that it is wrong.
      Mr. Raynsford: The substance of the matter is clearly whether we believe that the PPP delivers the highest possible safety standards. We happen to believe that it does. We have strong evidence to support that case, which I shall outline in my speech. Those who do not believe it have to provide evidence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh was clearly confident enough to say on the record in the House in June 1998 that safety would be guaranteed fully under the PPP. I support that point. When a statement of that nature is given to the House, the Member who makes it usually thinks carefully and seriously before giving it. I hope that my right hon. Friend reached a fully informed view which led to that statement. I have certainly looked into the matter carefully before coming to the House to give the statements that I have given tonight on behalf of the Government. I do not make those comments loosely or casually.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. McDonnell: It is demeaning to have tittle-tattle between members of our party, not least because the Minister came to the House to tell us that the Mayor would be selected on the basis of one member one vote, and then supported the alternative system. Let us get on with the debate.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The Mayor is nothing to do with the matter before us.
      Mr. Raynsford: I will come back to my hon. Friend later.
      Dr. Godman: I have said on numerous occasions that I have every trust in my right hon. Friend the Deputy

      997
      Prime Minister's commitment to maritime, rail, road and air safety, but I share many of my constituents deep mistrust of privatisation, and the PPP in this case. It is a question not of safety but of ideology and mistrust of privatisation, whether part or whole.
      Mr. Raynsford: I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes. He made it in an earlier intervention, and I intended to respond to it later. I do not believe that safety is a matter of ideology. Safety is a matter of safety, and we should consider it on that basis. I shall explain why in a moment. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely committed to the maintenance of the safest possible regime in respect not only of air traffic control but other transport modes.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh referred to issues of national security. It is important to put on record the fact that the proposal for the PPP has been discussed in detail with the Ministry of Defence. There has been a great deal of discussion about how the arrangements will work in practice, and the MOD is satisfied that the arrangements will provide an utterly satisfactory guarantee of national security. We should expect nothing less.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh also raised the question of foreign ownership. We do not rule out the possibility. It would be odd and slightly illogical to do so, given that we believe that air traffic services throughout the world will change in the years ahead, and there may well be a consolidation crossing national boundaries, in which case there is bound to be some element of foreign ownership. However, there must be absolutely satisfactory frameworks in place to secure the national interest in the event of a national emergency—clauses 87 and 88 provide that—and proper safeguards to ensure that whoever is selected as a strategic partner is an appropriate and safe person to entrust with this important service.
      In Committee, we went at length through the detailed safeguards that are in place. I will not detain the House by going through them again because time is short; we have only 10 minutes left for this debate. However, I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that a series of interlocking safeguards will ensure that only an appropriate and safe person can be appointed to the important role of the strategic partner.
      The hon. Member for Tweed dale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. The Government have given that matter considerable and careful attention. We have made the necessary arrangements to ensure that any perceived or actual conflict of interest will be addressed and will be resolved during the bidding process. We have built a two-stage check—each bidding group has been required to identify and suggest remedies that will resolve to our complete satisfaction any conflicts of interest that may have existed as the groups submitted their initial, indicative bid—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Only bidders who gave us that satisfaction have been allowed to participate in the next stage.
      The second check comes into play in the final stage. It will require an exhaustive and detailed account of how each proposed strategic partner would demonstrate to us that any remaining conflict issues could be handled. No group would be appointed as the strategic partner if there was any doubt as to how conflicts would be neutralised.
      998
      The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale mentioned the attitude of the safety regulatory group. I assure the House that the Civil Aviation Authority—including the SRG—firmly supports the PPP. The SRG has assured the Government that it is wholly confident of maintaining safety under the PPP. I repeat that the amendments that we shall discuss later make safety the No. 1 priority; they will require the maintenance of the highest safety standards, whether or not they are above the statutory minimum.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will the SRG have the resources to undertake that work with the few inspectors it currently has at its disposal?
      Mr. Raynsford: I assure my hon. Friend that if the SRG believes that it needs more resources, it will put that to the Government; we shall consider such a request very sympathetically indeed. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is a safety regime that ensures that safety is the No. 1 priority. We will not deny the SRG the resources to deliver that regime. I give that assurance clearly.
      The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale also suggested that there might be a problem with the charge cap in relation to the PPP company. Ministers will set the cap and will take account of CAA advice in doing so, but we shall also take other factors into account—including the comments of NATS. On no account—again, I can give the House an assurance—will we set the cap at a level that will create operational difficulty for NATS, or that will raise the slightest question of a risk to safety.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) made a thoughtful speech in which he rightly highlighted the complex issues. He also stressed the importance of avoiding the stereotyping of the public and private sectors. I very much agreed with his views, which were based on detailed experience—not least of his local East Midlands airport.
      The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) misinterpreted my comments about the possibility that recruitment to air traffic control was being adversely affected. To make the matter absolutely clear, I said that, if there was a further period of delay and uncertainty, it would be likely to have an adverse effect on the ability of NATS to recruit the necessary staff. Uncertainty is wholly undermining to services such as those provided by NATS.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether we needed the proposed solution of the PPP. Surprisingly, he made that point after noting in his opening remarks the regrettable delays and the cost overruns that have occurred at Swanwick near his constituency. As I shall emphasise at the end of my comments, it is precisely such problems as delays and overruns that make it essential that we establish a structure that will ensure efficient and effective operation of the service, including the procurement of the new technology that is vital to its future success.
      I was a little surprised by the claim of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) at the beginning of his speech that he had spoken regularly to Ministers; neither the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), nor I have held any detailed discussion with him on this issue.
      Mr. Salter: Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister and

      999
      other Members who are high up the ministerial ladder do count as Ministers? Many of us have engaged in intensive discussions on this matter for a long time.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted to know that my hon. Friend moves in such illustrious company.
      My hon. Friend referred to the NAVCAN model. The Government have set out the view that the future of NATS is best assured through the creation of a PPP; that remains our view. The NAVCAN experience may well suit Canadian circumstances, but we do not believe that it is necessarily the best solution in this country. However, a number of frameworks similar to those in the NAVCAN model will apply in the PPP; there will be Government-appointed directors; there will be consultation on any charging regime; safety regulation will be carried out by a public sector authority; and there will be Government emergency powers of regulation and direction. Those aspects are shared with the NAVCAN model.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) rightly highlighted worry about the 700 jobs in her constituency that could be put in jeopardy by any delay. She dealt most effectively with an intervention from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) when she clearly made the point that safety is not part of this amendment. The amendment is about delay, and my hon. Friend has every reason to feel worried about the risk to the jobs of her constituents and to the two-centre strategy if the whole venture were to be delayed for no good reason—which would be the effect of the amendments we are discussing.
      My hon. Friend also referred to the views of the economic regulatory group on capital expenditure. I make it clear that the advice from the ERG did not propose cuts in NATS capital spending. The group questioned NATS' track record in achieving its capital expenditure targets—as well it might. The real question is about what the strategic partner can achieve with effective project management experience. We shall address that question in taking decisions on charge control. Whatever decisions we take will facilitate the investment that is so desperately needed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) described the proposal as potentially dangerous, but he offered no evidence whatever for that allegation. Without objective evidence that there is a threat to the safety of air passengers, I regard such comments as unhelpful; they inflame fears without sound grounding. My hon. Friend gave a rather fanciful interpretation of the way in which the Government have approached the project and took—if I may so—an uncomradely view of Ministers' handling of it. He, too, spoke about NAVCAN, and I have already responded on that matter.
      My hon. Friend expressed the view that private company interests inherently threaten safety. He said that when profit goes in, safety goes out.
      Mr. McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: I contrast my hon. Friend's very ideological view with the measured and well-informed view of my—
      Mr. McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister does not seem to be giving way.
      Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to the end of my remarks—there is only half a minute left for the debate.
      The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington are in contrast with those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who rightly based his remarks on his practical experience of IT and highlighted the importance of good and successful procurement.
      Our proposals have been considered carefully; they place an absolute emphasis on safety as the No. 1 priority and they will provide the necessary investment. I urge the House to reject the amendments.
      It being three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Ways and Means resolution, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 228.

      Division No. 335]

      [7.29 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Allen, Graham

      Cann, Jamie

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Casale, Roger

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cawsey, Ian

      Ashton, Joe

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Church, Ms Judith

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Banks, Tony

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Battle, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clelland, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Colman, Tony

      Benton, Joe

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Berry, Roger

      Corston, Jean

      Blackman, Liz

      Cousins, Jim

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Cranston, Ross

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Crausby, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cummings, John

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Borrow, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Darvill, Keith

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Denham, John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Browne, Desmond

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Burden, Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Dowd, Jim

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Drew, David

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Drown, Ms Julia

      1001

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Edwards, Huw

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Efford, Clive

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lammy, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Laxton, Bob

      Flint, Caroline

      Leslie, Christopher

      Flynn, Paul

      Levitt, Tom

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foulkes, George

      Lock, David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Love, Andrew

      Gapes, Mike

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gardiner, Barry

      McCabe, Steve

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Macdonald, Calum

      Godsiff, Roger

      McFall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McNulty, Tony

      Grocott, Bruce

      MacShane, Denis

      Hain, Peter

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hanson, David

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Healey, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Maxton, John

      Heppell, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Meale, Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Merron, Gillian

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Hoey, Kate

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hood, Jimmy

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hope, Phil

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moriey, Elliot

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

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

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Hurst, Alan

      Hutton, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jamieson, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Norris, Dan

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pearson, Ian

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pendry, Tom

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pike, Peter L

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Plaskitt, James

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kidney, David

      Pond, Chris

      1002

      Pope, Greg

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Pound, Stephen

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Stringer, Graham

      Purchase, Ken

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Rammell, Bill

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Rapson, Syd

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Raynsford, Nick

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Timms, Stephen

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rogers, Allan

      Todd, Mark

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Touhig, Don

      Rooney, Terry

      Trickett, Jon

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Roy, Frank

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Ruane, Chris

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Tynan, Bill

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Vaz, Keith

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sawford, Phil

      Watts, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      White, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Singh, Marsha

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wilson, Brian

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Woolas, Phil

      Snape, Peter

      Worthington, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Spellar, John

      Wyatt, Derek

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mr. Mike Hall.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Burstow, Paul

      Allan, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Amess, David

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cash, William

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Baldry, Tony

      Chaytor, David

      Ballard, Jackie

      Chidgey, David

      Bames, Harry

      Chope, Christopher

      Beggs, Roy

      Clapham, Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clappison, James

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Bercow, John

      Collins, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Connarty, Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Boswell, Tim

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Brake, Tom

      Cotter, Brian

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Cran, James

      Brazier, Julian

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Burnett, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Burns, Simon

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      1003

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Livsey, Richard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Day, Stephen

      Loughton, Tim

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      McDonnell, John

      Duncan, Alan

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Etherington, Bill

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Evans, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Faber, David

      Madel, Sir David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Fallon, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Maples, John

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Flight, Howard

      Mates, Michael

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Garnier, Edward

      Moore, Michael

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Gibb, Nick

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gidley, Sandra

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      Norman, Archie

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Oaten, Mark

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gray, James

      Page, Richard

      Green, Damian

      Paice, James

      Greenway, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Grieve, Dominic

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Prior, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Randall, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Rendel, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence

      Hayes, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Heald, Oliver

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)

      Ruffley, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Salter, Martin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Sanders, Adrian

      Horam, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Illsley, Eric

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Jenkin, Bernard

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

      Johnson Smith,

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Spring, Richard

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Steen, Anthony

      Keetch, Paul

      Stevenson, George

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

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Streeter, Gary

      Key, Robert

      Stunell, Andrew

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Syms, Robert

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, Ian (EsherS &Walton)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Lidington, David

      Thompson, William

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Livingstone, Ken

      Tredinnick, David

      1004

      Trend, Michael

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Willetts, David

      Tyler, Paul

      Willis, Phil

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Winnick, David

      Wallace, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Walter, Robert

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Wood, Mike

      Waterson, Nigel

      Yeo, Tim

      Webb, Steve

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wells, Bowen

      Welsh, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Mr. Peter Luff and

      Whittingdale, John

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29 disagreed to.

    After clause 61
    Lords amendment: No. 31, to insert the following new clause—Pension entitlement of present and former employees of NATS—
    ".—(1) In this section—
    "NATS employer" includes NATS, any designated company which succeeds to the business of NATS and any employer other than a designated company which succeeds to or acquires any part of the business of NATS;
    "NATS" is National Air Traffic Services Ltd whose air traffic services are to be transferred under the provisions of this Act;
    "protected beneficiary" includes—

    (a) any person who, on the transfer date, is employed by NATS and is an active member of the Scheme;

    (b) any person who is employed by NATS on the transfer date, but is then too young to join the Scheme, and who subsequently joins;

    (c) any person who is not an active member of the Scheme on the transfer date but who is subsequently entitled to rejoin as a NATS employee without a break in their continuity of employment;

    (d) any person who is not an active member of the Scheme on the transfer date, but who is entitled to accrued pension rights under the Scheme at that date; and

    (e) any person who is prospectively or contingently entitled to benefit under the Scheme on the death of a person covered under (a) to (d) above;

    "relevant scheme" means the Scheme or any other scheme of a NATS employer that covers protected beneficiaries, and that provides benefits in respect of the protected beneficiaries which are at least equivalent in value to those applicable to the protected beneficiaries as at the transfer date;
    "Scheme" means the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme;
    "transfer date" means the date of the transfer of NATS to the public-private partnership.
    (2) NATS (or, if appropriate, the designated company) shall, subject to the consent of the Pension Schemes Office of the Inland Revenue, participate in the Scheme as a non-associated employer.
    (3) If NATS (or the designated company) does participate in the Scheme as a non-associated employer, a proportion of the total assets of the Scheme shall be segregated for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries and the share of assets so segregated shall be equal in proportion to the proportion that the Scheme's liabilities in respect of the protected beneficiaries bears to the Scheme's liabilities as a whole.
    (4) If NATS (or the designated company) is unable to participate in the Scheme, that NATS employer shall instead make available a relevant scheme for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries.
    (5) If the shares or business of NATS (or the designated company), or any part of that business, is transferred to a NATS employer other than NATS or a designated company, that NATS employer shall become a non-associated employer in the Scheme and if that is not possible that NATS employer shall instead make available a relevant scheme for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries.
    (6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), if a NATS employer is to make available a relevant scheme other than the Scheme, a share of the assets of the Scheme (or of the previous relevant scheme if not the Scheme) shall be transferred to the receiving relevant scheme, calculated on the basis described in subsection (3).
    (7) If a protected beneficiary transfers to the employment of another employer that also participates in the Scheme but which is not a NATS employer, that beneficiary shall remain a protected beneficiary for the purposes of the benefits to be provided to and in respect of him under the relevant scheme and if that beneficiary subsequently transfers back to the employment of a NATS employer he shall still remain a protected beneficiary.
    (8) For so long as a NATS employer remains as a participating employer of the Scheme in respect of protected beneficiaries, one trustee of the Scheme shall be a member representative selected from amongst the protected beneficiaries, and one trustee of the Scheme shall be an employer representative of the NATS employer.
    (9) The NATS employer shall contribute to the relevant scheme at no less than the rate recommended by that scheme's actuary as being sufficient to secure the accrued rights from time to time of the protected beneficiaries in full by the purchase of annuities and the NATS employer shall not be entitled unilaterally to suspend or terminate its contributions to the relevant scheme except upon its insolvency.
    (10) On the full winding-up of a relevant scheme, or on a partial winding-up which involves protected beneficiaries, any shortfall in the assets required to buy out the accrued rights at that time of the protected beneficiaries shall be met in full by the relevant NATS employer and shall be treated as a debt on the employer.
    (11) If, on the full or partial winding-up of a relevant scheme, as described in subsection (10), the trustees wish, rather than securing benefits by the purchase of annuities, to pay a bulk transfer to another scheme, that other scheme shall be a relevant scheme and the transfer value payable in respect of the protected beneficiaries shall be sufficient to secure a buy out of their accrued rights if the receiving scheme were to be wound up immediately following the transfer.
    (12) The NATS employer shall provide future benefits in the relevant scheme which, in respect of the protected beneficiaries, are at least equivalent in value to those available under the Scheme at the transfer date.
    (13) No amendment may be made to a relevant scheme which would result in a reduction of the accrued or future rights of protected beneficiaries, nor in an increase in the contributions payable by protected beneficiaries who are active members."
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    First, let me reassure the House that the Government regard the matter of pensions protection for air traffic control staff as one of great importance. Pensions affect us all, and I can well understand why it is a matter of such importance to NATS employees. I must therefore make it clear that we would not act in any way that would put them under threat, and we are not doing so. We have considered in some detail the adequacy of protections for NATS employees. We believe that the necessary protections are in place without the need for this amendment. I shall attempt to explain, as briefly as possible, what the protections are.
    1006
    7.45 pm
    First, the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme, to which NATS staff currently belong, is to be amended to make it possible for staff employed by the public-private partnership to remain members of that scheme. That will involve NATS becoming a non-associated employer within the scheme. This arrangement will prevent cross-subsidy between the new NATS section of the scheme, which will relate to a company classified to the private sector, and the CAA section of the scheme, which will remain in the public sector. It will enable NATS staff to continue to enjoy the benefits that they currently enjoy.
    Perhaps I can digress briefly to explain the position of current pensioners and deferred pensioners within the scheme. I assure the House that the position of these two groups will remain unaffected by the PPP. They will remain in the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme, and they will be in the CAA section of that scheme, which will also include current CAA staff. This section will, as I have just mentioned, remain in the public sector. Both groups of pensioners will continue to receive benefits in exactly the same way as they do now.
    Returning to the position of existing NATS staff, we have made it very clear to all those bidding to be our strategic partner in the PPP that securing the continued participation of current staff in the scheme is a fundamental condition of being considered for that role. In addition, we will put into the strategic partnership agreement a binding commitment—enforceable by law—that guarantees the continuation of that right on terms at least as favourable as those that exist now.
    Mr. Don Foster: Will the strategic partnership agreement be made public?
    Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, a draft of the strategic partnership agreement was made available to all members of the Committee considering the Bill. The matter was discussed in detail in Committee, and that is a sign of our absolute commitment to open government in this respect.
    Mr. Foster: I asked the Minister that question because the issue was raised in the other place when Lord Brabazon asked Lord Whitty whether the strategic partnership agreement would be published. Lord Whitty replied:
    A straight "yes" or "no" answer is not appropriate.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1708.]
    Why did Lord Whitty say that?
    Mr. Raynsford: Lord Whitty said that for the obvious reason there will inevitably be some confidential elements in the document. The key point is that we have made a commitment on the provisions relating to the guarantees for pensions, and we made available the draft document to the Committee, so that there could be a thorough consideration of all the basic principles behind the strategic partnership agreement.
    The commitment that I outlined is a very significant safeguard, underpinned by the Government's continued participation in the PPP. NATS staff will also enjoy the protections on pensions that exist under the law of the land, including the provisions in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and in the Pensions Act 1995. They provide, among

    1007
    other things, protections for accrued benefits and funding levels. Yet another level of protection exists in the scheme's trust deed and rules. These are unusually restrictive and highly protective of members' interests. It is not uncommon for the sponsoring employer of a pension scheme to have the ability to reduce the level of benefits for future service, which are known as "prospective" benefits. However, no employer who participates in the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme has that particular power, because the restrictive power of amendment in the trust deed provides that amendments cannot be made to reduce prospective benefits. That is another very valuable and important protection.
    I am sure that some hon. Members will draw attention to the precedents for statutory protection in past privatisations. I shall focus on the most recent case where a comparison is made—that of the underground railway staff in London. The London Underground case is much more complex than that of NATS. In the case of NATS, we are arranging a once-and-for-all transfer of the company to the private sector. There is no subdivision of the company and there is no reorganisation of the industry into a number of parts, so there is no need for provision to deal with the subcontracting that occurs in the railway industry. There is no provision for the return of some parts to the public sector, nor are the trust deeds of the two schemes or the arrangements for changes to those deeds comparable—prospective benefits could be changed under the London Underground deed. The two cases cannot, therefore, be regarded as comparable.
    Before 1997, the range of outcomes of transfers to the private sector, in terms of pension protection, was highly variable. In 1997, this Government set out to reform the protection of pensions. In 1998, interim new guidance was issued by the Cabinet Office under the title "Better Quality Services". It emphasised the importance of protecting staff pensions in any restructuring that involved private sector partners, and required the quality of that protection to be a factor in assessing bids for partnership. Then, in June 1999, the Treasury issued definitive guidance under the title "A Fair Deal for Staff Pensions", which was incorporated into broader guidance on treatment of staff issued by the Cabinet Office at the beginning of the year.
    The objectives of those reforms were simple: to take the fear out of public sector reform and sales as far as pensions were concerned, and to set a common standard of protection that all projects should pass. We now have a comprehensive framework of protections in the standard of treatment of staff. It is a fair deal not only for the staff but for private sector businesses that bid to enter into partnership to deliver public services.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can the Minister confirm—I hope that he can—that IPMS lawyers have agreed to that?
    Mr. Raynsford: If my hon. Friend bears with me, I shall come to the fairly detailed discussions that my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have had with Members of the other place who were instrumental in moving the amendments that we are debating and who have close associations with the IPMS.
    1008
    I hope that I have given sufficient assurance to the House that a comprehensive package of safeguards is in place to protect NATS staff pensions without the need for statutory provision. However, if some hon. Members still feel that there is a case for agreeing to the amendment, I would add that it contains a number of unhelpful provisions that may not be of benefit either to the scheme members or to the scheme trustees. Let me give a few examples that illustrate the difficulties in amending this complex area.
    Subsection (3) of the amendment deals with the split of the fund to take account of the establishment of NATS as a non-associated employer. There is a real concern about a provision that provides for the share of the fund being a simple proportion of protected beneficiary liabilities to all the scheme liabilities. The protected beneficiaries may well receive an unintentionally and inappropriately large share of the assets, to the possible detriment of current pensioners. The arrangement would be so rigid that the trustees would have no flexibility to consider the apportionment in relation to actual needs and circumstances.
    Subsection (6) of the amendment rather ignores the principle that, as part of the basic regulation of occupational pension schemes, the pension schemes office is required to give its consent to bulk transfers between schemes.
    A problem with subsection (7) of the amendment is that it is possible for an entity wholly unrelated to NATS to become a participating employer in the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme, once it has non-associated status. It is not clear why protection should continue to be conferred in that circumstance.
    There may also be real difficulties in squaring the provisions of subsection (8) of the amendment with existing primary legislation under the Pensions Act 1995, as it relates to member-nominated trustees. In particular, there could presumably be more than one NATS employer, which would lead to a disproportionate number of NATS trustees, even assuming that the basic principle of reserved trusteeships by primary legislation is acceptable.
    I have tried to demonstrate that we have delivered strong protections for NATS members of the CAAPS, and that the position of pensioners and deferred pensioners in that scheme is not affected by the PPP.
    We continue to be of the view that statutory protection is not needed for NATS members of the CAAPS, and I have to say that we have not been able to see what further benefit the statutory protection sought in another place would bring to those members. None the less, this is an important matter and of key interest to staff. Accordingly, while I must ask the House to disagree with the technically flawed amendment that was made in another place, I can inform it that discussions have been continuing with those people who are most interested in the matter, including representatives of the trade union mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
    Mr. Dalyell: One problem is that people cannot fully understand the objection to statutory protection. The Government may be right in saying that it is not entirely necessary, but why do they not give the protection the benefit of the doubt and agree to the amendment?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend will immediately recognise that the form of statutory protection proposed

    1009
    in the amendment could result in entirely inappropriate provisions because it is of a generality that does not necessarily take account of the particular circumstances of the CAAPS and the other factors that I mentioned. I have made it clear that if we had any evidence that members of the pension scheme—existing or deferred pensioners—would be prejudiced in any way by the transfer to the PPP, we would be extremely concerned and keen to act to remedy that. So far, we have no evidence that that is likely to be the case.
    In a meeting only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister again appealed to those in the other place who are concerned about this matter to come forward with evidence if they really believed that there was a problem. My right hon. Friend assures me that no evidence was made available, but as a key member of the group that was responsible for initiating the amendments was not able to be present, he issued an invitation for further evidence to be submitted subsequently if it was available.
    Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful for the information that the Minister is giving to the House, but will he say whether representatives of the IPMS were present at the meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, or was it merely a meeting of Members of another place?
    Mr. Raynsford: It was merely a meeting of Members of another place, but it included individuals who have a close association with the IPMS. I have no doubt that they were well briefed by that union.
    Mr. Robert Key: I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of what the hon. Gentleman is saying about this complex subject. The problem is that he has not convinced air traffic controllers of the virtues of his scheme. A constituent who is an air traffic controller telephoned me this morning to say that he did not think that the Government realised the strength of feeling among air traffic controllers. He said, "I am not a union man, but I know they have been talking and talking and they are going to find out soon that there is a threat of industrial action, not on the general issue of privatisation, but on the pensions issue. Please tell the Minister." Well, I have done that. Will the negotiations continue right up to the wire and, indeed, beyond?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to say that the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear during the discussion yesterday that he is still open to propositions if it can be demonstrated that there is a genuine risk that the benefits that are afforded to current pensioners, deferred pensioners or current NATS employees might be prejudiced in any way. We have made that offer clear. We remain open to representations, right up to the wire, so that when the matter is reconsidered in another place, we will be more than happy—assuming that the House agrees with our motion to disagree—to contemplate alternative amendments if there is real evidence that they are necessary.
    I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be odd to seek to put statutory provision in the Bill if there is no evidence of any adverse effect on employees, existing pensioners or deferred pensioners. That would simply be otiose. However, we hear the message that there are concerns. We want to overcome them and I assure the
    1010
    hon. Gentleman that, if evidence is submitted to show that there is a problem, the Government stand ready to address the issue seriously and with resolve.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is vital to maintain staff confidence, but I am entirely unconvinced by what I have heard and by what I read about the debate in another place. I think that that is why the Government—perhaps unexpectedly—lost the vote. They convinced less than half of their peers to support them. Will the Minister confirm that there is full agreement among pension fund trustees, including representatives of the employees, on how the pensions issue should be resolved? No amendment should be required to resolve differences that should properly be resolved by agreement. Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that the Minister for Transport received a letter from the chairman of the trustees of the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme about these matters, dated 31 August? I shall read him some extracts from that letter.
    8 pm
    The letter warns:
    the Trustees are concerned about the risk of challenge by disaffected members—
    a risk they consider to be high. The letter continues:
    the Trustees are reluctantly making preparations to take the matter to court—
    to take pre-emptive action. The letter goes on:
    proceedings might cost one million pounds, such costs (which you have confirmed the government will not contribute towards) being paid out of the Scheme assets. The Trustees regret that any court action is likely to considerably delay the timetable for PPP.
    That appears to be very serious.
    The letter concludes:
    Whilst we continue to prepare for a possible court application, we urge the government to reconsider its position on legislation even at this late stage. We are advised that if legislation were introduced in a form satisfactory to the Trustees, there would be no need to take pre-emptive court action.
    Thus the desire to have something in the Bill to avoid future conflict is not just that of a few disgruntled employees and union representatives. The letter is from the chairman of trustees of the scheme. The Minister has not dealt in any shape or form with the trustees' complaint, and nor did the Minister for Transport in the other place.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey merely said of the impending court action:
    they are entitled to do it.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 554.]
    He sounds happy that there should be a round of pensions litigation leading up to the PPP. Have the Government learned nothing from the experience of previous pensions rights transfers in both the public and private sectors?
    Many hon. Members will recall how often the Labour party has called for statutory protection of public enterprise staff pension rights in transfers to the private sector. In this case, the pension fund trustees themselves are calling for clarification in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and I raised the issue of pensions both on Second Reading and in Committee—now 10 months ago. The issue has also been raised by the

    1011
    staff union, and there is every reason to believe that National Air Traffic Services management and the CAA have made representations to Ministers on the question.
    It does not feel as though the issue has been properly resolved. This House might not be the place in which to resolve it; the issue has the feel of one that is more likely to be resolved in the other place. Faced with all the evidence, is it not massively complacent of the Government to use their majority to plough on regardless? The Lords amendment was tabled in good faith as a solution to the problems. If it is not the right amendment, let the Minister say that he will table the right one. We shall support the Lords amendment because, so far, we are completely unconvinced by the Government's arguments.
    Dr. Strang: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, if privatisation goes ahead, it will not have an adverse effect on the pension entitlement of past or present employees. It is intended to provide helpful assurances to National Air Traffic Services employees and to put into law the assurances that Ministers have given in Committee and in both Houses. I recall the debates in Committee to which the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has referred.
    The Government say that the amendment is not necessary, and give assurances that staff pensions will be protected. In Committee, I tabled an amendment with that objective, and I was pleased that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), was able to give me verbal assurances that pensions would be protected. Of course we welcome Ministers' assurances, but, however well meant, they do not have the same strength as protection in a Bill. There is a clear difference between an obligation in law and a statement made by a Minister. We know that Ministers and, indeed, Governments come and go.
    I remind the House that there is a schedule to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 dedicated to protecting the pension rights of tube workers who are transferred to private infrastructure companies under the Government's plans for the underground. The Government saw the merit of including pensions protection in that Act. It is clearly right that NATS staff should have similar protection.
    My hon. Friend the Minister has suggested that the amendment might be flawed and might not achieve all its objectives. We debated the matter in Committee way back in February and the Government have had a lot of time since then to work on their own amendment. If the Lords amendment is flawed, the onus is surely on the Government to table an alternative to achieve the objectives. The way forward should be to retain the Lords amendment. That would give the Government the option to amend it with a better amendment in the other place.
    Mr. Don Foster: Time is relatively short, so I shall be fairly brief.
    I begin by paying tribute to the Government for introducing one set of measures that has done great service to many people. The whole House will recall that, in the early days of privatisation, employees often suddenly found themselves doing exactly the same job but for lower wages, under worse conditions of service and
    1012
    with worse pension arrangements. Although we had the benefit of the introduction of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which ensured that at least employees' pay or salary and conditions of employment were protected, they still did not have protection in respect of pensions.
    As the Minister rightly said, the Labour party addressed the matter when it came into government, introducing a number of proposals, particularly through the Cabinet Office, that go a long way to improving the situation. However, I remind the Minister that, on the whole, the documents make recommendations and do not in all cases have statutory effect. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to the Government for the improvements that have been made.
    Whatever our views on the nature of the new National Air Traffic Services, we are all agreed that there should be separation of NATS from the Civil Aviation Authority. Whatever form NATS was to take, significant implications for pension arrangements were inevitable—changes would have had to be made. I suspect that many hon. Members who have studied the issue in some detail will be aware of the complexity of the new arrangements, and, indeed, the significant cost that will be incurred as a result of them.
    The Minister has described in some detail his view of the necessity or otherwise of the amendment, which was moved by Lord Brett and supported by a majority of peers. He has argued in some detail that some aspects of the amendment may be technically flawed. It is interesting that, for each of the five clauses to which he referred, he indicated that there may be technical difficulties. At no point did he say that categorically; he merely implied that there may be difficulties, so there is clearly some doubt.
    Much more important, it was revealing that the Minister kept saying that, following the meeting to which he referred, the Government would be prepared to consider tabling their own amendment to address the concerns that have been expressed. He chose many different words to say that. On one occasion, he said that he would be convinced if there was real evidence; on another occasion, he required real evidence of the adverse circumstances that may apply; and on yet another occasion, he said that real risk must be demonstrated.
    I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the definition of "if necessary" is significant. Regardless of whether in his view it is necessary to include such a provision in the Bill, the vast majority of those who will be affected certainly think that such a provision is necessary.
    In view of the Minister's comments, I hope that he will be prepared to continue those discussions to which he referred and that, in conjunction with Ministers in another place and representatives of those who are affected by the measure, it will be possible to devise an amendment that will enable the issue to be included in the Bill. There is no genuine argument against that. The Minister argues that it is not necessary and the protection already exists; no harm will therefore be done by putting it on the face of the Bill.
    The Minister and I spent many hours in Committee. On many occasions he said that it was not necessary to include safety in the Bill, yet he now accepts that it would be a good idea. As soon as we have divided, if necessary, we shall consider a series of amendments that will enable us to ascertain whether we accept amendment No. 1 and

    1013
    the others in that group. All are about putting safety on the face of the Bill. The Minister has been prepared to listen on one occasion—I hope that he is prepared to do so again.
    Ms Osborne: I am somewhat comforted by the Minister's comments. However, he knows that the public-private partnership has not found favour with the NATS work force, who are worried about various aspects of the proposal and would have preferred a trust model.
    Terms and conditions, especially pensions, under a strategic partner are by no means the least of employees' concerns. I understand from the Minister that discussions are continuing in order to reach a conclusion that can fully satisfy them. That is the crux of the matter: will the result deal fully with their concerns?
    Given the controversial nature of the change to NATS' structure, as well as the years of constant speculation to which the work force have been subjected, does my hon. Friend agree that everything possible should be done to give them the reassurance that they seek on pensions? If including such a provision in the Bill makes no difference, why not do it, if only to provide that much needed reassurance? If there are problems with this amendment, why do the Government not table another, which would provide that reassurance to the NATS work force?
    What is good enough for the workers on the tube is good enough for my constituents. Will my hon. Friend guarantee on the record that no member of NATS staff will be worse off in terms of accrued benefits than at present, and that employees' prospects will be roughly comparable? If I do not support the amendment on the basis that further progress can be made, will my hon. Friend assure me that there will be a further opportunity to assess the position on the Floor of the House, if agreement cannot be reached when the matter is reconsidered in another place?
    Mr. Dalyell: I do not believe that there is an opportunity for the Government to table an amendment. In those circumstances, would it not be better to accept this amendment? There is genuine anxiety about the matter.
    Our deliberations on the amendment end at 8.29 pm, and it is important that the Minister answers the points that have been made. I shall therefore simply ask a factual question: have the CAA and NATS made representations?
    Mr. Raynsford: The debate has been short but useful. It has focused on one key issue: whether there is merit in placing on the face on the Bill some reassurance to cover the anxieties that have been voiced. Let me put the matter simply, in the manner that I used in Committee. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will recall that we did not believe it would be helpful to incorporate an otiose provision in the Bill. If there is no need to do something, including detailed provisions in a Bill appears unnecessary. However, having said that, genuine anxieties have been expressed.
    I have referred to meetings of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor with the representatives from another place who were instrumental in tabling the amendments that we are considering tonight. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear to them and to me—I did
    1014
    not take part in the discussions—that he was perfectly willing to respond positively and constructively if clear evidence of a problem could be produced. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the anxieties of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) shortly because they are slightly different, although he may not realise it.
    8.15 pm
    So far, no evidence has been presented to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to suggest that existing pensioners, deferred pensioners or existing NATS employees would be adversely affected by the new arrangements after the establishment of the PPP. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne). I reiterate that there is no evidence that any existing pensioner, deferred pensioner or existing NATS employee will suffer any financial disadvantage through the proposals. If there is clear evidence that individuals might be adversely affected, we have emphasised that we shall be happy to respond positively to deal with the problem. So far, no such evidence has been produced.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Minister says that he has not taken part in the discussions. May I say, in an old-fashioned way, that on such an important matter, the House of Commons is entitled to hear from a Minister who has taken part in the discussions, and not to get second-hand information?
    Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend knows only too well, individual Ministers who answer to the House are often not party to all discussions that lead to a conclusion. There is a clear understanding that Ministers act collectively, share information about relevant meetings and report to the House in the full knowledge of relevant information from meetings that they did not attend. That is normal procedure in government, and I am sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges that. It is simply not possible for us to be present in all discussions and negotiations.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend explain what he has just said?
    Mr. Raynsford: I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that, although I was not present at the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister held with Members of another place who were instrumental in tabling the amendments, he gave me a full report so that I was in a position to inform the House this evening. I hope that that is clearer.
    Let us consider the issue that the hon. Member for North Essex raised. I can confirm that a letter has been received from the trustees and that, of course, we are considering it. However, the trustees are seeking protection not for staff, but for their decisions about splitting the assets. Such splits are common in the conduct of pension trusts, and seeking court action in such cases is unusual. There is no question of such court action delaying the PPP because steps could be taken in the sale documentation to allow for any outcome. However, I am sure that the trustees' view of the right allocation of assets is based on logic and reason. If they acted logically and reasonably, they would almost certainly receive the support of the court in the case of an action.

    1015
    As I said earlier, a potential difficulty arises if a formula—as specified in the amendments that we are considering—for splitting the assets is applied. That could result in one group being disadvantaged. That is one of the reasons for our reluctance to accept the amendments.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am genuinely mystified. If, based on the agreement trustees believe that they have struck with employees' representatives, they fear potential litigation, which will cost money and, they say, delay the PPP, surely that is the sort of evidence to which the Minister referred. I shall quote the trustees' letter again:
    We are advised that if legislation were introduced in a form satisfactory to the Trustees, there will be no need to take pre-emptive court action.
    Perhaps the Minister will answer the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked about the views of NATS management and the CAA. They are represented on the trustees. Do they disagree with the trustees?
    Mr. Raynsford: That is essentially a matter for the trustees, who, of course, have a special role in relation to the pension fund. Clearly, other representations will be received, and we shall consider them. We will carefully consider responses and representations from the trustees and we shall do so, as I said previously, in relation to our response to the Lords amendments.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. The letter was written on 31 August. It is a sorry state of affairs if the Government have still not decided how to respond to the representations. It is staggering that, in the death throes of our consideration of the Bill, the matter remains unresolved. I am afraid that I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow—these proceedings are farcical. We have had to debate the Bill with the Minister for Housing and Planning who has had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the policy or with aviation.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has once again reverted to the rather curmudgeonly approach that he adopted earlier, when he criticised me because I happen not to have been the Minister responsible for particular negotiations. He knows only too well from his experience that we accept the principle of collective responsibility and that we act with fellow Ministers in that spirit. As I said earlier, I am more than happy to respond in the House on the basis of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had with Members of another place.
    The key point, which we have already clarified, is that if evidence is forthcoming that shows that existing pensioners, deferred pensioners or existing employees face a serious problem that could have an adverse effect on their financial prospects under a pension, we are ready to respond quickly and positively.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised the question of timing. If the House decides tonight that the amendments should be removed from the Bill—I hope that it will—it will still be open to Members of another place, when the Bill returns to them, to consider whether alternative amendments might be appropriate. In that
    1016
    context, we would sympathetically consider proposals that gave effect to measures that were designed to cope with any such deficiencies that might be identified. However, to date, we have not seen evidence implying that there are weaknesses in or problems with the existing arrangements.
    I conclude by confirming that the Government remain prepared, even at this late hour—
    Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend said something that we may interpret as very important. He said he would consider proposals, which would save a great deal of difficulty, if they arose in the other place. Are those Government proposals, or would they come from another source?
    Mr. Raynsford: We would be perfectly happy to consider proposals from any source, including the group of Members from another place that has been particularly concerned with the amendments. If we believed that such proposals were necessary to deal with a genuine problem, and if evidence were produced to show that there was a problem, we should be happy to entertain proposals that might remedy it, even though, as I said earlier, we are not convinced that such a problem exists. At the same time, we could continue to discuss the issue relating to the position of trustees, which was raised earlier. As I said, those concerns are slightly different. However, we are currently not convinced that there is such a need, and we therefore do not believe that it would be right to agree to the Lords amendments, which are in several respects defective and which could have adverse consequences on the position of some categories of pensioner.
    Mr. Jenkin: Despite my being curmudgeonly, the Minister is being generous in giving way, and I am grateful. Was he aware of the letter before I raised it with him this evening?
    Mr. Raynsford: I was well aware of the fact that there had been communication from the trustees, and that the issue was under continuing discussion. That is clearly on the record.
    On the basis that the Government remain open to further representations and have not closed their mind on the issue, the House should disagree with the Lords amendments. If real evidence can be produced to suggest that there is an unresolved problem, an opportunity should be found for further discussion in another place.
    Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 203.

    Division No. 336]

    [8.25 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Banks, Tony

    Ainger, Nick

    Barron, Kevin

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Battle, John

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bayley, Hugh

    Allen, Graham

    Beard, Nigel

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Ashton, Joe

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Benton, Joe

    1017

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Flynn, Paul

    Berry, Roger

    Follett, Barbara

    Betts, Clive

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Blackman, Liz

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Foulkes, George

    Blizzard, Bob

    Galbraith, Sam

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Gapes, Mike

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Gardiner, Barry

    Borrow, David

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Godsiff, Roger

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Goggins, Paul

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Browne, Desmond

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Burden, Richard

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Burgon, Colin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Grocott, Bruce

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Hain, Peter

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Cann, Jamie

    Healey, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Casale, Roger

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Caton, Martin

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Cawsey, Ian

    Heppell, John

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hill, Keith

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clelland, David

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hope, Phil

    Coaker, Vernon

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Coleman, Iain

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Colman, Tony

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Connarty, Michael

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corston, Jean

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cousins, Jim

    Hurst, Alan

    Cox, Tom

    Hutton, John

    Cranston, Ross

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Crausby, David

    Illsley, Eric

    Cummings, John

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cunningham, Jim (CoV'try S)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jamieson, David

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jenkins, Brian

    Darvill, Keith

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Doran, Frank

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Drew, David

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Edwards, Huw

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Efford, Clive

    Kemp, Fraser

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Khabra, Piara S

    Etherington, Bill

    Kidney, David

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Flint, Caroline

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    1018

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lammy, David

    Purchase, Ken

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Laxton, Bob

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Leslie, Christopher

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Levitt, Tom

    Rammell, Bill

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Rapson, Syd

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Raynsford, Nick

    Linton, Martin

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Lock, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Love, Andrew

    Rogers, Allan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McCabe, Steve

    Rooney, Terry

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Rowlands, Ted

    McFall, John

    Roy, Frank

    McIsaac, Shona

    Ruane, Chris

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Ruddock, Joan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McNulty, Tony

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    MacShane, Denis

    Salter, Martin

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McWalter, Tony

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McWilliam, John

    Sawford, Phil

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Singh, Marsha

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Maxton, John

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Merron, Gillian

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Miller, Andrew

    Snape, Peter

    Moffatt, Laura

    Soley, Clive

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Spellar, John

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Morley, Elliot

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

    Stevenson, George

    (B'ham Yardley)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    (Aberavon)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mountford, Kali

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Mullin, Chris

    Stringer, Graham

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    (Dewsbury)

    Norris, Dan

    Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Olner, Bill

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Timms, Stephen

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Tipping, Paddy

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Todd, Mark

    Pearson, Ian

    Touhig, Don

    Pendry, Tom

    Trickett, Jon

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Truswell, Paul

    Pickthall, Colin

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pike, Peter L

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Plaskitt, James

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pond, Chris

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pope, Greg

    Tynan, Bill

    Pound, Stephen

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    1019

    Watts, David

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    White, Brian

    Woodward, Shaun

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Woolas, Phil

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Worthington, Tony

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    (Swansea W)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Wills, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wilson, Brian

    Mrs. Anne McGuire and

    Winnick, David

    Mr. Jim Dowd.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Allan, Richard

    Flight, Howard

    Amess, David

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Garnier, Edward

    Baldry, Tony

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Gibb, Nick

    Barnes, Harry

    Gidley, Sandra

    Beggs, Roy

    Gill, Christopher

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Bercow, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gray, James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Green, Damian

    Boswell, Tim

    Greenway, John

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Brake, Tom

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Brazier, Julian

    Hammond, Philip

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Harvey, Nick

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hayes, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Heald, Oliver

    Burnett, John

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Burns, Simon

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Burstow, Paul

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Horam, John

    (NE Fife)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cash, William

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Chaytor, David

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Chidgey, David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Chope, Christopher

    Johnson Smith,

    Clappison, James

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Collins, Tim

    Keetch, Paul

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Cotter, Brian

    Key, Robert

    Cran, James

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Davidson, Ian

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Letwin, Oliver

    Day, Stephen

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Lidington, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Livsey, Richard

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Loughton, Tim

    Evans, Nigel

    Luff, Peter

    Faber, David

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fabricant, Michael

    McDonnell, John

    Fallon, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fearn, Ronnie

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    1020

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

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

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Spring, Richard

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Madel, Sir David

    Steen, Anthony

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Malins, Humfrey

    Streeter, Gary

    Maples, John

    Stunell, Andrew

    Mates, Michael

    Swayne, Desmond

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Syms, Robert

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Moore, Michael

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Norman, Archie

    Tredinnick, David

    Oaten, Mark

    Trend, Michael

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Tyler, Paul

    Öpik, Lembit

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wallace, James

    page, Richard

    Walter Robert

    Paice, James

    Wareing, Robert N

    Pickles, Eric

    Waterson, Nigel

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Webb, Steve

    Prior, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Rendel, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Robertson, Laurence

    Willetts, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Willis, Phil

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Wilshire, David

    Ruffley, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Wood, Mike

    Sanders, Adrian

    Yeo, Tim

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Shepherd, Richard

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. John Randall and

    Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.

    Clause 1

      SECRETARY OF STATE'S GENERAL DUTY
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 10, at beginning insert—
      ("(A1) The Secretary of State must exercise his functions under this Chapter so as to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of air traffic services; and that duty is to have priority over the application of subsections (1) to (4).")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10, 26, 40 to 43 and 61 to 65.
      Mr. Raynsford: We spent a great deal of time on the previous groups of amendments, so I shall be very brief on this and the subsequent groups that relate to part I, as there is little of great substances in them.
      These amendments relate to safety. They will oblige the Secretary of State, the CAA and the Competition Commission, in exercising their functions under the Bill

      1021
      to ensure that a high standard of safety is maintained before taking into account any other consideration. Therefore, safety levels cannot be compromised, even if they are above the statutory minimum, as is the case in some areas of NATS operations. The effect will be to give safety priority over all other considerations in part I. I am sure that that will be warmly welcomed by the House.
      Mr. Don Foster: The Minister is absolutely right. This group of amendments will be warmly welcomed by the House. The Liberal Democrats raised the issue in Committee, in the House and in another place. As we were rebuffed on numerous occasions and told that our proposal was otiose—a word that the Minister was very keen on at the time—we are absolutely delighted that he and his noble Friends now think that it is not otiose after all. It is necessary. I hope that he will give the same consideration to pensions, as I have said; but the amendments are welcomed by Liberal Democrat Members.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I rise briefly to support these amendments. As some Members will know, I have more than a passing interest in the activities of NATS, having been a pilot for 35 years—albeit, in a private capacity. Having completed my instrument meteorological conditions rating this summer, I am only too well aware of the fantastic job done by our air traffic controllers. I should like to pay them a personal tribute for the service that they provide to military and civilian air traffic and especially to those, such as me, who are involved in general aviation in this country. They enjoy a reputation second to none in the world.
      I recently returned from Spain with the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I travelled on an Iberia flight and spent some time on the flight deck. The captain of that Iberia flight had nothing but praise for the sheer professionalism of our air traffic controllers.
      Everyone involved in aviation in this country has safety as their No. 1 priority. Nevertheless I feel that if the House decides to accept the Lords amendment, which states that safety will be the No. 1 consideration, that can do no harm whatever in underlining what the priority should be.
      Having listened to the arguments adduced in Committee and earlier this evening by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), I have a great deal of sympathy with what he says. He drew attention to an extremely important fact: our air traffic services combine military and civilian roles. It is absolutely vital for the security and safety of air transport in the United Kingdom that that close liaison between the military and civilian worlds continue. I share his reservations about the risk to safety if air traffic control services were to be run by a private company that was not owned by a company in this country. If it were owned by a foreign company that was perhaps controlled by a foreign Government, there would be serious implications that could impact on air safety.
      I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear the Minister respond to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh. I was detained elsewhere. However, I look forward to reading his reply in Hansard, because the right hon. Gentleman made some very important points about air safety, and I hope that the
      1022
      Minister was able to address them. I am delighted to support the amendment, in a sense speaking on behalf of those in the general aviation community in this country. I know that they will welcome it, too.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I shall not be tempted to move into territory that is outside the remit of these amendments, as you would immediately call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I assure the hon. Gentlemen that I fully share their views, especially the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Aldershot to the calibre and commitment of NATS staff. All hon. Members share his admiration for the service that they provide, and we are of course determined to give them the tools to provide an even better service in future. Safety is the No. 1 priority. These amendments are designed to make that clear, and I shall be delighted if the House agrees to them.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10 agreed to.

    Clause 3

      RESTRICTIONS ON PROVIDING SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 2, line 42, leave out from
      ("area") to end of line 43
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12, 34 to 39, 44 to 60, 66, 67 and 141 to 144.
      Mr. Raynsford: These amendments are largely technical, so I hope that hon. Members will not seek an explanation of each amendment individually. I shall make a few general remarks. The amendments deal with the application of relevant provisions of part I to the Crown, and with provisions relating to the disclosure of information and the air navigation and charging regimes.
      Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 66 and 67 list the provisions that apply to the Crown and provide that the Crown may not be criminally liable and that the armed forces are not required to hold a licence to provide air traffic services. Provision is made that nothing in those Crown application provisions may affect Her Majesty in her private capacity.
      Amendments Nos. 34 to 39 and 44 allow the Secretary of State, in addition to nominating a member of the CAA to perform air navigation functions, to nominate another member of the CAA to consider the relationships between air navigation functions and national security. That may be of interest to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who referred to the dual function of air traffic control providing the service to civilian and military users.
      The meaning of the phrase "chargeable air traffic services" as currently drafted in clause 73 would not include all the CAA's services provided in performing its chapter III air navigation functions, nor would that provision allow recovery of the CAA's chapter IV

      1023
      costs of specifying, publishing or recovery. Where those services are properly recoverable through Eurocontrol, the CAA should be allowed to do so. That is what amendments Nos. 45 to 57 will achieve. Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 place further duties on the Secretary of State to ensure that, as far as practicable, the licence holder is paid the charges due from Eurocontrol.
      Finally, amendments Nos. 141 to 144 are technical improvements, designed to ensure that an inability to disclose information obtained under part I does not frustrate either the functions of the Competition Commission, or those of the Independent Television Commission under specified legislation, or the European Commission in respect of Community competition law.
      Mr. Robert Syms: I am a little reluctant when we get on to the subject of Eurocontrol, given the many happy hours that we had discussing such issues in Committee.
      There is the issue of passing fees on from Eurocontrol via the Secretary of State to, eventually, NATS. In terms of economic regulation, when there is an RPI minus X formula, how does that relate to the charges? We were given assurances in Committee that all the money would be passed to NATS; in which case, do we have a formula to increase efficiency? There has been some debate about the amount of money that the new organisation would have to find in savings and efficiencies. Perhaps the Minister can say a little more about that.
      The Minister mentioned national security. Are we still sure about that matter? The argument was advanced that Europe would not impinge on issues of national security and that we are still able to ensure that that is a legitimate issue—when what we understand to be national security is at stake, the Government can get their way.
      Mr. Raynsford: I will take the second point first. The key consideration in the provisions relating to security is the Secretary of State's ability to appoint a second member of the CAA, who will have the specific role of overseeing the appropriate arrangements for ensuring satisfactory allocation of air space between military and civilian needs. It is in no way affected by the European provisions.
      I turn to the issue of Eurocontrol. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) found it impossible to fail to rise to the bait. That was a cause of much amusement in Committee. If we had had more time tonight, no doubt we could have had a lengthy journey through the more obscure schedules of the Maastricht treaty and other such matters, but lest my remarks tempt anyone to pursue the subject, I will hastily move on.
      The RPI minus X framework sets limits. The CAA will be careful to ensure that charges are set within those limits. The specific provision relating to Eurocontrol is an arrangement under which the sums that are paid by individual users and collected through Eurocontrol are disbursed appropriately to all the members. As the hon. Gentleman will recall from our discussion in Committee, that involves quite a complex process: a rough estimate is made of the appropriate apportionment at the beginning of a period and that is subsequently adjusted when further detail has become available, but those procedures will
      1024
      continue. There is no intention to change them. I hope that I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. There is no secret European plot to prevent the air traffic control system from receiving its necessary dues.
      Mr. Syms: I want to raise just one further point to do with licences. The Minister explained that the provision exempted the military from having to have a licence. In the Bill, the term was "licence or licences". I presume that one licence will be issued under the contract and the new arrangement, and that the inclusion of "licences" in the Bill was, as we thought, perhaps for future arrangements, where there might be a split.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to confirm that. We envisage only one licence being operated initially, but there could be circumstances where other licences might apply in future. That is the reason for the word appearing in the plural.
      If there are no other points, I will urge the House to agree with the Lords in their amendments, so that we can move to the next set.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I warmly welcome Lords amendment No. 36, which deals with the appointment of a national security adviser. Again, putting that in the Bill is important, but may I ask the Minister a question? Subsection (4) of the amendment, which is effectively a new clause, says:
      The national security nominee may authorise a member or employee of the CAA to perform on his behalf the functions which he is to perform by virtue of this section.
      That suggests that the important appointment of that national security nominee could, in a sense, be reduced by that person being allowed to nominate an employee. I wondered in what circumstances the Minister envisaged the CAA nominee appointing someone else for such a crucial matter. I want to give him time to reflect on that point, but he will agree that it is important. It is a delegated power in an important area.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for explaining his point in such detail as to allow me to reflect on it before being required to respond. The provision is included only to make allowance for emergency circumstances—it may be necessary because of force majeure—but it is not intended that the provision would apply in normal circumstances. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.

    Clause 4

      EXEMPTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
      ("(e) may be granted subject to such conditions as may be specified.")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 25, 30, 32, 33 and 133 to 140.
      Mr. Raynsford: You will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the last group that I shall be presenting.

      1025
      This group of amendments concerns regulatory and licence-related matters, as well as the transfer schemes. The amendments are largely technical, and the bulk of the group—Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 21, which concern the powers of the Competition Commission to veto licence modifications proposed by the CAA—is merely bringing our Bill into closer alignment with other utility legislation.
      Lords amendment No. 15 is important because it allows the CAA to relieve the licensee of his clause 8 duty in respect of services that he is not providing. NATS, which will be the licensee, will not be the sole provider of services in licensed airspace, and it would be unduly onerous if NATS were to be bound by statutory duties for services provided by others. That is the purpose of Lords amendment No. 15.
      Lords amendment No. 30 seeks to clarify and strengthen the objective of clause 48(3), which reaffirms the Government's commitment to the two-centre strategy for the development of air traffic control. Lords amendments Nos. 133 to 140 provide clarification to the drafting of paragraph 25 of schedule 6—it contains detailed provisions on transfer scheme arrangements—and make consequential amendments to schedule 7, which deals with taxation matters and transfers.
      Lords amendments Nos. 32 and 33 provide a definition of the term "Northern Ireland Minister" for the purposes of the transfer scheme provisions.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26, 30, and 32 to 67 agreed to.

    Clause 104

      QUALITY PARTNERSHIP SCHEMES
      Lords amendment: No. 68, in page 63, line 43, leave out from
      ("strategies") to end of line 4 on page 64
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 80, 92 to 94, 96 and 145 to 147.
      Mr. Hill: This group of amendments is concerned with the new powers in the Bill for quality partnership schemes, ticketing schemes and bus information, and with better bus lane enforcement. The amendments respond to various representations made during the Bill's passage in another place.
      I wish to deal specifically with the provisions on bus lane enforcement. Lords amendments Nos. 80 and 192 provide that local authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement powers outside London may apply to the Secretary of State to enforce moving bus lane offences. In so doing, the amendments fulfil an undertaking given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, on 17 February, when he said that it was our intention to extend local authority camera enforcement of bus lane offences to outside London.
      1026
      The new clause also provides the Secretary of State with powers to repeal the current camera enforcement regime of bus lane offences in London, under the London Local Authorities Act 1996, and to make regulations to enable Transport for London and London local authorities to operate under the new powers as well. Trials of camera enforcement in a number of London boroughs have shown that where the system is operated and resourced properly, it is very effective in reducing bus lane offences by up to 70 per cent.
      9 pm
      We very much hope that the take-up of these powers on a wider scale will substantially reduce the offences. However, the powers will be available only to local authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement powers. That will ensure that local authorities are able to enforce both waiting and driving offences in bus lanes. The new clause does not give local authorities the power to stop vehicles.
      The new clause provides for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations in connection with allowing approved local authorities, Transport for London and London local authorities to impose penalty charges for moving bus lane contraventions, and the payment of penalty charges. Regulations can specify the person by whom a penalty charge in respect of a contravention is to be paid. As we said in Committee in the other place, we intend, at least initially, to make regulations for areas outside London on the basis of driver liability. However, the matter will be kept under review.
      In London, the current system operates on the basis of owner liability. We consider it prudent to allow owner liability to continue to apply in London for the foreseeable future, but this will be kept under review. If necessary, any changes to liability can be made by regulations, which would be subject to the negative resolution procedure—and I emphasise that.
      As the new clause does not remove the power of the police to enforce moving traffic offences, it has been necessary to include the provision that motorists should not be subject to double jeopardy and prosecution by the police and local authorities for the same offence or contravention.
      I hope that the House will welcome all the amendments in this group. They will allow the benefits of statutory quality partnership schemes to be extended to a wider range of circumstances, extend the scope of through-ticketing powers, clarify the scope of bus information under clause 128 and provide for better enforcement of bus lanes. They are a further demonstration of our desire for a more effective and joined-up transport strategy.
      Mr. Syms: I have just one brief point to raise. In Committee, we had a lengthy discussion on the impact of the Competition Act 1998. I note that since that legislation came into force in March a number of bus companies have been raided in order to discover whether they were involved in cartels or any other problems. A number of the amendments in the group relate to improved text on through ticketing. At one stage there were concerns that if bus companies had agreements on through ticketing or even ticket prices they might be caught by competition law. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Bill will

      1027
      work in the way that was intended and that the concerns about competition are just concerns and are not likely to impact on the strategy for buses?
      Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the amendments. Before pressing the Minister on one particular amendment, let me say that it was a pity that there was nothing in the pre-Budget statement about fuel duty rebates for buses, community transport or express coaches.
      The amendment on which I want to press the Minister relates to quality partnerships. I understand that when the matter was discussed in another place Ministers said that fares and frequency could not be included in quality partnerships, yet I understand that that has happened in Scotland. Does the Minister now think that fares and frequency can be included in quality partnerships or does he still maintain that they cannot?
      Mr. Hill: I begin my response by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your distinguished office. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members present in extending those congratulations and felicitations.
      Let me deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), with whom I expect to have a number of exchanges until a relatively late hour this evening. He raised the ability of quality partnership schemes to stipulate minimum frequencies. The matter has been debated thoroughly, and the hon. Gentleman would certainly have known that, had he been present during those long but stimulating 87 hours in Committee. The matter was debated at length during proceedings on the Bill in both Houses. I can only say that nothing has persuaded us to change our views.
      If the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have reached a different conclusion on the matter, so be it. That is democracy and, dare I say it, devolution. We believe that it would be a mistake to go down that road. As I have said repeatedly, it would blur the distinction between quality partnerships and quality contracts and it would give rise to potential legal and practical difficulties.
      I turn now to the question of competition issues, which was raised by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). I hope that he will forgive me if I read the words before me with some care, as these are delicate issues with many implications. It is therefore necessary to get the matter exactly right—not something for which I am always noted.
      The Government believe that there has been unnecessary anxiety about the potential impacts of the Competition Act 1998. Officials have discussed the point with the bus industry and local government representatives, and have sought to give reassurances. However, if it will help the hon. Member for Poole, I am happy to put the matter on record, although I fear that it may prove to be a little technical.
      In short, the issue is whether, in spite of the special competition test provided for in schedule 10, a strategic quality partnership scheme could constitute an agreement that could be prohibited under section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1998. Our considered view, which is shared by the Department of Trade and Industry and the
      1028
      Office of Fair Trading, is that, in making a quality partnership scheme under the Bill, a local authority is not engaging in economic activity and is therefore not acting as an undertaking for the purposes of section 2 of the 1998 Act.
      In such circumstances, the authority would simply be exercising public law powers in the public interest. We know of no case where the exercise of public law powers of that nature has been held to amount to economic activity.
      In addition, to argue to the contrary, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the 1998 Act is not disapplied by the Bill. However, in the event that I am wrong in my interpretation—and that the 1998 Act would otherwise apply—it is our belief that the effect of schedule 10 is to disapply it. That schedule expressly gives the Director General of Fair Trading powers of investigation and decision in respect of quality partnership schemes, in circumstances where the 1998 Act would otherwise apply. It would be odd indeed if the general provisions in the 1998 Act were to operate alongside the special provisions in schedule 10.
      The Office of Fair Trading, whose view that is, has made it clear that it does not expect to proceed under the Competition Act 1998. All things considered, therefore, we believe that any fear of duplication can effectively be discounted.
      The hon. Member for Poole asked about through ticketing. I can tell him that the Office of Fair Trading is still taking forward its examination of block exemption on ticketing agreements between operators. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, and deals with his concerns.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 80 agreed to.

    Clause 133

      MANDATORY CONCESSIONS OUTSIDE GREATER LONDON
      Lords amendment: No. 81. in page 80, line 25, leave out from ("Any") to ("subsection") in line 36 and insert
      ("person to whom a current statutory travel concession permit has been issued by a travel concession authority and who travels on an eligible service on a journey—

      (a) between places in the authority's area, and

      (b) beginning at a relevant time,

      is entitled, on production of the permit, to be provided with a half—price travel concession by the operator of the service.
      (2) A travel concession authority must, on an application made to it by any person who appears to the authority to be an elderly or disabled person residing in its area, issue to the person free of charge a permit, in such form and for such period as the authority considers appropriate, indicating that he is entitled to the concession specified in subsection (1).
      (2A) In this section "statutory travel concession permit" means a permit issued pursuant to subsection (2).
      (2B) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may issue guidance to travel concession authorities to which they must have regard in determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether a person is a disabled person.
      (2C) Before issuing guidance under subsection (2B) the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales shall consult—

      (a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee,

      (b) associations representative of travel concession authorities, and

      (c) such other persons as he or it thinks fit.

      (2D) A person entitled to be issued with a statutory travel concession permit by a travel concession authority may agree with the authority that he is not to be entitled to the concession specified in")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 91, 95, 148 and 149.
      Mr. Hill: These amendments concern the statutory minimum concessionary fares scheme under clauses 133 to 139. The main effect is to extend the half-fare concessions to people defined as disabled, and to empower the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to issue guidance in connection with eligibility, to which authorities must have regard.
      The Bill, as originally introduced, applied the statutory minimum scheme to elderly people only. Amendments were agreed in another place to extend the mandatory concessions to disabled people, and that extension has been widely and warmly welcomed. It will mean that up to 1.5 million disabled people will benefit from concessions, in addition to the 5.5 million pensioners who were previously eligible.
      In extending the scheme to disabled people, the amendments do two things. First, they refine previous statutory definitions of the various categories of disability, in the interests of consistency and clarity. Secondly, they provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on eligibility for concessionary fares, to which local authorities must have regard. This provision follows representations from both local government and members of DPTAC—the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—to the effect that such guidance would be helpful to those implementing the new requirements at the local level. The amendment requires that guidance should be subject to prior consultation, and we shall be circulating a draft in due course.
      It may be helpful if I say a word about the funding implications and about bringing these provisions into force. During our discussions with the local government associations, it was put to us that the amount of funding we proposed to provide was inadequate to cover the likely costs of the scheme. We have listened to what was said. We have looked again at the figures and in the light of those representations, we are now proposing an annual injection of £54 million into the revenue support grant, which will be distributed to local authorities in the normal way.
      We believe that this is a fair settlement, based on the best information available. It represents a further £7 million a year on top of our previous estimates of £47 million a year to offset the additional costs to local authorities. However, I assure the House that we will keep these matters under review in the light of early experience with the new scheme.
      1030
      We also recognise that there are timing constraints in bringing this new scheme into force, not least for those local authorities that have no concessionary travel scheme at present or will need to make changes that require them to give the statutory four months' notice to the bus operators. Our present intention, therefore, is that the requirement outside London to offer half-fare concessions should not be commenced until 1 June 2001. Again, we expect to be consulting local authorities on that very shortly.
      We believe that that should allow sufficient time to put the necessary arrangements in place. Equally, many authorities should be in a position to bring in the concessions sooner, and we would encourage them to work with bus operators to do so. The funding adjustments to revenue support grant will be in place from 1 April.
      I should stress that we have sought throughout to take into account representations received from local government and DPTAC, and to respond to what all those people have said to us. We believe that the result is a better, more generous scheme, and I commend the changes to the House.
      Mr. Syms: Passenger transport authorities, among other organisations, always complain that, with regard to concessionary schemes in the past, Governments have never fully compensated them, pound for pound, for the additional people riding on various forms of public transport. They have always felt a little short-changed.
      The Minister spoke of £50 million for local authorities, and I presume that that includes passenger transport authorities. Has he discussed with them whether they are happy with the resources given to them to do the job? In meetings that I had leading up to the introduction of the Bill, a number of PTAs made the point that governmental organisations always assume that these are extra riding passengers and that sometimes the authorities were not fully compensated for the additional costs.
      Mr. McDonnell: My point is on a related issue, specific to London. The Association of London Government has welcomed the Lords amendments, which clarify the approach to criteria for eligibility and the issuing of guidance and consultation. The ALG is grateful for the consultations that have taken place with the Minister.
      The London boroughs are already funding the freedom pass concessionary travel scheme, which offers 100 per cent. discount to those eligible. There are no plans to change this level of concession. However, the ALG is concerned that the broadening of eligibility will increase costs for boroughs. The current estimate is that the proposals could result in an additional cost of £14.7 million, which would fall on the boroughs. We welcome the additional money that has been allocated. In the negotiations between the London boroughs and the Government there has been some enhancement, specifically in relation to the acknowledgment that the census data are unrelated to the real needs of Londoners.
      There is still a funding gap, and a range of issues needs to be addressed in the continuing discussions—particularly those which arise from double counting and take-up rates, which we believe will be enhanced as a result of the additional publicity. There is no provision currently for administrative costs. The boroughs believe

      1031
      that there is little choice but to have a full-fare scheme for London, bearing in mind equity in terms of existing schemes. On that basis, the ALG has asked for assurances that the extra resources that the Government provide will be re-examined in the current negotiations. It is keen that the resources should be passported through to the boroughs rather than lost in the vagaries of the rate support grant system.
      As the Minister has said, there will be further discussions and consultations. It would be welcomed if the matters that I have raised were taken into account. Rest assured that, the London boroughs are committed to the extension of this excellent scheme.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Keith Darvill: My point is similar to the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). Having considered the Association of London Government brief, I took the opportunity this morning of speaking to the chief executive of the London borough of Havering. A rough estimate is that the cost of the proposals to that borough will be between £300,000 and £500,000 a year. If the additional funding to take account of these welcome amendments is not passported, local authorities will be left in a worse position. At a time when local authorities are struggling to implement a welcome range of initiatives, funding is extremely important. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
      Mr. Brake: I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) about a possible funding gap in the travel concessions schemes. Local authorities are concerned about the tightness of the definitions that are being used, in relation to the partially sighted, for example. Perhaps there is scope for that to be considered more widely than a definition would suggest. There are concerns about cost implications. Perhaps the Minister be able to offer some reassurance.
      I ask the Minister to clarify when he expects guidance to be issued. I know that he has said that it will shortly be forthcoming, but local authorities need to plan and they need more precise information than that.
      Mr. Hill: Departmental officials and I have had long and detailed discussions with local authorities, the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government on these matters. I was left with a powerful impression that their chief anxiety related to issues surrounding the definition of disability, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) spoke. I think that we have been able to offer them considerable reassurance, both in terms of the changes in definition in the Bill and the specific commitment to provide guidance.
      The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked about tightness of definitions. It will be the job of my Department and local government associations to consult and discuss as guidance is being drawn up. As for when the guidance will be issued, the answer is certainly shortly. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked about the allocation of funding to PTAs. They will benefit from the new money via the metropolitan districts. We have increased the money by an extra £7 million, which is good news for the PTAs.
      1032
      On the other issues raised by London Members, I can offer an assurance that London boroughs will benefit from the extra money. We are still discussing the details with them. On passporting, which was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Hayes and Harlington, we are still talking and are happy to continue to do so until we reach a satisfactory resolution.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 96 agreed to.

    Clause 162

      EXTENSION OUTSIDE UNITED KINGDOM
      Lords amendment: No. 97, in page 96, line 43, leave out ("unlawfully interfered with") and insert
      ("interfered with with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 118, 120, 123 to 132, 150 to 160, 164 to 168, 170 to 188, 193 to 196, 198, 200 to 219, and 221 to 235.
      Mr. Hill: The amendments cover a wide range of changes to parts III, IV and V of the Bill, none of which, I suggest, is controversial. Some of them are essentially technical. I shall draw the attention of the House to just two of them.
      Amendment No. 123 is a valuable measure in support of the Government's road safety strategy. Existing legislation provides the power for school crossing patrols to help school-age children to cross the road. The amendment provides that patrols can assist children of any age to cross, and extends the powers so that patrols can help any adult who needs assistance, such as the elderly. The clause also removes restrictions on the hours when school crossing patrols may operate. That will complete the package of measures to which the Government made a commitment in the 1998 "Integrated Transport" White Paper. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), whom I am pleased to see in his place, because his earlier amendment on school patrols made it possible for us to develop this more comprehensive measure, which I know he warmly welcomes.
      Amendment No. 125 deals with freight facilities grants for shipping. It, too, is a thoroughly useful change, which will extend the existing freight facilities grant to coastal and short sea shipping, as well as extending the scope of inland waterways grants. I hope that it will be welcomed.
      Mr. Syms: I welcome what the Minister has said, particularly on grants to coastal shipping. Given what the Dutch and the Belgians do with small, family owned ships that carry a lot of cargo around the coast, and given that we have many ports around our coasts, congestion on our roads and some difficulties with rail, I believe that much more could be done through coastal shipping. Our waterways are heavily underexploited, and everyone in politics should do far more to encourage use of those facilities.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 99 to 110 agreed to.

    After Clause 234
    Lords amendment: No. 111, to insert the following new clause—Substitute services to be suitable for disabled passengers—
    ".—(1) This section applies where—

    (a) a person who provides services for the carriage of passengers by railway provides or secures the provision of substitute road services, or

    (b) the Authority secures the provision of such services (under an agreement entered into in pursuance of section 202).

    (2) In doing so the person or Authority shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the substitute road services allow disabled passengers to undertake their journeys safely and in reasonable comfort.
    (3) In the event of any failure by the person or Authority to comply with subsection (2), he or it shall be liable to pay damages in respect of any expenditure reasonably incurred, or other loss sustained, by a disabled passenger in consequence of the failure.
    (4) The Secretary of State may by order grant exemption from subsection (2) to—

    (a) any class or description of persons who provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway, or

    (b) any particular person who provides such services,

    in respect of all substitute road services or any class or description of such services.
    (5) Before making an order under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult—

    (a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and

    (b) such other representative organisations as he thinks fit.

    (6) An order under subsection (4) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    (7) In this section "substitute road services" means services for the carriage of passengers by road which are provided where railway services have been temporarily interrupted or discontinued.
    (8) For the purposes of this section a passenger is disabled if he has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which seriously impairs his ability to walk."
    Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment is designed to ensure that when substitute road services are provided in place of railway services, the substitutes will be suitable for passengers with mobility problems. The amendment meets an undertaking given in Committee, and I commend this new duty as an honourable advance.
    Lords amendment agreed to.

    Before Clause 241
    Lords amendment: No. 112, to insert the following new clause—Charge for whole duration of works—
    —(1) In the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, after section 74 insert—

    Before Clause 241

      Charge determined by reference to duration of works.
      74A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an undertaker executing street works in a maintainable highway to pay to the highway authority a charge determined, in the prescribed manner, by reference to the duration of the works.
      (2) The regulations shall not require charges to be paid to a local highway authority unless the Secretary of State has approved it for the purposes of the regulations by order made by statutory instrument.
      (3) The regulations may prescribe exemptions from the requirement to pay charges.
      (4) The regulations may prescribe different rates of charge according to—

      (a) the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by the works,

      (b) the place and time at which the works are executed, and

      (c) such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.

      (5) The regulations may—

      (a) prescribe more than one rate of charge in respect of the same description of works, and

      (b) provide that charges are to be paid in respect of any works of that description at the rate which appears to the highway authority to be appropriate in relation to those works.

      (6) The regulations may make provision for the determination of the duration of works for the purposes of the regulations.
      (7) And they may, in particular, make provision for works to be treated as beginning or ending on the giving of, or as stated in, a notice given by the undertaker to the highway authority, in the prescribed manner, in accordance with a requirement imposed by the regulations.
      (8) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of charges.
      (9) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge—

      (a) in any particular case.

      (b) in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or

      (c) in all cases or in all cases other than a particular case or such class of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed.

      (10) The regulations may make provision as to—

      (a) the application by local highway authorities of sums paid by way of charges, and

      (b) the keeping of accounts, and the preparation and publication of statements of account, relating to sums paid by way of charges.

      (11) The regulations may create in respect of any failure to give a notice required by the regulations a criminal offence triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
      (12) The regulations may require disputes of any prescribed description to be referred to an arbitrator appointed in accordance with the regulations.
      (13) The first regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; subsequent regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

      Regulations under sections 74 and 74A.
      74B. Nothing shall be taken to prevent the imposition of charges by both regulations under sections 74 and regulations under section 74A in respect of the execution of the same works at the same time."
      (2) The reference to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 is to be treated as referring to that Act as amended by this section and section (Charges where works unreasonably prolonged).")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 113.
      Mr. Hill: The issue of disruption caused by street works is of increasing concern to the public and

      1035
      road users. Several measures are already in place, or are being introduced, which are aimed at minimising that disruption. In particular, we announced in April our intention to activate section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which allows highway authorities to charge utility companies for street works that are unreasonably prolonged.
      We have recently finished consultation on draft regulations that set out the detailed arrangements for operating a scheme under section 74. However, we recognise that it may be necessary to introduce further measures if that does not result in a sufficient reduction in the present level of disruption. We will therefore review the situation to see whether further measures may be required on, for instance, powers for highway authorities to levy a charge on undertakers who carry out street works from the first day of works—so-called lane rental.
      New clause 112 allows for regulations to implement such a scheme, but it does not try to set out every last detail in the Bill. Should we activate that power, we will consult extensively with relevant parties. The amendment sets out some issues that we want to cover in regulations, such as the level at which charges should be set and the way in which they would vary according to the location and timing of works. The regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution as I have already confirmed, so the House will be able to scrutinise the proposals in detail.
      New clause 113 modifies the existing power in section 74 of the 1991 Act for the Secretary of State to issue regulations that require undertakers to pay a charge to the relevant highway authority where their works exceed the deadline that had previously been agreed with the authority. In preparing draft regulations, it became apparent that highway authorities would need clear evidence of when works began and ended in order to be able to charge undertakers.
      Following discussion with the relevant parties, it was agreed that the best way of achieving that would be for the regulations to allow notice to be given by undertakers to the highway authorities stating the start and close of works. As the 1991 Act does not allow for such notices, the new clause provides for them to be given and for their content to be prescribed in regulations. As with lane rental, the amendment allows for several areas relating to the levying of charges to be dealt with in regulations, over and above those prescribed in the 1991 Act.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Syms: The Conservative party agrees with the general thrust of policy. All of us have suffered; many of our constituents have suffered not only because roadworks have been carried out, but sometimes because they have not been finished—parts of roads have been dug up and left for some considerable time. That has caused difficulty.
      There has always been a requirement for people to tell the highway authority before they dig up roads. If we move towards a charging regime, setting precisely when work starts and finishes will be important. I wonder whether it will be possible for local authorities to engage in more co-ordination so that when one utility digs up a road another can take advantage of the fact and the same piece of road is not dug up three times in a period. If we
      1036
      can give incentives to local authorities, if they have to dig up the road, to do it quickly, and allow all the utilities to take advantage of that, a great deal of grief could be avoided for the travelling public.
      Mr. Don Foster: I endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and I hope that the Minister will consider his suggestion seriously. All hon. Members present tonight, and hundreds who are not, could cite many examples of problems that have occurred in their constituencies. They may regret that they were not here tonight. This is one example where hon. Members on both sides of the House could obtain popular support back home by saying how desperately keen they are on the amendment.
      While I accept the importance of, as the Minister puts it, consulting widely, does he accept that he should also consult quickly? What is his current estimate of when the regulations will be introduced—as I was delighted to hear, by affirmative decision by both Houses. This is the first occasion that I can recall in my nine years in Parliament that we have had two affirmatives to one negative resolution, and I welcome that.
      Mr. David Drew: I welcome the change. We hear a lot of calls nowadays for deregulation. This is one of the wonderful examples of deregulation that has been an unmitigated disaster. Those of us who have served on councils can wax lyrical about the problems that deregulation has caused. I will not go on about that because the other place has done us proud and I hope that the amendment will be universally acclaimed. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, we will all be acclaiming it in our press releases.
      One of the biggest problems is caused when statutory undertakers have already done the work and apply retrospectively to the local highway authority to complete it. I wonder whether that can be examined. There is certainly a call for some universality in compensation, especially where businesses are affected. I never cease to be amazed by the difference between what undertakers offer. The same people are often affected, and it causes nothing but disagreement when they go to the same undertaker at different times and the sums offered are very different.
      Another reason that the state of the roads is so bad is the number of previously dug trenches. That is one of my greatest bugbears. I hope that inspections are not only carried out immediately, but that a regime of long-term inspection can be set up so that extremely poor work can be dealt with.
      Mr. Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when roadworks such as he describes are carried out, not only is it important to carry out later inspection, but, as the initial covering of a hole or filling in of a trench will drop after a while, it is important that the contractors return to finish the job? That may be some time afterwards; that is why it is so important to carry out such checks.
      Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. The matter relates to time; I entirely agree. I was considering the longer term, when the whole road surface decays because the trench has been dug

      1037
      inappropriately for the surface. It is important that there is a mechanism to check the state of the trenches months and years later, so as to ensure that the appropriate sums are spent. Then, we shall have a decent road surface on which we can ride our bikes.
      Mr. Brake: This is real pavement politics—or at least roadway politics. The businesses in Beddington lane will be overjoyed at the Minister's news.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend the Minister is no stranger to the graceful, sweeping boulevards of Northolt, but those broad avenues that he last saw framed and shaded by noble London planes—and other strange suburban growths—have suffered grievously of late: the same section of road has been dug up not once, not twice, but thrice, in the name of cable television—whatever that may be.
      I know not whether cable television is a utility, or whether it comes under telecommunications legislation, but, in order that I may transmit the information to my constituents—not, in the manner of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), in the form of a million "Focus" leaflets, but in a more intimate focus group, perhaps in licensed premises—could my hon. Friend, who has many admirers in the Northolt area and is known as a great friend of the suburban street scene, let me know whether there is any hope for those of us who have seen our roads thrice dug up in the name of cable?
      Mr. Hill: Given the reputation of my Streatham constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) should not tempt me on the matter of the street scene in our constituencies.
      It is rather a relief that the House is so thinly attended this evening, as clearly we all have our stories about street works. Had more Members been present, this part of the debate would have continued for much longer. The issue evokes enormous passions and interest. I am delighted that we are beginning to take action on the matter.
      Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister help me? I cannot recall whether I mentioned the problems in the London road in Bath.
      Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman did not mention them, but he has done so now. I am willing to take further constituency references before I continue my remarks.
      Several important issues have been raised in this brief but lively debate. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) referred to co-ordination. Co-ordination has two aspects: co-operation between the utilities and the co-ordination of traffic movements when street works are being carried out.
      Regrettably, it seems that in practice the latter is more achievable than the former. It certainly seems to be achievable to ensure that, where street works occur, traffic is not prevented from taking easy diversions around that route. Here in the centre of London, the so-called Central London Partnership, which brings together the central London boroughs and several utilities, has devised such a programme for next year, which will come into
      1038
      effect from the beginning of January. Obviously, traffic movement will be considerably eased as a result of such traffic co-ordination.
      A more intractable problem is the issue—oh so obvious but oh so difficult to resolve—of utilities co-operating. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North mentioned cable television companies. I am told that competition between cable companies is so intense that when local authorities, with the best will in the world, broach with the utilities the issue of co-operation, they are met with sneers of derision at the thought that commercial secrets could be divulged in that fashion.
      We, as Members of Parliament, are very fortunately placed. Hon. Members will recall that, a few months ago, Parliament square was subject to considerable disruption as a result of street works, and there one did have an example of several utilities working together, actually carrying out work at the same time. I suspect that in that case there were special considerations because of the location. We were—although we should not have been—very privileged.
      I reassure the House that in various ways we are bearing down on this issue, and that we shall be looking for a more effective effort at co-ordination by utilities.
      Mr. Syms: Perhaps when the pricing regime is considered, there might be a beneficial pricing regime for utilities that co-operate. That might be a positive way of encouraging co-ordination. I am not sure whether it could be done, but the option should be investigated. If utilities did co-operate, there might be a financial benefit for them in doing so, or even an award of best practice so that we could all know which people were the best at co-operating.
      Mr. Hill: I welcome those two suggestions, which are now on the Hansard record. I hope very much that when we carry out our consultation on these matters, the hon. Gentleman will respond. We shall then carefully consider what I dare say will be his more detailed proposals on these matters.
      The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked for my current estimate of the implementation of the lane rental regulations. We have emphasised that we do not expect the immediate implementation of lane rental. Indeed, we have clearly said that we are taking reserve powers with regard to lane rental, and obviously we shall be working and consulting on regulations.
      However, let me issue a fairly clear warning to the utilities: as from now, the writing is on the wall. We certainly propose to implement, at an early opportunity, the section 74 penalties for overstaying conditions. We will review the effect of those powers and the use of those powers by local authorities, but if it remains the case that they are unsatisfactory, we will certainly consider, very seriously, moving rapidly to the introduction of lane rental.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) paid tribute to the other place for having brought in this measure. I am actually willing to go further and pay particular tribute to Lord Peyton. In the same breath, I should pay tribute to Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, who responded so positively to Lord Peyton's proposals. My hon. Friend mentioned three problems. He spoke about the issue of the retrospective application by utilities for

      1039
      street works. I agree that that is a scandal. We hope that the effective development of software to ensure better co-ordination of notification will enable local authorities to be more insistent that they get proper notification on these matters.
      9.45 pm
      My hon. Friend asked about compensation for those discommoded by street works. I can make no offers on that subject, but we need to think about it in a broader context. He also referred to the phenomenon of the inadequate repair of previous trenches, and I remind the House that a two-year liability was established by a recent court case.
      I very much hope that the writing on the wall that we have provided in the reserve powers for lane rental and our activation in the near future of the overstaying provisions in section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 will stimulate local authorities to be more proactive on the issue of street works. I think that there has been a certain amount of demoralisation historically, but we want local authorities to be proactive and to provide resources at a local level, so that they can scrutinise developments more carefully.
      It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the returns from the penalties will be able to go to local authorities. Central Government have taken several positive moves and we are looking for a constructive, positive and effective response from local authorities.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 113 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 114 to 120 agreed to.

    After clause 244
    Lords amendment: No. 121, to insert the following new clause—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.")
    Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 122.
    Mr. Hill: Both the amendments are new clauses. One deals with quiet lanes and home zones, and the other with rural road speed limits. Both were introduced by the Government in response to Liberal Democrat amendments that were withdrawn.
    Amendment No. 121 will give legal status to the concepts of quiet lanes and home zones, by enabling local traffic authorities to designate them. It will then give the appropriate national authority power to make regulations which, in turn, will enable local traffic authorities to make two new types of order in quiet lanes and home zones: use orders and speed orders. The appropriate national authorities are the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales.
    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"—for example, purposes such as children's play, or simply standing around and talking. Safeguards will ensure that rights of passage, and access to premises, are protected.
    Speed orders will enable the local traffic authority to introduce measures in individual quiet lanes and home zones to reduce traffic speeds below levels specified in the orders.
    The amendment does not provide for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders to be given formal precedence over motor vehicles, which was included in the Liberal Democrat amendment. The Government have thought carefully about that and I am glad to say that we are entirely at one with the Liberal Democrats on the objective, but we believe that it can be achieved within the existing law. We would not want to duplicate existing provisions.
    Amendment No. 122—the rural road hierarchy clause—is less complex. However, I believe that it embraces the essence of the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The clause commits the Secretary of State to undertake a review of all the considerations

    1041
    required to implement the rural road hierarchy, to engage the devolved Administrations and to publish a report within 12 months.
    Mr. Brake: I am obviously disappointed that the Government have not chosen to allow precedence to be given to walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. However, I seek clarification on one aspect of the amendment. Am I right in thinking that the Secretary of State will be required to authorise each home zone scheme? I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not the case because it would be extremely impractical.
    Mr. Drew: I very much welcome the changes. Believe it or not, the subject of speed is the hottest topic in my neck of the woods. Next week, as I seem to do every week, I shall meet constituents to talk about speeding, which is a nuisance in their lives and threatens, in particular, younger people.
    I am concerned about the need for strategic planning to make the most effective use of home zones, speed control and changes in use. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be categorically stated in local transport plans and the partnership agreements that arise from them? Does he also agree that we should be making it clear to local authorities that they have an obligation not just to roll such schemes forward one at a time, but to ensure that there is cohesion and definite strategic thinking as regards their operation?
    Mr. Don Foster: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) in welcoming the amendments, and thank the Minister for generously acknowledging that they are based on amendments that were proposed by my noble Friends in another place.
    It is fair, therefore, that I should pay tribute to the Government, and I acknowledge that they have already provided the opportunity for a number of home zone schemes to take place on a trial basis. It is interesting that the Government have agreed to the schemes taking place on a wider basis before we have had the results of the trials. Will the Minister say how those trials are proceeding?
    Does the Minister agree that one problem is that local authorities have not given adequate attention to preparing the public for the introduction of home zones? They have not done enough to get the signs right to ensure that people can find their way around the areas covered by the schemes. Will he ensure that the Department provides advice on that to local authorities?
    Has the Minister had an opportunity to see the recent work in Bradford? The local authority has introduced new speed limits as part of a home zone-type scheme. I was extremely impressed, as I am sure he would be, to see that it has not only used the traditional 20 mile-an-hour sign with a red circle around it, but—for whatever reason and by whatever authority I know not—ensured that the signs include illustrations by local school children of the benefits of cars travelling at slow speeds. If the Minister is not aware of that scheme, will he find out about it and let me and other interested Members know by what authority Bradford did that, so that I can at least get my local authority legally to pick up what is a very good idea?
    Mr. Hill: I shall begin by responding to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). He asked for confirmation that each home zone would not require authorisation by the Secretary of State. That is the case. The Secretary of State will need to authorise use orders and speed orders, but not home zones as such.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked about strategic direction in the planning of home zones. He is absolutely right to identify local transport plans as the appropriate vehicle for the development and proposal of home zones. We certainly expect home zones and quiet lanes to be included in local transport plans where appropriate. By way of anecdote, I had a meeting recently with Wiltshire county council, which has some very exciting proposals for quiet lanes as part of its local transport plans. We shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion that we might include some guidance on the matter. At the moment, however, we do not insist on either the inclusion of home zones and quiet lanes in local transport plans, or a strategic plan on the matter.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for his kind words on this subject. He is perfectly right; I think that there are 11 pilot home zones at the moment. He asked how they were going. The home zone in my constituency, which I hasten to add was designated prior to my elevation to this high office, is not going at all, and I am bearing down on my local authority on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), who as we all know has been a great proponent of home zones, was telling me that the one in Peterborough at least is going splendidly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be following up his reminder that one needs to track progress of home zones.
    I shall certainly follow up the hon. Gentleman's suggestions about signs in Bradford. He asked by what authority Bradford had engaged in what sounds like a splendid initiative—especially the involvement of local schoolchildren. I shall write to him on the subject. I suspect that his point that the public are often not prepared for home zones is right, but that is of course the purpose of pilot schemes. We shall be garnering the experiences of the pilot schemes and, I dare say, providing advice in due course.
    I am delighted that we have been able to conclude our proceedings on such a note of joy and unanimity.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 122 to 235 agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 31: Mr. Robert Ainsworth, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Phil Hope, and Mr. Robert Syms to be members of the Committee; Mr. Nick Raynsford to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  Connex South Central
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: It is appropriate to follow a transport debate with a debate about Connex South Central and its franchise. The Minister knows that the debate on Connex is one of Parliament's regular features; it happens every couple of months. I am sure that commuters in Carshalton Beeches, Carshalton, Wallington, Waddon and Hackbridge and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) would have it no other way.
  The chronology of the franchise is well known. It was awarded in the dying days of the Conservative Government, and taken away from Connex and given to GoVia on 24 October. The period immediately before and after that date is of interest to my constituents. With a great fanfare, the contract was awarded to GoVia, but there were many similarities between the GoVia bid and that of Connex. I hope that the Minister can reveal the decisive factor in opting for GoVia rather than Connex. I am sure that he has had discussions about that with the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. Perhaps he can also explain how awarding the contract to GoVia fitted the Government's railway strategy.
  Since the announcement that the franchise has been awarded to GoVia, there has been a deafening silence. In an attempt to get the ball rolling and to ensure that commuters know where they stand, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I have asked GoVia to commit itself to a 10-point action plan. Before outlining its content, I shall set out Connex's current position. The way in which Connex deals with the matter is crucial because it officially runs the franchise until 2003. In the past, the Minister has confirmed that there is little that the Government can do in practice if Connex chooses to hang on to the bitter end.
  I understand that the chief executives of Connex and GoVia have met, and that GoVia wants the handover to happen early in 2001, although it is anticipated that it may take longer. I am pleased that Connex has said that it will be as co-operative as possible, but that various matters need to be tackled before the handover can take place. Does the Minister have a view about the likely handover date? Has he set a deadline, even if it is only in his mind, by which it must happen?
  Connex has confirmed to GoVia that it wants the franchise to be passed on as a going concern so that the staff are transferred in an orderly fashion. Clearly, I want that, as do local commuters. A protracted handover could lead to staff departures, which would cripple GoVia's ability to run the service. What measures are in place to ensure an orderly transition? Will the Minister confirm that he expects Connex staff to be transferred to GoVia under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981?
  Clearly, staff morale at Connex cannot be good since the loss of the franchise. Staff will seek reassurances about terms, conditions and pensions—a subject that we discussed earlier in relation to National Air Traffic Services—after the handover. Connex has stated that it is a big company and that it is in its interest to maintain its
  1044
  reputation by not allowing standards to go downhill between now and the handover. It has also confirmed that planned investment will go ahead. I am afraid that that is not necessarily the view of its customers.
  Before I came to the House for the Adjournment debate, I heard a message that had been left on my office answering machine by someone who travels from Redhill on Connex. He said that he was already seeing deteriorations in the service and that such problems were caused not so much by bad weather as by the lack of train crew. Obviously, his concern is that the problems will worsen as the handover date approaches.
  What does the Minister think Connex needs to do if it is to bid successfully for a rail franchise? As I said, there was relatively little difference between the Connex and GoVia proposals for the Connex South Central franchise. During the recent bad weather and disruption, Connex staff acquitted themselves fairly well in difficult circumstances. I have spoken with their representatives and know that some staff have been attacked by stressed passengers in the past few weeks.
  I shall not discuss in detail all the points in GoVia's action plan because my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam also wants to speak, but it touched on the need to ensure that a proper plan of all intended works is displayed in stations so that passengers know exactly why they will experience disruption, and on the need to improve punctuality and closed circuit television systems.
  The items that we listed in the 10-point action plan had been raised with us by commuters. If GoVia can guarantee to deliver those 10 points, commuters will believe that the end of their troubles is in sight. GoVia responded to our action plan by specifically saying that it would seek to keep customers as fully informed as possible of its plans and of progress, and that it envisaged displaying material in stations and on its website. It is also keen, apparently, to keep local Members of Parliament informed.
  A key point is to make such information available, because customers—commuters—need to know that the service will probably get worse before it can improve. Investment is required and disruption may result from that. GoVia intends to introduce a new fleet of trains and to redevelop all stations. The fact that it will provide investment led it to assure us that it will deal with poor maintenance and cleaning. What are the Minister's views on how high levels of cleanliness can be enforced?
  GoVia guarantees to replace its slam-door rolling stock by December 2004 at the latest, but says that that programme will be gradual and reliant on the delivery of new stock. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that GoVia does not have an opt-out clause—it must deliver replacements for the slam-door rolling stock by that date, irrespective of any reliance on the delivery of new stock. It will spend heavily on improving communications systems and will improve punctuality and run longer trains. That will be extremely welcome in the London borough of Sutton, where we all too often suffer from overcrowded trains. Has the Minister or the shadow SRA made a specific requirement to reduce overcrowding as part of the franchise deal to which GoVia will sign up?
  GoVia will improve its customer services department. What does the Minister expect the turnaround time for complaints to be in that enhanced department? It will run more trains later, especially at weekends if there is

  1045
  sufficient demand. Does the Minister agree that, with leisure use booming, train companies should provide services that run much later on Fridays and Saturdays? That would allow people who go up to town for shows to get home at a reasonable hour.
  Apparently, station security will be improved. What commitment does the Minister think the company will have to make to ensuring that all its stations are safe, and how soon will that have to happen?
  The final point that we raised with the company related to orbital services. The company said that it would commit itself to providing the services outlined in its franchise, and that any other suggestions would be considered. Have the Government any plans to work with the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor to develop orbital rail services? That is surely one of the key ways of reducing traffic congestion. More orbital rail services will enable commuters who currently cannot travel into London and leave London by train, because it takes too long, to cut out a lot of car commuting in our part of London.
  I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam a few minutes, so I will make just one final point. It was not included in our 10-point plan, but I want to put it on the record now. Lord Cullen's inquiry into the Paddington rail crash revealed that Thameslink—owned by GoVia—had a poor record in driver training, and a poor record in regard to scrutinising new recruits. What assurances have the Minister and the shadow SRA sought, in relation to training standards and the vetting procedures that will be employed by GoVia once it is running what is currently the Connex South Central service?
  I apologise to the Minister. Once again, I have bombarded him with a series of questions. I see that he is on his own—there is no one in the Box to assist—but I hope he will be able to respond to those questions in detail in the near future, in writing if he cannot respond immediately. If he can respond, he will give commuters in Carshalton and Wallington a sense of security and some hope about the future of their train services, at a time when a sense of security and hope for the future of local rail services is distinctly missing.
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: The Minister is probably almost as much of an expert on the services our constituents receive as we are. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) rightly observed that on this occasion there might not be anyone in the Box to assist the Minister, the Minister has participated in a number of debates on Connex South Central, and has been helpful in responding to concerns that my hon. Friend and I have raised. I think that, as a result, the Minister has become familiar with those concerns. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter again this evening, given the way in which the franchise process has proceeded. It is quite appropriate at this point, with the award of the contract to GoVia, for us to raise the concerns outlined by my hon. Friend, as well as one or two points that I want to raise. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate; I also thank the Minister for the opportunity to speak.
  Many of my constituents are pleased that Connex South Central has lost the franchise and that GoVia will take it on. They see it as a new beginning, and hope that that
  1046
  new beginning will bear fruit—that they will receive a better service than they have experienced over the past few years. I fully support the 10-point plan outlined by my hon. Friend, on which he and I worked together, and I think that many of the hard-pressed commuters with whom I have shared train journeys to this place from Cheam will support it too.
  The franchise system that Members inherited after the general election seemed to many to be about rewarding poor service. It was all about saying that if a train was run on time, it was all right to run it overcrowded and short. It is that sort of service that has made travelling a misery in London. That is why all the indicators suggest that Londoners feel let down by Connex and others, and it is why my hon. Friend and I have raised these issues on a number of occasions in Adjournment debates over the past year or so. We feel very strongly about them.
  My hon. Friend and I have taken a close interest in rail services and have followed the franchise and refranchising process step by step. I want to place on record my gratitude and that of my hon. Friend to both companies for their participation in the process, especially the way in which, in June, they took up our invitation to attend a public meeting—a public rail question time—and directly engage with their commuters about their plans. My hon. Friend and I and the 100 or so commuters who attended that meeting found it very useful in informing our views. It has certainly shaped the development of the 10 points that my hon. Friend outlined this evening.
  I touched on this issue in a previous Adjournment debate, but especially now that the award has gone to GoVia, it is absolutely crucial to ensure a smooth transition from Connex South Central to GoVia—the new train operating company. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, Connex has a commitment to delivering planned investment. It must be delivered across the network for which Connex is currently responsible, especially for the services and infrastructure in our constituencies about which we have campaigned for some time.
  From travelling on the trains and talking to constituents, I know that the fear is that the standards are already slipping and that they will slip further during this interregnum. Therefore, information about the timetable and how long commuters must wait until GoVia takes over needs to be clearly put on record as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend has said, there has been a deafening silence about the timetable.
  It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what the safeguards are and how the transition period will be monitored to ensure that Connex continues to deliver at least the current standard of service and, better still, starts to make improvements. Connex has been running on a pretty ropy timetable for months on end, and it is about time our constituents and other rail users who rely on Connex South Central started to see some improvements.
  Planned investment brings me to my final point: investment in the stations in the area. The Minister will know that I have campaigned for some time for improvements to Sutton and Cheam stations. I am grateful to the Minister for his interventions, which have helped to get Connex off its backside and investing in Cheam station. That has borne fruit; we have a canopy on the London-bound platform, so we no longer get wet when waiting for trains in the morning.

  1047
  I hope that the rest of the programme will be delivered and that the Minister will ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority will continue to keep Connex to its promises. Sutton station still appears to be in flux. Hoardings are still up, and it is not clear whether the company will honour the timetable that it said it would. I hope that the Minister can deal with that—if not tonight, perhaps he could write to my hon. Friend and me.
  The 20-year franchise must transform the services that my constituents receive. Rail users have had a lousy service for the past few years, and they expect better. I hope that the Government can assure us that the service will be better in future.
  10.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this debate and providing a further opportunity for the House to discuss the Connex South Central rail franchise. He secured an Adjournment debate on this very subject on 11 April. I welcome this opportunity to update him on the progress made with the replacement of the south central franchise and to assure him that the issues that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) have raised are, or will be, considered as part of the replacement franchise process.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington commented on my knowledge of the issue. My knowledge has been developed by the educational experience of debating Connex South Central with him and his hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, but I also have a keen interest in the matter, both as the Minister for Transport in London and as the Member of Parliament for Streatham, two of whose stations—Streatham Hill and Streatham Common—are currently served by Connex South Central rail services.
  The House will be aware of the rail network's continuing problems, which have been caused by adverse weather conditions and temporary speed restrictions imposed by Railtrack in the aftermath of the tragic accident at Hatfield. Connex South Central services to and from London are suffering severe delays and cancellations resulting from 20 mph emergency speed restrictions. The company is not operating an emergency timetable, but has planned a series of cancellations about which passengers have been informed. Flooding and embankment damage was the greatest concern on the Brighton main line, which was blocked between Haywards Heath and Brighton. However, I am delighted that the line reopened on Monday afternoon.
  It is clear that both the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam welcome the franchising director's announcement on 24 October that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority had signed heads of terms with GoVia, the current operators of the Thameslink franchise, as the preferred counterparty for the new replacement south central franchise.
  GoVia plans to brand the services, which run to south London, Gatwick airport, Brighton and the south coast, the New Southern Railway. It is expected to run the business for 20 years and, over that period, to implement
  1048
  an investment programme valued at up to £1.5 billion. That will include the introduction of new rolling stock, upgrading key routes and all stations to raise standards, improving train service performance, and providing additional capacity.
  A new franchise agreement will be signed with GoVia once detailed negotiations and funding plans have been developed. GoVia may take over the franchise earlier under the terms of the existing franchise agreement with Connex, subject to agreement of terms for the early transfer of the franchise, which is due to expire in May 2003. It is for the parties to agree the date on which the change will come into effect, in consultation with the franchising director. I have no powers in that regard.
  GoVia will continue to work up the investments, which will be delivered as soon as possible after the new franchise agreement comes into force, taking account of Railtrack planned works and Thameslink 2000 works. In the meantime, Connex is required to continue to meet the requirements of its franchise agreement, including service provision, performance regimes, station standards and customer satisfaction requirements, until the transfer has been made. Failure to comply may put it in breach of its current contract. That may be taken into account by the franchising director when evaluating proposals for future franchises in the replacement process.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked how the newly announced franchise fitted in with the Government's strategy for franchising. The objective of franchise replacement is to secure the earliest possible delivery of better railway services for passengers, including many of the aspirations raised by the hon. Gentleman, while providing demonstrable value for money for the taxpayer.
  It is envisaged that that objective will be achieved on the basis of long-term replacement franchises that will seek to commit to a continuous improvement in safety; to deliver improvements in the quality of service to passengers; to ensure expansion of network capacity and high investment; to treat franchisees and train operators as partners, sharing the risks and rewards that the industry offers; and to encourage operators to build brands, develop markets and provide innovative customer service initiatives.
  This is intended to achieve demonstrable benefits to passengers, covering the whole door-to-door journey experience. To focus attention on that, interested parties have been asked to take account at an early stage of service quality and customer care issues.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to his 10-point action plan. I confess that my briefing indicates that it is merely his action plan. I am delighted to hear that it is a joint effort and that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has also evolved that plan.
  Mr. Don Foster: I agree with it, too.
  Mr. Hill: I understand it now receives the endorsement of the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman—that is endorsement indeed. Hon. Members have made some specific points to which they would like GoVia to sign up, to ensure that their constituents receive the standard of service that they need. GoVia is already committed to some of the points. I shall deal briefly with the main ones.

  1049
  All stations will be brought up to secure station standard, with investment in lighting, CCTV, help points and appropriate staff presence. GoVia will work with the British Transport police and the civil police to crack down on crime. Punctuality will be improved. There will be improved information and additional retail staff, customer assistance and revenue protection staff.
  Slam-door rolling stock, to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred, will start being replaced by late 2001, and all mark 1 stock will be replaced by the end of 2004 at the latest. GoVia will be introducing new trains each year through the life of the franchise. We expect GoVia to deliver those commitments, and it is the franchising director's job to monitor delivery and to ensure that it is secured.
  Additionally, trains will have automatic passenger-load monitoring facilities to help GoVia to provide the resources to meet demand. GoVia is also committed to investment in depots, which includes improved cleaning facilities. All train interiors and stations will be cleaned daily.
  I am aware that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has written to GoVia's group marketing director, who I am sure will give due consideration to all the concerns put to him. The hon. Gentleman has also sought assurances on safety. GoVia has undertaken to support all forthcoming industry safety initiatives and to comply with all relevant recommendations of current inquiries.
  I should like to deal with the early benefits expected from the new franchise, and have already mentioned new rolling stock. It is intended that 396 vehicles will be delivered by the end of 2002, a further 334 by the end of 2004, and a total of 1,000 new vehicles throughout the term of the franchise.
  The infrastructure on the Arun valley line will be upgraded in 2004, and the Brighton main line in 2006, to provide greater capacity.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend know whether GoVia has agreed to take on Connex's obligation on the Hastings to Ashford upgrade? That is a particularly important route to Europe for my constituents in Hastings and Rye.
  Mr. Hill: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has asked that question, as I know that he is eager to represent his constituents' interests. I am therefore delighted to add that, also in 2004, there will be upgrading of infrastructure facilities to allow faster trains to overtake stopping services on the south coastway, and the electrification of the lines between Ashford and Hastings and between Uckfield and Hurst Green, providing through electric trains between London and Uckfield.
  I tell hon. Gentlemen that £200 million will be invested on station improvements over the duration of the franchise, and 37 stations will be developed as community and retail centres. There will also be improved access for disabled passengers, new car parking, and rail/bus integration in conjunction with local authorities, to form quality partnerships.
  I shall deal now with the essential issue of the Sutton and Cheam stations. I understand that, on 10 November, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority wrote to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to reassure him that existing and planned work on Sutton and Cheam stations should not be adversely affected by the change of franchisee. I hope that that will be of reassurance to him.
  Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman also ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority takes on board the 10 points that my hon. Friend has made to him today?
  Mr. Hill: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Hansard record of this debate will be sent to the Strategic Rail Authority. I also assure him that the Orbirail concept is the subject of current investigation and discussion between the Mayor of London and the Strategic Rail Authority.
  I trust that the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Sutton and Cheam will be reassured that selecting GoVia as the preferred counterparty for the replacement south central franchise was done after full consultation and will reinforce the higher standards that we want to establish across the industry. If there are any questions with which I have not dealt, I shall write to hon. Gentlemen in due course.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Developed and Developing Countries
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Like any other Member of Parliament, I know many men and women who work hard, behave responsibly and look after their families as best they can. They rate their success in life by how much they earn and, perhaps, by how much better off financially they are than their parents were at the same stage of life. Occasionally they pause for a moment, often while waiting for their commuter train or as they interrupt their Sunday evening to take yet another overseas call, and wonder whether that is all that there is to life. It is not a thought that many of them feel that they can indulge for long, and soon they are back in routine, wishing that they had a little more time to spend with their children or to care for their ageing relatives. They would be horrified to be thought selfish or greedy. Indeed, most of them feel that they are much less well off than many of their contemporaries or colleagues, and wish that they could earn a little more.
What is true of so many individuals is, in an important sense, true of countries as well. In the developed world, the industrialised countries compete furiously among themselves to win a higher national income year on year. They squabble and negotiate to ensure that they do not lose out in trade deals, or that they are not outsmarted by one of their competitors. Their politicians solemnly recite figures showing more income, higher debt repayments, more exports, more imports, more exam passes, and life expectancy being extended beyond the imaginings of earlier generations, even if the prolongation is often miserably beyond any conviviality as well.
For nearly all hon. Members, the parameters of debate are given. Our job is to see how capable our opponents are to deliver those things and to try to show that we would deliver them better. I do not believe that that is enough. The time has come for our nation to pause and ask itself where it is going and whether its current destination will bring us satisfaction. The time has also come for us to ask ourselves whether our pursuit of goals and the way in which we pursue them is justifiable in this world, almost every corner of which is better known to us than, for example, Cornwall would have been to someone growing up in Newcastle or Glasgow 100 years ago.
I have chosen only one small part of that big, philosophical debate for today. Within the scope of my title, I intend to concentrate on children. They are not only our future, but the most vulnerable part of the world's population. In many parts of the world, they are also the most numerous sector of the population. It is also appropriate, as there is to be a world summit for children in New York in September 2001.
186WH
It is not as though all is well with children in the United Kingdom. I shall take a few figures at random, and point out that 900,000 children live with parents who have problems with alcohol, and that 11,000 are in penal institutions, more than anywhere else in western Europe except Portugal. We also have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe. On the Townsend measure of relative poverty, 4 million children are deemed poor.
Those statistics shame us in Britain, but they almost pale into insignificance against those on children elsewhere. UNICEF reckons that, worldwide, no fewer than 1.2 billion children—one in five—live in poverty. That is a larger number than 10 years ago. I shall provide two more statistics. Every day, 8,500 children and young people become infected with HIV-AIDS. That is a quarter of a million a month. In 1996–97. donor countries gave $350 million to the fight against the epidemic. UNICEF suggests that in that same year they gave $60 billion to keep South Korea afloat financially. What is our contribution, apart from our share of the $350 million? It is to send teams to the worst hit countries to recruit the best of their doctors and nurses because we have signally failed to predict our national needs for such staff.
It is estimated that in 10 years more than 8 million children have been killed or disabled by war. What is Britain's contribution? It is to be the world's second largest arms dealer, in a business in which everyone agrees that it is almost impossible to control the end use of arms, no matter how carefully the first user is vetted.
In the UK, there has been sporadic debate about the propriety of children delivering newspapers before they go to school. For at least 250 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 elsewhere in the world, the debate is a little different. For them the issue is not pocket money to spend on CDs and fast food, but rather whether, at great risk to their health and their schooling, they can turn out enough work to keep their brothers and sisters from starving to death. The fact that for most of them such toil means that they are never in school is a tragedy both now and for the rest of their lives. The future for an adult with no education looks increasingly bleak.
Listen for a moment to the voices of some Zimbabwe's farm children, living on some of the most prosperous enterprises in that country. One of them wrote:
The houses of the farm are very small. You cannot even turn the other side. You have to wake up and go out and then come back facing the side that you want to face. The toilets are very dirty.
Another wrote:
My father died in 1997. My mother does not work and I don't have anyone who can buy clothes for me. At this time I am little happy. There are many things which make me unhappy. If I see others wearing nice clothes, I will just look.
A third said:
When I have finished grade seven I am going to secondary school in Mvurwi. But maybe I will not go because my father has very little wages and the money will not be enough. He will be buying mealie-meal and clothing.
I am not trying to say that the UK is doing nothing about such disparities. Indeed, the Department for International Development is working hard to improve both the scale and the effectiveness of UK development

187WH
aid. The Department needs to become more transparent, readier to learn from other organisations and readier to welcome and learn from complaints. However, as a new Department, it deserves to be congratulated on its progress so far. This is not a partisan occasion. A bipartisan approach is needed if we are to secure our objective. This debate is an appeal for the nation to look seriously at its own goals and ambitions and to ask itself whether they are sufficient in a world so full of human misery.
It is tempting to say that if we go on getting richer, we shall be able to do more for the poor. However, experience disproves that. Between 1992 and 1997, overseas development aid declined among the leading industrialised countries by 30 per cent., at a time when most of them were doing better than they ever had done in their history. The Government have done well to arrest the decline in overseas aid, but the truth is that, even after their welcome increase in generosity, we are spending only approximately 0.3 per cent. of our national income on aid. Yet we boast that we have the fourth largest economy in the world. What destroyed the World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle? Primarily, it was the reluctance of the richest countries on earth to make their markets available to the pathetically small output of the least developed countries. Trickledown? Pull the other one. The truth is that the rich nations, just like the rich individuals who make their policies, are spending more on preserving what they already have than on sharing it with those who have less.
We need to do a lot more, not merely to increase the sums available, but to change our perception of ourselves, our place in the world and the rights and hopes of our fellow world citizens. The insularity and triviality of so much of our media coverage of the world must change. What a Spice Girl wears, or rather does not wear, drives off the front pages anything other than the most lurid kind of disaster, and those images of disaster do not help to increase understanding and real sympathy. A change is needed in the perception of every family in the land.
If we are to secure that change, we must start with our children. I welcome the extra resources being spent by DFID on development education, but we can and should do much more. Young children have an inherent sense of justice. If they are given the information about how much more they have than other children they will want to do something about it, but only if they are given real opportunities to make a difference. That is where political leadership comes in. If they sat down and worked out how to do it, the Government could help schools and families to develop effective partnerships across the world for changing the lives of children elsewhere.
After all, if Nigeria, with all its troubles, can run an effective youth corps to serve its poor and, by sending young people to provinces other than their native province, is breaking down the tribal concentrations, we could surely do the same to serve the children of the Commonwealth. I have a friend who goes every year with his wife to a country in sub-Saharan Africa. They are part of a small group of British teachers who spend part of their precious summer holidays raising the
188WH
standards of teachers in other parts of the world. That could be extended by Government assistance. They would not have to be current teachers who exhaust themselves during the term: I am sure that newly retired teachers would be of equal value.
At the primary school end of the age range, it should be possible to spark the latent sense of justice in small children by telling them that, as UNICEF believes, the goal of universal primary school education could be reached by 2010 if we spent $7 billion a year. How much? Oh, just what the United States of America spends annually on cosmetics or what the countries of the European Union spend on ice cream. How many school children in Africa could be assisted if every school in the United Kingdom went without ice cream for a week?
I know this all sounds idealistic, but it is also self-interested. If we do only the little that we do now for the poor of the world, and if we continue to believe that we can make a difference without it costing us anything from our own pampered life styles, our children will inherit the whirlwind. Already in Sierra Leone, Sudan, Rwanda and countless other countries, orphaned or abandoned children are learning that the only way to survive is to rob others, preferably with a gun. The instability of the middle east is fuelled by the poverty and frustration of children and young people who have nothing more to lose. The same is true in a growing proportion of the world. Just as in the UK we are seeing the first purpose-built estates with high walls and electronic fences to keep out those who have less, so across the world increasing riches are being spent to protect those riches, rather than to enhance the dignity and profit that could come from the talents of millions of children who need our love, not our police, and our generosity rather than our greed.
9.44 am
Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on introducing the debate with a moving speech, which I am sure we all heartily support. He has identified a need for us all to acknowledge the facts of a world in which there is such poverty and such high child mortality, and the question arises how we should respond. Will people be inspired simply by an appeal to their morality and idealism? Sadly, the answer is yes, but no. More than one approach is needed. The question is one of mutual interest.
We should set the goals that the Department for International Development has championed, of halving poverty by 2015 and thereafter repeatedly halving it until we eliminate it. We should continue to pursue that aim for the benefit not only of young children but of young adults and middle-aged and older men and women in the countries concerned, whose lives are ruined by poverty and ill health. In some parts of the world, as the Select Committee on International Development has seen, particularly in southern Africa where HIV-AIDS is becoming such a scourge, life expectancy has dropped by more than 20 years in the past 10 years.
We must address that problem and help to manage it, but we cannot do that sitting in Westminster or in DFID's office in Victoria street. We cannot do it for the

189WH
people concerned. They must be enabled to do it for themselves. I ask myself how we could inspire the British people—and not just the British people but all those with the good fortune to live in comparative wealth in developed countries—to help the poor of the world. As my hon. Friend said, it really depends on the children and young people of the world experiencing the poverty that exists in some of the countries concerned.
To speak personally for a moment, the poverty of Pakistan struck me when I was travelling from London to Singapore in an ancient Hermes aircraft, which broke down at Karachi. I spent a week in Karachi in 1955, eight years after the partition of India. There were the refugees of partition, still living on the banks of the Sutlej river. Those who know that river will know that it is covered in filthy, dirty, slimy mud. On those muddy and infirm banks, the refugees had used any kind of material from Kellogg's cornflake packets to driftwood to build some kind of shelter.
Karachi was full of beggars and young children, many of them mutilated so as to beg more successfully from richer people like me. My first experience of their difficulties came when I gave one of the beggars a few coins, only to find that the news spread fast. Among the beggar children in Karachi, it became an objective to extract from me still more coins or other gifts that I might wish to make, or some, perhaps, that I did not wish to make. I was chased into a doorway. I was extremely frightened and had to be rescued by two policemen who took me back safely to my hotel.
Such poverty was created by the stupidity of man: first, in the partition of India and, secondly, because, in eight years, no one had taken into account how a better shelter could be provided. It sunk into my soul that that creation of man could and should be put right by man: people, especially younger people, must be given the experience to help them to understand what life is like for human beings who suffer poverty and degradation throughout the third world, and in pockets in this country.
We must emulate the Kennedy Administration, which challenged the world with its peace corps, and create a corps of people who are willing to go to villages, slums, refugee camps and even brothels, as the International Development Committee did, to see and feel the conditions, to make human contact with people suffering those conditions, and to admire their resilience, their determination and their cheerfulness in the face of such terrible adversity.
I shall never forget being part of the International Development Committee's visit to the slum children living in Dhaka, where some effort had been made to give them schooling. The schools did not have a regular 9.30 am to 3.30 pm regime. They met in rudimentary conditions and the children were taught by volunteers—mainly women—after dusk, when they could no longer scavenge the rubbish tips. To see the enthusiasm, the bright determination and the exhilaration of a 10-yearold in those conditions showing us that he could read was the reward of that visit. Understanding begins to develop if people can visit those places.
We must encourage the twinning of schools and communities in the developing world with those in this country, so that people can go with a team from their neighbourhood to help people in the third world to build
190WH
schools, pumping stations and houses, showing them the techniques necessary to construct what is needed in a manner that the area can afford. It is not only money that is needed.
Those contacts must be built up over the years so that children from Dhaka and from the slums and rubbish heaps outside other great cities in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Africa can be brought here for a fortnight, as my hon. Friend suggested, to learn from us not only about material things but about the friendships that can, and do, exist between races, religions and cultures. That is why they must come here, even though it sounds impossible. We would probably have to raise the money to enable them to travel, but nowadays, with cheap air travel, that would be feasible. If we manage to do that, it will develop the determination necessary to provide the rudiments of life, the education and the technological developments to enable the people living in slums in those countries to demand their rights and to work to build their own communities. That is how to defeat poverty. With the help and kindness of the human race, and the energy that will be generated by the visits that I have described, we can enable people, young and old alike, to help themselves. However, it will happen only when that coalition of circumstances takes place.
We saw, in Malaysia and Singapore in 1955, what can happen to the poorest countries when they become richer. Those two countries had been fighting the Japanese during the second world war and then the communist Chinese. They had suffered the conditions of war for between 15 and 18 years, and they had only one export, rubber, and that trade was severely disrupted by conflict. Conflict is the poverty maker. We must find a way to settle conflicts without destroying the infrastructure necessary to allow human beings to plant crops and sell the surplus to keep themselves alive. During conflict, all those things are destroyed and development cannot take place.
In the peaceful conditions that came about once the communist infiltration had been stopped, Malaysia set about working the rubber plantations and introducing new crops such as palm oil. New villages were developed, which part-owned the factories. People became shareholders, and they had land to grow their own crops and sell the surplus. They therefore needed roads to take their produce to market. Malaysia's economy is now one of the most powerful in Asia, and it is starting to produce manufactured goods such as motor cars.
The standard of living in Malaysia has risen immensely. However, that is the result not only of aid but of huge investment. If such countries are not in conflict, private sector investment can give them the confidence to employ people. Such investment is profitable not only to the nation but to the people, who can save and invest capital in their own right. That cycle has helped to bring Malaysia out of the serious poverty that it was suffering.
Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those nations can derive encouragement from our country's record. My grandfather was born in about 1850, and I was reading in one of the DFID publications that the average expectation of life in Liverpool in 1847 was only 25.
Mr. Wells: Yes, the developed and the developing world have made huge strides. I mentioned Malaysia because I wanted to show that we should not be downhearted or dejected. Changes can be brought about, but only if we enable people to do it for themselves. Life expectancy in Liverpool changed from 25 years to 75 for men and 80 for women because, through the co-operation of good Governments and investment, much more hygienic conditions were brought about. Better public health resulted from proper drainage, and water being piped into homes made bathing possible for everyone. It was the ability to earn a living and to produce a surplus that brought Liverpool and the United Kingdom to the present state of comparative prosperity.
We have somehow to get the idealism back into our efforts to stimulate curiosity in the people of the third world, so that they are inspired to go out and work with their compatriots. We must help them to help themselves so that they develop the friendships, cooperation and co-ordination that will attract the investment and employment that those countries desperately need.
Another serious point that we must bear in mind involves the important report of the International Development Committee on women and development. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) was a part of that effort, as was my hon. Friend. That report revealed the appalling conditions in which many women live, particularly in the sub-continent of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal. We have to work to change the culture that keeps women in desperately poor conditions and enable them to understand their rights—even if they cannot read or write. We have seen that it is possible to teach them the law.
Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani laws pass any international legal test, but they are not implemented. Not until women are enabled to live a life of self-respect and believe themselves that they can contribute to their family in a way that they cannot at present will we solve their problems, such as those that result from serious overpopulation, for example in India. When women can take control of their own fertility and their lives, with the help and support of their menfolk, we will begin to get real development and relieve the conditions in India, with its high percentage of the abjectly poor—India, Bangladesh and Pakistan together contain a large percentage of the abjectly poor. We must assist and encourage women in those countries to begin to live a life with their husbands and children that has hope and the capacity for growth, so that they can contribute to the intellectual and cultural life of their countries. That means changing Indian culture. We cannot do that, but we can assist people to do it.
We can also encourage the many Indian people who want to change their culture. My hon. Friend took the International Development Committee to a suburb of Delhi where truly inspirational work is being done in helping slum dwellers to build their own houses and install drainage on land that they initially did not own. Most of the people doing that work were women. Some of the children of that settlement now attend university in India and are likely later to have a leadership role so that they can change the conditions for the slum dwellers of India, not just in Delhi but elsewhere.
192WH
That project was made possible because the land that they were living on was eventually transferred into their ownership so that they had control over it. Governments must provide the means of ownership of land and assets for slum dwellers to develop. Such a programme should inspire us all to believe that we can make a difference. It is a challenge of enormous importance to bring about a world in which people have self-respect and better living standards and can make a contribution. I am sure that the Minister's Department is making a great contribution in work that is idealistic but essential if we are to improve life in those desperately poor countries.
10.4 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on an inspiring speech. To me, Andrew, that is the sort of cut out and keep speech—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I realise that this Chamber is informal, but that goes a bit beyond the intention of the Committee that created the Chamber, and the House's subsequent decision.
Dr. Tonge: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was getting carried away, as I was by the speech of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was for me a cut out and keep speech. I still do not download easily; I cut out and keep. That speech will certainly have that treatment, and I suspect that I shall refer to it many times over the next few years. It was important because, in such an emotional way, he made the links that I am always asking people to make. Recently, when we—not me personally, but many people in this country—were shouting and screaming, protesting about fuel tax and complaining that petrol was slightly more expensive here and that we should do something about it so that we can drive our gas guzzlers wherever we want, I kept asking my constituents, "Can you not make the link? A few months ago you were screaming and shouting at me about helicopters to Mozambique and deploring the fact that a baby was born up a tree. You are now telling me that one of the very elements that created that disaster should be made cheaper. Make the link. That is the important thing." However, people never do so. We as parliamentarians, and especially those of us who are interested in development, must keep saying that.
Another link was made for me yesterday. My husband brought to the House a colleague, a doctor from Nepal, who is at St. Thomas' hospital for a few months. He was excited that the consultant whom he had happened to be placed with had a wife in Parliament. He came here and was completely overawed by the place, as people are. When I gave him his ticket to the Gallery to watch questions, he asked whether he might talk to me for 15 minutes, and he poured out his heart about wanting desperately to do something for the people of Nepal while he was over here. He recognised how privileged he was to have had a medical education and to be able to come over here, and—it was the first time that he had been to the west—he still could not get used to our way of life. He was on another planet, and he wanted desperately to lobby me to do something about Nepal and to help the poor people in his country.

193WH
We must constantly make the link between the high technology about which we are all screaming, such as stem cell research and how it should be made available in this country, and the fact that, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, women are dying because of a lack of basic health care, and AIDS is rampant all over the third world. We must make the link.
I intend to be fairly pragmatic, because we can do many things here that can make a difference over there. Last night, at dinner, a colleague asked whether I could list a few factors that were important in development. I jotted down debt relief, corruption, capacity building, education, mortality, maternal and child health, health generally, clean water, HIV-AIDS, arms and arms brokers, trade and trade issues, the environment and human rights, which links them all. He said, "I didn't want anything like that. I just wanted a few pointers." I said, "Well, I'm sorry, but there they are."
The Government are beginning to understand that we need to link not only the third world and ourselves but the various Departments. Joined-up government is essential in development issues, because all the factors that I mentioned are dealt with by different Departments. Without co-ordination, our efforts are pointless: we are throwing money away.
Will the Minister explain, either in this debate or in writing, why there is no signature from the Secretary of State for International Development on annual arms exports? She scrutinises them and is supposed to play a part in saying where it would be dangerous to send arms, so why is her signature not there? Symbolic it may be, but symbols are important, and it should be there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I may be able to help by pointing out that our Department and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are consulted on only a percentage of arms export licences—only those destined for developing countries in which we have a particular interest—whereas the other three Departments are involved in consultations on all the licences.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for his response, but without wishing to offend him, I suspect that it is a little inadequate. Nevertheless, it is very important that DFID be consulted wherever arms are to be sent, because there are many countries that, if they are not in dire poverty now, would be after a civil war, which might be caused by our sending them arms. The Department should have more input into the report and, likewise, the human rights annual report. There can be no Department more concerned with human rights than DFID, yet there is no signature from the Secretary of State on the report.
As a Parliament, we should demand a greater input and influence from DFID on those issues. It seems to me that the Department of Trade and Industry strides across the world destroying much of what has been achieved. Although there has been no decision yet on the Ilusu dam, if we are not careful, huge numbers of people are likely to suffer from one Department's decision, and
194WH
DFID will have to pick up the pieces. The key is to make the link among the various Departments and with the third world.
Mr. Wells: As I understand it, the Foreign Office is responsible for human rights in all countries, and the Department of Trade and Industry must take its advice. Is it not extraordinary that the Minister responsible for the Ilusu dam is not prepared to let us see the advice that he gave the DTI on human rights in Turkey connected with the Ilusu dam?
Dr. Tonge: I entirely agree. It makes one think that there is something to hide. The decision has not yet been made, however, so we must live in hope. What we do know is that if current trends continue we will not achieve the 2015 poverty reduction targets that were published in the White Paper. The World Bank and Oxfam tell us that 70 million more people are in absolute poverty now than 40 years ago.
Although we are making strides in some directions, things are not getting better. They are getting worse. I shall not go through my list in detail because that would take several weeks, but there are some issues that I would like to highlight. The first is trade. I remember the former Member for Tottenham, the late Mr. Bernie Grant, who was a member of our Select Committee and a very dear friend of us all, saying that African countries want trade, not aid. He used to shout from the rooftops about their vital aim: fair trade. They want free trade, but it must be fair. We still are not achieving that.
The actions of the west in trade agreements are damaging the third world and causing it constantly to fall back. We all know the examples, such as the large amount of dumping of agricultural products in third world countries, which affects the ability of their farmers to sell produce. Everyone knows the famous example of the bananas and the World Trade Organisation. I shall not go into details of the case, which anyone can look up. It is iniquitous that the world can hold to a decision that might force Caribbean small banana growers into growing drug crops because they no longer have a decent market for their produce. As I keep telling people, that produce is far better than the stuff that we get from the big banana growers.
When the multinational agreement on investment was being negotiated a year or 18 months ago, we heard a great deal about multinational guidelines for the way in which big companies operate abroad. I repeat that the onus for good behaviour and codes of conduct must be on the multinationals and must be legally binding. It must not be for poor, third-world countries to operate the guidelines. They will never do so, because they want the trade and investment so much that they will cut corners.
I understand from the non-governmental organisations that mail me—they do so three or four times a day, it seems—that an agreement called GATS, or the general agreement on trade and services, will soon be established. If we are not careful, public services in developing countries will also be at risk from the multinationals. We must consider the matter carefully to ensure that public services are not exploited and that facilities such as water supply are not made more expensive for people living in developing countries. It is terribly important that we consider that matter, and I hope that the Minister will speak about it.

195WH
When I took over the brief for international development after the general election, one of the things that had never occurred to me as an innocent in the field, before I had participated in Select Committee visits, was the lack of capacity and the amount of corruption in many developing countries. Lack of capacity often means that even if countries have the money, they may not be able to spend it properly because they do not have the right people to make the right plans. I am sure that the members of the Select Committee who are present would agree that we saw evidence of corruption wherever we went. We saw it from the very lowest level to the highest levels of government. I know that the Department for International Development has addressed that problem. It is important to do so. We all shout for a much higher proportion of our gross national product to go as aid to developing countries, but that is no good unless they have the capacity and the good governance to absorb it.
Mr. Rowe: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. In addition, she may have been as astonished, as other Select Committee colleagues were, to discover that the UK has the feeblest legislation on corruption of all the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. The Home Office claims that it does not need to do anything because the system is working perfectly. As far as I can see, there has not been a single prosecution for money laundering in this country, despite its being well known that, as one of the largest financial centres in the world, the City of London is bound to have a significant amount of laundered money.
Dr. Tonge: I do not have the experience to comment on what is going on in the finance houses or the exchanges of this country, but, if the hon. Gentleman is right, I hope that the Minister will address that problem also.
We all agree on education, education, education. I should like to add one more statistic to those given by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent. Sub-Saharan African countries spent $11 billion on arms in 1998. Universal primary education for all the children in developing countries would cost $8 billion, yet sub-Saharan Africa alone spent $3 billion more than that on arms in one year.
Of course, that brings me—the Minister and the civil servants will groan at this point—to my favourite hobby horse: when will we have legislation to control the activities of arms brokers? Yesterday, I acknowledged that that is difficult, and I do so again today, but so is controlling the drugs trade. We spend billions of dollars a year trying to control the activities of drug pushers and barons, so that we can protect a few people in the western world. What could that money achieve if it were used to chase arms brokers? If we could control their activities, how many hundreds of thousands of lives in developing countries would be saved? We must take this issue seriously, and I hope that the Minister will put pressure on other Departments to introduce legislation as soon as possible.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Despite many debates with the Minister in which hon.
196WH
Members pressed for EU aid to be suspended to those African countries that are known to supply the arms and soldiers that feed the wars, there is still no mechanism by which EU aid can be suspended. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is depressing? EU aid continues to drip-feed into those countries, fuelling the very conflict that she is discussing.
Dr. Tonge: To be totally honest, I am not clear what the hon. Lady is referring to. Is she suggesting that EU aid is used to buy and send arms to those countries? If so, that is appalling and it should be investigated. However, it is difficult to argue that we should suspend humanitarian or development aid on the ground that that country is selling or laundering arms. That happens in every country in the world.
Mrs. Gillan: I was thinking in particular of Zimbabwe, where $250,000 a day was used to feed the war in the Congo. There was no mechanism to stop that direct aid going to the Government. The difficult area is EU to Government aid, rather than the aid that goes directly into projects and reaches the people for whom it was originally destined.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification, and I agree with her. I knew that she would want to mention Zimbabwe, as she often does.
The AIDS epidemic is raging throughout developing countries. Some of those countries, such as Uganda, have admitted to the problem and are taking action. This huge problem will, I suspect, decimate the economically active portion of an entire generation of people in Africa and Asia. In fact, I am depressed about AIDS and I think that it will take time to control it.
I thank the Government for putting progressively larger sums of money into AIDS vaccine research—future generations in developing countries will be eternally grateful for that. As an ex-medic, I know that, as with smallpox many years ago, a vaccine is the ultimate hope for controlling the AIDS virus. The Government began the process with modest sums, but last year they increased funding to £25 million. The Chancellor's latest spending review makes it clear that more money—we have not received the precise details yet—will be provided to foster AIDS vaccine research. I thank the Government for that from the bottom of my heart, because it will make a huge difference to third world development.
Last Saturday night in Kingston and Richmond, I joined my local Bahai community in celebrating the birthday of their founder. The Bahais are concerned about development issues and poverty in the third world, and at the celebration the children performed a dance in which a little boy named Igan—I promised to mention his name—dressed in a black bin bag and bare feet to represent the poor of the world, while the other children dressed in their smart sweatshirts and jeans. Every time Iqan appealed to them, they swatted him to one side. The more he appealed, the more they swatted him, and they carried on having a great time, enjoying life and demanding more and more goodies.
The dance concluded with a great catastrophe, and Iqan fell to the ground. He was prostrate before the children and obviously dying, and they gathered round

197WH
with huge concern. They offered help, caressed his body and carried him from the room in a great gesture of sympathy. I thought, "How appropriate—isn't that what we do all the time?" Every time there is a famine, flood or other catastrophe in third world, we fill the collecting boxes, set up our standing orders at the bank, and say how terrible it all is. Then we get back into our cars and drive to our security-gated estates and forget all about it, having done our bit for the third world by giving money.
As a doctor, this is a hard thing for me to say, but although such actions make us feel good and charitable and absolutely wonderful, they will in fact condemn children in developing countries to a much slower and more painful death, unless we take all the steps to which I have referred to bridge the gap between developed and developing countries.
10.27 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: In the light of the previous three contributions to this debate, I rise with some trepidation. Like the two hon. Members who spoke after my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), I congratulate him on securing this debate and on the sensitive way in which he introduced it. It is clear that he feels deeply about this subject, which he has pursued consistently throughout his parliamentary career. Before this debate, I looked up his entry in Roth's and there was something rather nice about it. It described him as a socially sensitive and caring Christian, and he lives up to that apt description, of which he should be proud. I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that his was a cut out and keep speech.
I could never emulate the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on this subject. He has served in Parliament for many years, and his speech enabled us to benefit from his great knowledge, wisdom and guidance. He chairs the International Development Committee in an exemplary fashion, and all hon. Members, regardless of their political persuasion, appreciate its work under his leadership.
I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if this is beginning to sound like a mutual admiration society, and I shall deal with the Minister in a minute. The hon. Member for Richmond Park gave us a canter around the fields. Her long-standing interest in the subject of development has been well catalogued. She and I have spent many a lonely hour in Westminster Hall debating subjects of that ilk. Only yesterday in this Chamber, we were discussing the Great Lakes and Rwanda and the Government's policy on that area. A Labour Member mentioned that during the recent all-party parliamentary visit to the Great Lakes region she had observed that the eyes of the children were dead. That is a poignant description of the product of conflict, wars and man's inhumanity to man.
We have only to read some of the reports of the child soldiers that are deployed by warring factions in various parts of Africa to be appalled that children are so used and abused. We do not have to go to Africa to see such abuse. We can nip down the road to the other end of Europe and see the results of ethnic cleansing and hatred between communities in Kosovo. I was in Kosovo a few
198WH
weeks ago and went to a small village in the hills above Pristina where some brave Serbs had finally had the courage to return to their village, which was in ruins. Some of our British soldiers were helping to reconstruct their houses. I saw an old woman and three young children with a mother who was obviously traumatised and could not function properly. A 10-year-old girl had undertaken the care of the two younger children and seemed happy to do that, but one could not help looking into her face, which was the face not of a 10-year-old child but of a 90-year-old woman.
There is a fabulous charity in my constituency called the Toy Box, which was started by Duncan and Jenni Dyason. They provide help to children on the other side of the world—the street children in Guatemala city. They started the charity in 1992 and do sterling work. It is appalling that there are still almost 40 million street children in Latin America alone. Charities such as the Toy Box offer a window of hope. Its young student workers, helpers, members of the Dyasons' church and even a well-known company called The Entertainer, which sells children's toys in this country, all support the Toy Box charity.
I received a letter from one of the student workers who has just spent three months working in Guatemala City as part of a project. She said that she had come to love the children, one
of whom, Danny, I will never forget. He is 6 years old and when he was 2
he
and his mother came to live in our girls home. Although memories from his somewhat abusive past resurface occasionally, he is generally a very happy boy who loves to colour, do maths, play sports and read—he is still learning. Each morning he would wake us up to teach him to play the recorder.
There is some hope. I do not know whether that was the particular child about whom I was told a few years ago, but when I first came across Toy Box, I was stunned by a story that Duncan told me. A young girl, aged 12, came into the refuge with her baby, aged about 18 months. They started treating the mother because she was obviously traumatised and then realised that the baby had also been sexually abused.
I admire the people who work with children in areas such as Guatemala. I do not have the opportunity to do that, but they deserve our support and I hope that the Toy Box will continue. We should also pay tribute to the many charities that do sterling work in that respect throughout the world.
The Conservatives share other parties' objectives in seeking to alleviate poverty. I applaud the Department for International Development for recently producing its strategies for achieving the international targets on halving world poverty by 2015. Although we sometimes differ with the Department on the policies that it deploys, we share its aims.
The World Bank recently updated to 1998 its estimates of the number of people living in poverty. The new figures reveal that both the share of the population and the number of people living on less than $1 a day and on less than $2 a day declined substantially in the mid-1990s after increasing in the early 1990s. Sadly, the number of poor people rose again in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. The decline was due almost exclusively to the reduction in east Asia, most notably in China, but progress was partly reversed—and stalled in China—by the crisis.

199WH
In south Asia, the incidence of poverty declined moderately throughout the 1990s, but not sufficiently to reduce the absolute number of poor people, which has risen steadily since 1987. In Africa, the share of poor people has declined but the number has increased. The new estimates indicate that Africa is now the region with the largest share of people living on less than $1 a day. In the countries of the former Soviet bloc poverty has, unfortunately, risen both by share and by number. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the share of poor people has remained roughly constant over the period covered by the World Bank, but the number has increased dramatically.
That brings me to a specific aspect of the Government's policy that I want to raise. There is little point in aiming to bring the poorest in the world out of poverty if the policies that we adopt may work to lower the standards in countries that are above that level already. In other words, we want not a levelling down but a levelling up. I am worried about a proposal that is being considered by the European Commission, and I hope that the Minister can address that in his response.
In September, Pascal Lamy, the European Commissioner for trade, announced that the Commission had agreed to a proposal that will result in the world's 48 least and less developed countries—the LLDCs—being offered, in 2001, duty-free and quota-free access into the European Union for all their products except arms. When Europe's decision to support the poorest nations through trade measures was announced, it was hailed as a forward-looking—and more than required—response, which offers an end to the marginalisation of the world's poorest countries and may, it is hoped, be matched by the United States and Japan.
However, it is now becoming clear that if the proposal—which is described either as the Lamy initiative or the everything but arms initiative—is implemented without significant amendment it may seriously harm every commodity-dependent Caribbean economy, destroying much of the sugar and rice industries and damaging the rum industry's last remaining chance to compete in the EU market. It will certainly diminish further the prospects for Caribbean bananas in Europe.
The EC proposal, which remains subject to consultations and eventual agreement between European Ministers, is politically sensitive and difficult for the Caribbean region to address, and places the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in a dilemma. The region is committed to supporting any initiative aimed at helping the world's poorest nations, as we all are, but it may not be able to accept the EC's proposals because to do so could be at the expense of the special arrangements agreed for commodities in the just-completed Kotonu partnership agreement.
Apart from threatening the future of the sugar beet and banana protocols, the Lamy initiative may also damage, perhaps terminally, the creative ideas being developed on commodity issues by the Caribbean regional negotiating machinery. To complicate matters
200WH
further, the EC proposes to proceed by means of an amendment to an existing regulation, which will not require a joint decision with the European Parliament.
Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Jamaican Trade Minister recently discussed the question of everything but arms with the Germans in Berlin? He told them that the Kotonu agreement, although not fully ratified by European Governments, none the less has legal effect. If the Ministers agreed to admit all goods from the least developed countries without tariff or quota, that would be illegal under the terms of the agreement. The European Union would, therefore, contravene its own agreement with the ACP if it were to go ahead.
Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend's point stands alone, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to it.
I tabled some questions earlier that were transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Minister of State there replied that the Government believe that there is a potential inconsistency between the proposals and the regime. I hope that this matter will be pursued by all Departments involved.
While applauding whatever we can do for the least developed countries and the world's poor, we must ensure that we do not destroy the economies of other countries. It is easy for progress to be reversed. Evidence for that exists in the recently updated World Bank report, in which China has slipped backwards and the number of poor people has increased, even though, statistically, the percentage remains the same. It is so easy to fall beneath the line and return to abject poverty. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the proposals for the Caribbean would not endanger the standards of living in those small, fragile island economies.
10.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I join all other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on securing this debate. I am not allowed to call him my hon. Friend, although that is what he is. In this Chamber, I am not allowed to call him Andrew—although I do outside—and if I were a Member of the Scottish Parliament, with its modern, updated procedures, I would.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent made a thoughtful, philosophical, moving and wonderfully non-partisan speech. I am not sure that I can live up to it. As Opposition Members know, I tend to be a bit of a partisan bruiser from time to time. However, I shall do my best, especially as this is an appropriate time for a debate in which the main topic is concern for children. This is the week of Children in Need—my wife has given me a special tie to wear—but I hope that we shall remember children in need not only for one week, but throughout the 52 weeks of the year, as the hon. Gentleman said.
As well as being a cut out and keep speech, as others have called it, the hon. Gentleman's speech should be titled, following a phrase that he used, "Pause for Thought". That phrase is now used as a title for what is rather cheekily called the God slot on the radio. It is

201WH
right that those of us involved in the hurly-burly of politics, especially in matters such as international development, should occasionally leave the day-to-day and week-to-week routine to pause and consider what we are doing. In our Department, we have tried to do so during the past three and a half years, first with White Paper 1, which dealt with all our work but concentrated on poverty eradication, and now with White Paper 2, which considers the potentially huge threat from globalisation, which is the main topic of concern in developing countries now. Hon. Members kindly acknowledged that we are working hard.
As the hon. Gentleman and others said, we have been concerned about poverty, not only because it is morally right to be worried about poverty in Britain and the deeper and more abject poverty in developing countries, but because it is in our long-term interest. Could we have a more graphic example than the floods of how climate change affects us? I do not mean only in places such as Mozambique, but more modestly but nevertheless dramatically in the United Kingdom. If people who struggle to survive have to cut down trees in the tropical rain forests, there is an immediate and direct effect. That is why we published a White Paper on poverty eradication and why we do everything that we can to help in the context of our development programme.
I shall try to cover most of the points that have been raised. If I cannot do so today, no doubt we shall have the opportunity to return to the subject in this excellent parallel Chamber. As the hon. Gentleman said, the biggest inequalities are between the vast majority of relatively well-off people living in developed countries, and the 1.2 billion living on the margins of existence in abject poverty. I do not want to diminish poverty in Britain, but those people are without adequate food, clean water, sanitation, health care and education. That is why poverty eradication is our top priority.
As hon. Members have acknowledged, Britain has been at the forefront of development agencies, giving an unambiguous commitment to poverty eradication. Since the publication of the report, we have twisted the arms of other organisations—we are members of almost all of them—such as the World Bank, the European Union and the regional development banks, encouraging them to commit themselves to the principal target of poverty eradication and the subsidiary targets. We have been relatively successful in doing that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, officials of the Department and I have worked in all the forums in which we have representation.
People have said that the targets are ambitious, but we think that they are achievable if we have the right policies in the developed and developing countries, and if we have the political will to push them through. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, it is important that we push forward not only development assistance, but other matters that affect developing countries such as trade, investment, agriculture and environment. We are committed to playing our part.
Nearly 7 million children die each year before their first birthday, and 12 million before their fifth, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent said. About 120 million children are without even five years of schooling. Those are shocking facts that we must always remember. To break the cycle of deprivation, we must support all the aspects of the full development of
202WH
children that enable them to realise their rights and to become productive citizens. That means ensuring their survival, protecting them from abuse and conflict and meeting their development needs, especially in health and education. It also means allowing them to participate in decisions that affect their lives.
Let me give an example of what we are doing. In Andhra Pradesh in India, we are helping to get more children out of marginalised communities and into school. That is linked to funding an International Labour Organisation programme, which involves cooperation with Government institutions, the private sector—which plays a vital role—and civil society to develop a state-based approach to tackling child labour. I have a list of all the work that we are doing to support the attack on child labour. I should be happy to provide it to hon. Members, who will have seen the document entitled "Helping not Hurting Children: An Alternative Approach to Child Labour". We have taken the issue firmly on board.
As has been pointed out, the convention on the rights of the child provides the yardstick that we use to measure how the world is treating children. Next September, the international community will meet in New York at a special session of the General Assembly and review how far we have gone over the past 10 years. I remind the hon. Member for Richmond Park that progress is being made, as she was being a bit negative. We must recognise that progress has been made in a number of areas, including, for example, the mortality rate among children under five. In Bangladesh, that rate has dropped from 205 to 106 per thousand. In Uganda, it has fallen from 185 to 134, and in Bolivia from 195 to 85. I am not trumpeting those figures, as a great deal remains to be done, but we will become too disheartened if we do not recognise that some progress has been made. We must acknowledge that we are at least beginning to move in the right direction.
As several hon. Members mentioned, it is not only our policies that must be right, but those of the developing countries. We are sometimes coy about saying that developing countries need to get their policies right. If they are to maximise the benefits of globalisation, they must first create effective systems of government, and we are helping them to do so. They must also take action against corruption, with which we are helping. They must ensure respect for human rights. We are also helping with that. They must promote security, safety and justice for all. Again, we are helping on that area. They must prevent violent conflict, in respect of which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke about Zimbabwe. We are raising the issue of conflict in developing countries and pointing out how it inhibits our debt cancellation and development assistance programmes. Also, developing countries need to make markets work better for poor people and to invest sufficient resources to develop a healthy and skilled work force. Without those elements, the effectiveness of our policies is severely restrained.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister confirm that the amount of EU aid going into Zimbabwe is still at the same level that it was, say, two years ago? I think that

203WH
that is when we had our initial discussion about reducing the aid, when $250,000 a day was going into the war effort.
Mr. Foulkes: I shall write to the hon. Lady specifically about that, as I want to deal with some of the points made earlier.
Of course, concerns were expressed about conflict and arms controls. We have tightened control over the export of arms and have helped to establish similar controls throughout the rest of the European Union. We have stated our commitment to introduce a licensing system to regulate the activities of arms brokers and traffickers. I remind the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that that could have been done a long time ago if the previous Government had taken on board the need for such a system. We are also working internationally to stem the trade in illicit drugs and minerals, which fuels so many conflicts.
We have helped to raise international awareness of the importance of an accountable security sector that is responsible to an elected Government and does not see itself as an alternative Government. Arms brokerage legislation has been drafted, and I assure the hon. Member for Richmond Park that we will continue to press for early legislation.
A number of hon. Members spoke about corruption and I was asked what we are doing in Britain. We recognise that we need to improve our own controls. The Home Office has published proposals for updating British laws on corruption. The Treasury is currently reviewing financial regulation systems in UK overseas territories to encourage compliance with international standards of financial regulation. The Department for International Development is supporting work by Transparency International to develop integrity guidelines. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has set up several measures to prevent UK companies from using its support for corrupt purposes. Bit by bit and area by area, we are taking the matter on board.
We shall never be able to put an end to all corruption in developing countries. Successive Governments have tried to achieve that in this country. To use an isolated incident of mismanagement, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) did recently, to undermine the development effort in Malawi, where we are trying to help the poorest, is downright mischievous. I hope that he will recognise that it was the work that was done on corruption, and not his intervention, that had an effect on the Government of Malawi.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about the European Union's everything but arms initiative. I am sure that she will understand the purpose behind it. It was to provide duty-free access to the European Union for the poorest countries in the world. I hope that she approves of that and accepts that those countries, with the largest number of poor people, are the ones that we should help. To give them duty-free access is useful, but I recognise the problems that that creates, particularly in the Caribbean. We have received several representations on the matter.
As the hon. Lady knows, the Lamy initiative includes a transitional period for goods such as sugar and bananas, to help the Latin Americans and Caribbeans
204WH
to adjust. It is Britain that has taken the initiative in trying to help the Caribbean countries. That is why the carousel activity has resulted in threats to British trade, including in particular the cashmere trade in the Borders. I assure her that we are taking on board the representations, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), from Tony Hylton, the Jamaican Trade Minister, and others.
Mr. Rowe: I realise that the Minister has a huge brief and a short time in which to speak, but I should be grateful if he could make some response to the proposition that the Government could play a real role in creating exchange programmes, youth corps or whatever.
Mr. Foulkes: Like the hon. Gentleman, I wish that I had much more time. I have a great deal to say and will no doubt find another opportunity to say it. However, by wonderful coincidence, I was just about to come to the matter that he raises.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford also raised the question of a British peace corps. We already spend about £30 million a year on supporting volunteer programmes that help to send more than 2,000 volunteers to 80 countries. We have moved away from the kind of scheme that existed when he and I were boys, which meant taking a year out after school or university to go to developing countries. Those activities were good for character building for people such as him, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent and me, but they were not necessarily the best thing for developing countries. Now we want to concentrate on what assistance is best for developing countries. That is what Voluntary Service Overseas, British Executive Service Overseas, Skillshare Africa and others are doing. We support those bodies in their activities and are considering how to support them further. If any ideas are forthcoming, I shall certainly consider them.
As to global citizenship, which the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent mentioned, I am pleased that we have now published guidance to help teachers in schools to incorporate global issues into the curriculum. We have published that for England, we are doing so for Scotland, and next will come Wales and Northern Ireland. We are sending teachers to developing countries and we are including some aspects of development in teacher training. The number of schools twinned with schools in developing countries has doubled in the past year. A great deal is being done—so much that I should like to speak all morning, but I suspect that other hon. Members want to discuss other matters.
I again thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent for securing the debate. It is a pity that we did not have more time, but I assure him that the Government are committed to everything that he said, and I thank him for the kind way in which he and others said it. Progress is often slower than we would hope or expect, but I hope that he agrees that, in the matters I have dealt with, the Department for International Development is making its mark in the world.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I congratulate all hon. Members who participated in the debate, which was of the highest quality.

Climate Change
11 am
Mr Simon Thomas: I take pleasure in speaking in the debate, which concerns the most important international conference this year: the COP6 conference of the parties to discuss the implementation of the 1997 Kyoto agreement.
My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Ceredigion, Cynog Dafis—now the Member of the Welsh Assembly for Mid and West Wales—secured an Adjournment debate on the subject of climate change in 1995. He told me that he was one of the first Members to secure such a debate; the record will show whether that is true. He also told me that, at the time, another Member commiserated with him, saying, "Never mind, perhaps next time you will have an Adjournment debate that will be of interest to your constituents." Following the flooding caused by the recent severe weather, there can be few hon. Members who do not now have a constituency interest in climate change.
I shall give a thumbnail sketch of some of the evidence for climate change, which is the background to the COP6 negotiations that the Minister will attend next week. In August, a Russian icebreaker—a cruise ship taking tourists on what was probably a non-sustainable tourism venture to the north pole—broke through the ice, only to find when it reached its destination that there was no ice, only a mile of open water. In September, at the height of the fuel crisis, there was a little-reported paper from scientists who had been studying ice samples from the Himalayas, which showed that the past decade was the warmest for 1,000 years.
There seems to be a disaster in the making: the thickness of the ice sheet over Greenland has shrunk by 42 per cent. in the past four decades and the area itself has shrunk by 6 per cent., and the annual flow of melted ice from Greenland into the sea is equal to the annual flow of the Nile. If the whole of that ice pack were to melt, the sea level would rise by an amazing 7 m.
In 1850, the Glacier national park in Montana contained 150 glaciers; it now has fewer than 50. In 30 years' time, that national park will no longer justify the name "Glacier" because there will be no glaciers left.
The best prediction is that by the end of the century, sea levels will have risen by 1 m. I shall illustrate that by using a local example. Last week, a blue runner was caught in Swansea bay. A blue runner is not that rare breed, a Welsh Tory MP, although they have certainly left Wales for warmer climes—[Interruption.] No, it was not the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) either, but a Mediterranean fish that has never before been seen in Welsh waters.
Global warming is not in question; the Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, warned at the beginning of the last century that burning fossil fuels could raise atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and create a greenhouse effect. This has been known about by scientists for at least a century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, estimated to have been at about 280 parts per million before the industrial revolution, had climbed to 317 parts per million in 1960, and 368 parts per million last year. That is a gain of 16 per cent. in four decades. I am pleased to say that even the Prime
206WH
Minister now seems to be convinced about global warming. Referring in the press to the recent British weather, he said:
The increasing frequency of such extreme weather does lend support to those who say that global warming is no longer theory, but is a fact of life.
I suspect that the Minister would put it more strongly, and I think that the Prime Minister needs to spend even more late nights with his son slowly learning about environmental change.
There is some debate about whether global warming leads to climate change, and it is important that we lay to rest any such disputes. The planet has warmed by 1.5 deg C since the 1970s, and the 1990s was the warmest decade on record. CO2 emissions are estimated to contribute around 64 per cent. of the greenhouse effect of global warming. Europe and the USA are responsible for 85 per cent. of the man-made CO2—there is, of course, a great deal of natural CO2—in the environment. Some argue that we are living in a period of normal climate fluctuation, and that we are just emerging from a little ice age when the Thames froze over and the state of the Scottish economy forced that unfortunate union between Scotland and England. However, even those who hold such views would tend to agree that industrial emissions exacerbate such climate variations. Dr. Mike Hulme of the Tyndall centre for climate change research at the university of East Anglia—I think that the Minister opened that centre last week—put it very succinctly. He said:
Only the input of greenhouse gases can account for things that we have experienced recently.
He was talking about the recent weather in the UK, but we must also remember the recent, horrific flooding in Mozambique and in south-east Asia. That is the reason for the Kyoto agreement.
In Kyoto we agreed at a national and European level to reduce our emissions of CO2, and other greenhouse gases by 5.2 per cent. from the 1990 levels by 2012. However, since the agreement was entered into in December 1997, emissions have risen by more than 1 per cent. per year. They are projected to be roughly 8 per cent. greater than 1990 levels by 2010. The Kyoto targets, which we discussed at the COP6 conference, may not be strong enough. The royal commission on environmental pollution reports that cuts of 60 per cent. are needed in the next 50 years. I am pleased to say that in a parliamentary answer to me on 6 November, the Minister confirmed that that was the long-term objective of the Government's climate change programme. However, those cuts represent a huge change, and if COP6 is not to be a cop-out, the Government must set the pace for the developed countries, as well as having due regard for the needs of the south.
The Minister called COP6 a make-or-break conference, and I would like to discuss some of the issues to be resolved there. I hope that the Government will look beyond initial compliance and find long-term solutions. It is vital to ensure that domestic policy—our part of the global picture—is the basis for action taken. It would not be acceptable for us to rely on flexible mechanisms in the agreement, such as the USA wants to see imposed, to pass our responsibilities to the developing countries. 1 hope that the Minister will be able to address my concerns about those mechanisms.

207WH
I want to talk about carbon sequestration through the use of carbon sinks, which are not the latest household accessory, but use organic growth to remove CO, from the atmosphere and lock it up. Other Members may wish to comment on that, but I want to raise one problem with it. Carbon sinks lock in industrial greenhouse gas emissions temporarily—50 years is temporarily in terms of the history of the world. Once that organic growth, be it forest, grass or whatever, is burnt or logged or in some way comes to its natural end, the CO, and other greenhouse gases locked into it are once more released into the atmosphere. Therefore, carbon sinks do nothing to alleviate our industrial emissions.
Indeed, it could be said that we are moving along the lines of carbon colonisation. Equity Watch has drawn attention to at least two Norwegian companies that have already acquired several thousand hectares of land in east Africa to use to plant fast-growing trees such as eucalyptus and pine that will not bring any benefits to the local economy, but will be sold off and traded as a carbon sink.
Equity Watch calls that the application of cheap development mechanism-CDM-which COP6 prefers to call clean development mechanism. Developed countries earn carbon credits by investing in clean technology in developing countries. That is good in principle and I assume that most hon. Members would support it, but its practical implications could be unfortunate. The new technologies may be less dirty, but that does not equate to clean. Surely at one level at least, CDM should exclude new nuclear energy and that is one point that I want to stress this morning.
I was surprised to learn through a parliamentary answer that the UK's use of nuclear energy has increased from 21 per cent. of electricity generation in 1990 to 28 per cent. last year. Like many others, I simply assumed that nuclear energy was declining. In fact, it has assumed a greater proportion of our energy generation. Nuclear energy may be less dangerous in terms of long-term greenhouse warming, but its potential for sudden catastrophe, particularly in developing countries, surely disqualifies it as a clean development. The early indications from the COP6 talks, which started among officials this Monday, are not encouraging. Mohammed Barkindo of Nigeria, speaking for the negotiating block of the G77 and the China group, said that it was proving impossible to get the developed countries to talk to them about it. He said that they were frustrated and distressed.
My final point on this aspect of the COP6 talks is to remind us of what was left out of Kyoto—particularly air fuel. A recent report, "Collision Course", published over the weekend by the New Economics Foundation pointed out that the projected 70 per cent. growth of international freight traffic by 2004 will wipe out any gains likely to be made at The Hague. That makes a mockery of the exclusion of such traffic from the current negotiations. Facts can often speak volumes. For each kilo of kiwi fruit imported from New Zealand by air freight, 5 kg of carbon dioxide is pumped into the atmosphere. Clearly, that is not a sustainable way forward.
208WH
The Tyndall centre recently carried out research that matched the countries most and least vulnerable to the effects of climate change to their capacity under their gross domestic product to deal with its effects. The four most vulnerable countries were Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone and Tanzania. They have just $100 of GDP for each citizen to spend on coping with every degree of warming. By contrast, the least vulnerable country is Luxembourg, which can spend $8,800 per head. It is worth remembering that it is the poorest countries that will suffer most from climate change. We have a moral obligation as heavy as that to rescind third world debt or to dedicate to the UN threshold of our GDP aid to developing countries to act against climate change in the COP6 negotiations.
I should now like to say a little about a country not represented at the COP6 talks but which has a vital role to play in their implementation—my own country, Wales. It is important to emphasise that the UK's obligations will be met in great part by the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Indeed, the National Assembly for Wales has a unique role to play, as it is one of only two legislatures in the world that has sustainable development as a statutory duty. It is written into the Government of Wales Act 1998, and we therefore expect a contribution from Wales.
Wales produces some 7 per cent. of UK emissions for just 5 per cent. of population. That is mainly due to coal fire generation, steel production and so on. Anglesey Aluminium produces a ninth of the Welsh total. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) will welcome the agreement for combined heat and power at Anglesey Aluminium, which will no doubt help greatly. However, 5 per cent. of Welsh electricity is produced by renewables. The UK total is only 3 per cent. Perhaps I can look forward to Wales banking carbon credits with the Exchequer in return for full European funding. In 20 years' time, perhaps we shall have a carbon-based formula rather than the Barnett formula to decide funding issues for Wales and Scotland.
Whatever the future, my constituency of Ceredigion currently has 40 per cent. of its energy needs met by wind farms. If one adds the Rheidiol hydroelectric scheme in my constituency—the largest in England and Wales—more than 50 per cent. of our energy needs are now met by renewables. That is good news, but it is also bad news for the Government in terms of getting their message across. Despite having only 5 per cent. of the UK's population, Wales has more than 350 of the 800 wind turbines in the UK. The sort of political difficulties experienced over petrol and fuel prices could be stored up in the renewable sectors in parts of the UK and Wales. Using the same justification, we need to take action for environmental reasons. Rural areas will be disproportionately affected, and the same seemingly weak case will apply; air freight growth alone would wipe out any contribution from renewables. There is also the same potential for a public backlash.
It is proposed that the largest wind farm development in the UK will be in my constituency—58 MW at Cefn Croes, which will produce 1 per cent. of Wales's total electricity needs. It would make Ceredigion the first county in the UK to run on totally renewable energy.

209WH
However, many people do not understand the case. The Government should show a greater commitment to developing renewable technologies.
It was disappointing to receive a parliamentary answer on Monday from the Department of Trade and Industry that showed that Government investment in renewable research, technology transfer and development has been slashed by this and the previous Administration. In 1995–96, nearly £9 million was spent on the renewable development sector. By 1997–98, that figure had dropped to £4.36 million. In other words, it had halved in two years. In the last financial year, it was down to £3.14 million. Those are disgraceful figures in terms of moving towards meeting our Kyoto targets and implementing the COP6 agreements. A tidal generator has been suggested for the Rhyl flats off the coast of north Wales, which could produce 50 per cent. of Welsh electricity needs. However, the entire research budget for tidal wave energy last year was only £150,000.
I will finish with a parable, which is the best way to understand complex issues. It is the story of the French Foreign Minister and his ducks, his herons, his foxes and his fish. I hope that hon. Members will be able to follow it. The tale begins last year, when the French Foreign Minister decided that it would be nice to refill the dried-up lake at the bottom of the landscaped gardens at his official residence outside Paris. Several months later, the lake was restored to its former glory but, subsequently, the first problem occurred. The clear waters were invaded by a particularly potent algae. An environmentally friendly solution was decided on and the Minister imported several dozen algae-eating carp, at considerable expense; perhaps not as much as the fig trees, but still considerable.
The second problem was that the carp attracted a heron, which started to eat them. Despite the French love of shooting small birds, the heron is a protected species in France. The Foreign Minister encouraged—I do not know how—a pair of foxes to take up residence in his official garden; to scare off the heron, mind, not to eat it. As so often happens in matters of the environment, a symbiotic relationship developed between the foxes and the heron, and instead of dealing with the heron, the foxes started eating the mallards that had moved in.
The foxes had to be got rid of, but they produced a pair of cubs and the Minister's family persuaded him to stay their destruction. Therefore, the Minister decided to ship the depleted colony of ducks from his official residence to the pond outside his office at the Quai d'Orsay. That brought about problem number five; the mallards started to mess up a statue of one of his illustrious predecessors—I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent East (Mr. Livingstone) would have something to say about that. "Well, its simple," he thought and had the statue moved back to his residency, where it joined the heron, but not the foxes, which he had moved, and unfortunately not the carp. Why not the carp? Because the lake had drained dry.
We meddle with the natural balance of nature at our peril. The COP6 negotiations provide a crucial opportunity to restore that balance. The hopes and
210WH
expectations of people in the United Kingdom and many in the developing world rest on the leadership that the Government must and can show.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I cannot think of an appropriate parable, but I plead with those who wish to participate in the debate to be brief. If Members speak for less than eight minutes, all who wish to can speak, but I must allow the winding-up speeches to start at 12 o'clock.
11.20 am
Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing this debate. I welcome his reference to his predecessor, who deserves credit for being instrumental in alerting hon. Members to the dangers of climate change at an early stage. I endorse everything that he said about the seriousness of the problem and the issues facing us at the conference in The Hague next week.
I note the promotion that he gave to his constituency and the extent to which sustainable technologies are already operating in Ceredigion and in Wales as a whole, but he conveniently overlooked the fact that Wales contains some of those who are most aggressive and militant in their determination to pollute the planet. An educational role exists for him with some Welsh farmers and hauliers. Our debate this morning is appropriate not only because of the COP6 conference next week, but following yesterday's fuel protest, which showed that a considerable body of opinion in the United Kingdom remains unaware of the significance and danger of burning excessive fossil fuels. It is a timely reminder for all of us that work must be done to improve the flow of public information and the level of public understanding.
The Government deserve enormous credit for the lead that they have shown internationally. My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment have been instrumental in moving the political agenda at an international level and I welcome what the Government have done. I particularly welcome the speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the CBI Green Alliance conference two or three weeks ago, in which he gave an important commitment to put the environment on the political agenda and to promote policies of sustainable development, and in which he put money behind important new concepts, particularly by increasing the amount for renewable technologies and establishing the Carbon Trust.
The policies outlined in that speech were reflected in the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement last week, in which the word "environment" was heard more often than in any other Budget speech in the history of this country. We all have reservations about what he did not say, and we all know that there is much more to do on transport taxation in particular, but the pre-Budget statement was an important step forward in the consolidation of environmental and fiscal policy in the United Kingdom.
Earlier this year, the Government published their draft climate change strategy on which there was a period of consultation. We expected the strategy to be published and it would have been logical to publish it before the COP6 conference. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister will tell us when we shall see it. At

211WH
business questions last week, I asked whether, if it is not published before the end of this week, we can have a full statement on the Deputy Prime Minister's return from The Hague and an announcement of when the final strategy will be published.
I turn to the clean development mechanism to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion referred, and the inclusion or otherwise of nuclear energy. I welcome the fact that the European Union's position is not explicitly to include nuclear energy within the CDM, but to compile a positive list of clean and renewable technologies that contribute to sustainable development. Our Government's position is not quite so clear as that of the European Union, in that they believe that it should be left to the individual host country to determine for itself what constitutes a sustainable energy policy. The United States, the G77, Australia and China are in favour of including nuclear energy in the CDM.
It is indisputable that burning uranium in nuclear reactors does not directly increase carbon dioxide emissions, or, as far as I am aware, those of other greenhouse gasses. However, if we consider the whole nuclear cycle and all the associated activities related to the burning of uranium, nuclear energy as an industry produces considerable quantities of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.
One could argue that the carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear energy were lower when compared, like for like, with gas or coal. However, it has one insuperable problem that other forms of energy do not have: a propensity to sudden, inexplicable lapses in safety, with all the appalling dangers that can result. Well-documented disasters in recent years include Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and, on a smaller scale, the case of the Sellafield radioactive pigeons flying round the Lake district.
The continuing, serious problem with safety was well documented earlier this year by the nuclear installations inspectorate report into the processes at Sellafield. Although the operation by BNFL has improved significantly over recent years, the NII report continued to condemn lapses in safety practices in the nuclear operations at Sellafield. Additionally, no one knows the solution, at present, to the more serious long-term problems of the disposal of radioactive waste and the treatment of plutonium.
The Government will produce their own policy for radioactive waste management in the next few weeks, which may make some reference to what is to be done with the 60 tonnes of plutonium that are to be stockpiled in the United Kingdom—a stockpile that will increase to 120 tonnes between 2010 and 2015. It is difficult to argue that nuclear energy should be seen as a clean development mechanism when there is the propensity for breakdowns in nuclear power plants that can have such catastrophic effects, and when no one on the planet knows how to dispose of nuclear waste or immobilise plutonium safely.
The clean development mechanism is an important strand of the Kyoto protocol. I hope that the Government will stiffen their resolve and support for the European Union's position to exclude nuclear energy from the CDM. I also hope that they will continue to
212WH
argue the case, as they have done strongly in the past, for genuine renewable technologies. The future for energy policy and the solution to climate change lies in the exploitation of new technologies. We may not yet be aware of some of those technologies. Those that are at an early stage of market development and hold remarkable potential include photovoltaics and solar hydrogen, as well as the wind and wave power already mentioned.
Although the nuclear industry in the northern industrial countries is keen to export its products to the southern countries, it is the latter that have the greatest potential for the development of genuine clean sustainable energy. I hope that Ministers will urge those points at The Hague next week.
11.29 am
Mr. David Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing this Adjournment debate on the third day of the crucial meeting in The Hague, which we all hope will reach agreement on setting the global rules for implementing the Kyoto protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. If ever there was a time for a united front by the world community on any environmental issue, that time is now, and the issue is that of tackling global warming.
One of the Kyoto mechanisms by which emission reductions can be achieved is the innocuous-sounding clean development mechanism—at the heart of which, from the perspective of the USA and its allies, is the ability to invest in projects in developing countries that are claimed to reduce emissions and to count them as a credit against their own targets.
The most controversial aspect of CDMs is the inclusion of so-called carbon sinks to absorb the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. In essence, the protocol states that parties must account for carbon emissions and take-up from afforestation, reforestation and deforestation. That creates perverse incentives for removing old growth forests and creating new plantations, as has been seen in Australia and elsewhere. For example, Japan and Canada are trying to secure rules that would allow them not to count emissions from cutting down forests, but to count the carbon stored when plantations are grown back on the land. That is, to put it candidly, barmy.
The USA, Japan and Canada also claim that they can use all kinds of additional activities—such as agroforestry, urban greening and cropland management—to meet their targets. The EU opposes any crediting of those activities. That is right. Many such activities would happen anyway and therefore count as business as usual. Some countries want to claim credit for what would happen without human action, such as increased vegetation through nitrogen or carbon dioxide fertilisation. That is logically and environmentally unsustainable, and would blow a hole right through the Kyoto protocol. Allowing forest activities in the CDM is a distortion. It offers cheap and temporary credits to industrialised countries—hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon a year, with a likely estimate of about 300 million tonnes—while still allowing them to increase their fossil fuel output.
To allow carbon sink projects in the CDM would be to sanction cheating by industrial countries. Every tonne of carbon supposedly retained in such a project is

213WH
one more tonne that the developed nation can pump into the atmosphere. It lets the north off the hook; totally undermines the impetus for domestic action on greenhouse gas emissions, which are so damaging in their impact on climate change; and removes the incentives to invest in energy conservation, to develop renewable energies—as the hon. Member for Ceredigion illustrated—and to achieve energy efficiency. Those are the only real hopes, in the medium and long term, for combating climate change.
A number of other fundamental problems are linked to the use of biological systems to absorb and retain atmospheric carbon dioxide. On impermanence, the fact that carbon storage in biological systems is reversible—for instance, through forest fires—means that reliable monitoring is required over long periods.
Another difficulty concerns who is responsible if carbon losses from sinks occur in future. Such losses could arise, if recent findings are correct, when ageing forests become net carbon generators midway through the next century. Just days ago, the Hadley centre published research in which its computer climate model predicts that, as soils warm and forests decay, land sources will switch from being net absorbers of carbon to net emitters by 2050. That, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, would be a mind-blowing result.
Other uncertainties about biological systems include the worry that carbon sinks could damage biodiversity. Forests that are good carbon sinks are not optimum areas for biodiversity. Carbon sinks are also often people's homes, and ascribing their environment a carbon value would increase the threat to indigenous peoples' land rights. More generally, there may be a loss of sovereignty for developing countries that are associated with sink projects. To count as a carbon offset, a plantation would have to remain intact for a specified period. In effect, the host country would surrender control of the land, which would then be subject to international surveillance and verification. Where does that leave future Governments who may wish or need to develop another economic role for that land, and find themselves prevented from doing so? Sustainability must be not only environmental but economic and political.
Greenpeace, of which I am happy to be a member, says that, in essence, sink projects are a way of dumping responsibility. It is right: at the best, carbon sinks are a partial and highly uncertain answer to the climatic changes that may result from global warming. The planet's soils, forests and seas do not have the capacity to absorb our ever-increasing emissions. The real answer—the only answer—is for the developed nations to reduce their emissions. It is we in the north, with our use of fossil fuels for more than a century and a half, who have caused the global climate change, which seems to be gathering speed with such damaging effect. It is we who have the prime responsibility for tackling the crisis by reducing our carbon emissions.
Sinks are merely a tree-lined window dressing, behind which we are pressuring developing nations to accept environmental responsibility for our industrial past and present. It is little more than third millennium colonialism for the wealth-creating, pollution-generating nations of the north to try to coerce our
214WH
southern neighbours into cleaning up after us through low-value or no-value schemes—schemes that transfer no positive technology and produce little prosperity.
Uncaring United Kingdom Governments—but not the present Government—have routinely allowed unwanted people to be dumped in sink communities. Negligent nations meeting at The Hague must not get away with dumping their unwanted economic side-effects on sink countries. Our priority must instead be to reduce our fossil fuel emissions. We must target transport emissions in order to improve air quality—and the quality of life—for the cities of the north and south alike. We must reduce our reliance on coal and oil in order to drive down mercury contamination and reduce acid rain. We must invest also in renewable energy projects to transfer state-of-the-art technology to the countries of the south, thereby speeding their economic growth and development.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to seek agreement at the COP6 talks this week and next on excluding sinks from the CDM. If sanctioned, the sinks will increase the real prospect of us suffering a damaging climate change. Kyoto raised the hope that the 6 billion people on planet earth could work together to confront the grave environmental problems that face us all. Let not those hopes be dashed. The political dinosaurs must not have their way, or our descendants could share the fate of those earlier dinosaurs. Global warming is that important.
11.37 am
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on initiating this important and timely debate, once again proving himself to be an excellent successor to Cynog Dafis, who was highly regarded on this matter.
I am sorry to say that there is considerable inconsistency in the Government's environmental policies. In a recent speech, the Prime Minister committed the Government to following green policies. The recent climate change programme set out the ambitious target of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent. The Minister for the Environment intends to take the lead in the discussion at The Hague in support of a narrow definition of carbon sinks. And the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement introduced a 3p cut in low sulphur petrol, although that fuel is available from only 10 outlets in Wales and does not lower carbon dioxide emissions. By cutting duty on that fuel, the Chancellor is sidestepping the climatic effect of traffic to ensure short-term popularity.
No mention has been made of the more environmentally friendly alternative of liquid petroleum gas. Only 16,000 LPG vehicles have been sold this year, but the manufacturers believe that, given the right incentives, as many as 250,000 could be on the road within a few years. The Government are not acting on that.
Dissatisfaction with the Chancellor's statement has been expressed by many sectors. In a strange alliance, Greenpeace and the RAC are demanding that the Government should use a portion of fuel tax to start what they call a green fuel fund, to be used to protect the climate and human health by promoting alternatives to

215WH
oil. That is one alternative to the Chancellor's short-term fix to the fuel protests. He could use his next Budget to offer a way out of the high environmental and financial costs of using oil.
The Chancellor should also have targeted his fuel tax cuts towards rural areas. Prices in rural petrol stations are considerably higher than they are in London or Cardiff. By bringing rural prices into line through subsidy, the Government could have eased the considerable burden on rural drivers. In many rural areas there are no public transport alternatives. Further investment in public transport—as I have said, a serious problem in rural areas—was notably absent from the Chancellor's statement, as was any reference to the thorny issue of possible congestion charges. No one is addressing that politically unacceptable question. Cutting tax for cars with 1500 cc engines is a step in the right direction, but means that there is no incentive for people to have cars with smaller engines. Why not have a graduated scheme across the board? Why should the measure apply only to new cars as opposed to the range of older cars on the road?
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that research into renewable energy sources has been steadily decreasing since 1995. I would like to add to that by reference to the recent 19th round of oil licensing. In a recent question, one of the Minister's colleagues confirmed that carbon energy would be at the centre of the Government's energy policy. One cannot square that with trying to decrease carbon emissions by 20 per cent. The Minister for the Environment stated recently in a reply to a written question that although carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by 7.5 per cent. between 1990 and 1997, the figure has not decreased further since 1997. There is a danger of stagnation in that important area.
My hon. Friend referred to the clean development mechanism, as did the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor), and I will not refer more to it other than to say that I agree with what all three said. Evidence suggests that we will have simply to put up with the hardships caused by the recent extreme weather throughout the country. We will have to deal with such problems again and again in the coming years.
About 3,000 homes throughout the UK were flooded and the transport infrastructure paralysed. The storms have cost the insurance industry an estimated £500 million and the Association of British Insurers says that if, as is likely, recent weather patterns continue, insurance premiums will increase substantially. Meanwhile, the costs of building properties that are able to cope with flood alleviation are rising. Ten per cent. of the population of Britain live in flood-risk areas, accounting for about £200 billion of property. Damage from flooding could eventually reach £1.8 billion a year and the value of properties on flood plains or near rivers could plunge by as much as a third. There is also the problem of rising sea levels, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion eloquently said.
On Monday, I visited the constituency of Clwyd, West to look at the flooding in the town of Ruthin. The town was severely hit, with many properties under water and businesses brought to a standstill. Unfortunately,
216WH
the Government's response has not been good enough. They have offered Wales an additional resource of £3 million to deal with the damage. An estimated £5.5 million is needed in Ruthin and the county of Denbighshire alone—just one unitary authority out of 22—to alleviate the problems. I know the credentials of the Minister for the Environment and respect him greatly, but I ask how committed his Government are to reducing emissions, encouraging more renewable energy, decreasing traffic and countering the effects of global warming that have sadly become apparent. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is sincere, but I question the Government's determination to tackle that serious problem.
11.44 am
Ms Joan Walley: I congratulate warmly the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). To refer to the work of his predecessor and the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Minister in this debate, Ceredigion, climate change, Kyoto and COP6 are all synonymous with getting the environment at the heart of public policy. I welcome this brief debate and I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions returns from The Hague we will have an opportunity to debate this important matter in the House.
Climate change should be a mainstream issue. The general public should regard it as one of the most pressing issues currently facing us. Our efforts this morning will help to ensure that there is a general understanding of the importance of climate change and the effect that it could have on future generations. We must find a way to make it a key issue to be debated by the British public. That is especially important in light of the third assessment of atmospheric warming by the United Nations' official research body—the intergovernmental panel on climate change—which, I understand, is likely to find that the rate of warming is twice the initial estimate. That is a pressing problem that we all face and that we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to do something about.
I cannot help thinking about a previous debate that took place in this Chamber, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) discussed global citizenship and the work that has been done by the Department for Education and Employment to promote that in schools. A tremendous amount could be done in schools and through twinning to move that issue up the agenda.
I wish to stress to my right hon. Friend the Minister that, more than ever, we need joined-up government thinking so that he can take the lead in negotiations in The Hague. When he returns, we should use joined-up government to implement what will, hopefully, have been agreed. In addition, I hope that, through the green Ministers' committee, he will provide more support for renewables, in order to build on the Prime Minister's speech last week in the City. The money that is now available from the climate change levy can be used to invest in renewables throughout the country.
As we will have a centre for renewables in every part of the country, I would like to make a bid for the west midlands centre to be located at Chatterly Whitfield in

217WH
my constituency, which is a grade 2 scheduled monument currently being worked on by English Heritage. Chatterly Whitfield was a powerhouse of the past, and it could become a powerhouse for the future promotion of renewables. That would create work and jobs in communities that have been abandoned since the closure of the colliery. It would also allow us to link the local with the global.
I would like my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider the work of the CBI and to find a way to ensure that there is no resistance from the business community to the imposition of a climate change levy. We need sustainable technology for the long term, so I want business to take a clear lead.
In the brief time available, I would like to flag up the issue of refrigeration. I remember much of the debate in the House about 10 years ago on the importance of the Montreal treaty and phasing out CFCs, which were responsible for ozone depletion. I am conscious that HFCs, which have come to be regarded one of the substitutes for CFCs, themselves contribute to global warming. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to do everything that he can in The Hague to ensure that we support the work of Denmark by committing ourselves to an early phase-out of HFCs. It is possible that HFCs could comprise 4 per cent. of our greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, which would be almost a third of the UK target. We need an early phase-out of the products concerned, and I want the UK to lead the way on that.
I am mindful of last week's prestigious launch at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the new environmental policy unit. In pursuance of joined-up government, that unit, with its input from business and from various Departments, will become a player on the world stage that could help us to make progress on this issue, so that we can tackle the vulnerability of developing countries.
I want to pick up on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor). He talked about the importance of not going down the route of carbon sinks, and I want to refer to developing countries in that context. According to the Red Cross, 96 per cent. of deaths from "natural disasters"—in fact, we are talking about unnatural disasters—occur in developing countries. UN figures show that, by 2025, 80 per cent. of the world's population will live in developing countries, and many will be at risk from cyclones or flooding.
According to Christian Aid's information on unnatural disasters, 12 of the 14 disasters to which it has responded since 1997 were caused by extreme weather conditions. The cyclone that hit south-east Bangladesh in 1997 left 1.5 million people homeless, and the floods that began in September 1998 affected three quarters of the country. In 1998, Hurricane Georgia caused extensive damage in the Dominican Republic and Haiti, El Nino-related floods brought disaster to Peru and there was a drought in Sudan. In 1999, there were mudslides in Venezuela. Those events should create major headlines and be the cause for great concern. We should properly take on board the precautionary principle, so that we can prevent such disasters rather than dealing with them after the event.
There are concerns that the proposed flexible mechanisms that are under discussion in The Hague fail to fulfil the principles that should underpin the UN
218WH
framework convention on climate change. They fall short of the precautionary principle, and ignore equal rights. When my right hon. Friend the Minister visits The Hague, I want him to feel secure in the knowledge—as was my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on his visit to Kyoto—that the UK can play a leading part. I recognise the contribution of Wales, and I applaud its sustainable policies. I want to ensure that we ratify the 5.2 per cent. cuts, but that should be only the first step. I want work on a new agreement that is effective and fair, but it is important for industrial countries to provide aid and investment to developing countries, so that they can avoid future dependency on the fossil fuel economy. We do not need to keep reinventing the wheel.
During last week's severe weather debate, I urged my right hon. Friend the Minister to take the lead in initiating public debate, and 1 hope that today's debate will take us one step forward in that respect.
11.53 am
Joan Ruddock: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing today's extremely important and timely debate. Perhaps the only positive outcome of the recent floods is the change in public understanding, which is critically important. Environmental awareness in this country had fallen off, but it is now very much on the increase. Research undertaken on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund and the Energy Saving Trust suggests that 83 per cent. of people reject the belief that climate change is good for the UK. People had begun to buy the stories of how they would be able to make red wine in their back gardens, but they now understand that climate change poses a very real threat. Four out of five respondents said that climate change causes freak weather conditions such as storms and floods, and women expressed more concern—as they so often do—than men. That is important, because behavioural change will be the responsibility of individuals.
Most people have not acted, however, and there is an important message in that for the Government. We have failed to explain adequately what our eco-taxes were designed to do, which is part of the reason for the fuel tax crisis. Much more work remains to be done. I realise that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has always been active, but on that front it is for the Government as a whole to increase public awareness of the issues involved.
Most hon. Members who have spoken today have begun by acknowledging information from scientists in recent reports from the Hadley centre and in the draft report from the international group that reports on such matters. Clearly, the debate is now not between the majority of the 3,000 international scientists and the few who do not agree that global warming is a reality. It is between the majority and those who are saying that global warming is much worse than predicted. We must all take that on board.
The debate has three elements—the international community's responsibility, our domestic responsibilities as a nation and our responsibilities as individuals. At every level, we shall have to act even more seriously and rapidly than we have to date.
The Government cannot be faulted on their approach to the international community. My right hon. Friends the Minister for the Environment and the Deputy Prime

219WH
Minister have been an example not only in how they have developed our domestic programmes and held them up as an example in the international community but in how they have worked tirelessly to encourage and cajole others to follow in similar ways. We can rely on them in the COP6 talks to press strongly the principle of supplementarity, that domestic measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should form the basis of the action taken by every nation, and especially industrialised ones. We can expect them to shame the United States, in particular, for its selfish adherence to the so-called flexible mechanisms as a way of avoiding making domestic cuts.
I agree with what other hon. Members said about nuclear power in the CDM. I believe that our Government will argue that emissions trading is not a substitute for taking domestic action. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is convinced—I am glad that we have all shared in that conviction—that carbon sinks are a small part of the equation and that there are real risks in countries adopting them as a way forward.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will raise the issue of taxation of aircraft fuel, because there is no doubt that that is the biggest single issue that the international community has failed to tackle. It must do so, for the reasons set out in the report on global transport growth and climate disaster, to which the hon. Member for Ceredigion referred.
COP6 also gives us an opportunity to consider our domestic responsibilities. I speak as someone who was active in our party's development in opposition of the targets to which the Government now adhere—a 20 per cent. reduction on 1990 levels of carbon dioxide, and 10 per cent. of electricity to be produced from renewables, by 2010. Those two targets are vital. I believe that the United Kingdom will easily meet the Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. reduction, and I am sure that we shall have confirmation of that when the report on the Government's climate change programme is published.
We should go further. Aiming for 20 per cent. is something that we owe to ourselves and the world community. I am not convinced, and nor are others, such as SERA—the Socialist Environmental Resources Association—and Friends of the Earth, that the draft programme provides a secure basis for achieving the 20 per cent. target as opposed to the obvious 12.5 percent.
Why should we do so much more when other nations are often doing so little? Because it is our duty to the international community and because we can. We have the resources to do it, and it is in the public interest. The Environment Sub-Committee has already given its professional and expert view that a greater increase in the use of renewable energy in Britain is possible.
When I was in opposition, shadowing the position now occupied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I proposed the target of 10 per cent. electricity production from renewables by 2010, and it looked exceedingly ambitious. Today, it looks exceedingly modest. I believe that it will be possible to double that target, so I hope that he will press my right
220WH
hon. Friend the Chancellor to build on what he has done this year when he forms next year's Budget, to give more incentives to other forms of renewables, to consider solar again, to encourage increased use of wind power and to think about biomass.
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister comment on the inclusion of legally binding targets for renewable generation in the EU renewables directive? I understand that our Government may be ambivalent or may even oppose that, so I would be interested to know the reasons why.
I have not time to talk about many other aspects of Government policy, so I will concentrate on the issue of energy efficiency improvements to buildings. It would be helpful if the energy industry published energy consumption figures by postcode. We need to know much more of what goes on in our communities, and we must be able to create new incentives for the average owner to improve energy efficiency in the home.
We can all contribute through individual behaviour. If hon. Members did not see Monday's edition of The Guardian, I refer them to Ros Coward's excellent 10-point plan for how we can all contribute, in our own small ways, to the reduction of greenhouse gases and, consequentially, global warming. I urge my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do their utmost to ensure that agreement is reached at COP6. That agreement should be designed to produce emissions reductions in industrialised countries and, critically, be a first step towards the equity-based allocation of emission rights.
12.1 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). I especially liked his parable, which reminded me of Carshalton ponds in my constituency. We need to introduce congestion charges on the ponds for the Canada geese, which live quite happily alongside a suburban fox population. I should like to focus on the Government's pre-Budget statement and the assessment of its impact on climate change, the role of the United States, and the need for a long-term strategy.
It would be churlish not to recognise that the Government have a greater awareness of environmental issues than the previous Administration. That is largely down to the influence of the Minister, and of the small band of environmentally friendly Labour Members who are present. The Government believe, rightly, that the environment should be at the heart of their decision-making process, so I hope that the Minister can confirm what discussions he, or perhaps the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, had with the Chancellor about the environmental implications of the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement. If any such discussions took place, it would seem as though the team at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was outmanoeuvred.
Steven Twindale is the policy director of Greenpeace, of which I am a member. He said that the pre-Budget statement
hasn't cut taxes on alternative fuels such as bio diesel and compressed natural gas…Although the statement did introduce reduced tax on Ultra Low Sulphur petrol, sulphur isn't such a big

221WH
problem with petrol anyway, and therefore is just a gesture…There are other new technologies round the corner that the government should be giving far more support to, such as fuel cell vehicles…These could reduce emissions by 50 per cent. immediately, and in the long run by 100 per cent. with renewable energies.
Finally, he makes a point that other hon. Members have made, which is that renewable energy and the Government's investment in it have not been successful so far. A total of £89 million has been spent on biomass and offshore renewable energies compared with £100 million on coalfields, apparently.
It is therefore clear that from the environmentalists' point of view, that the pre-Budget statement has not done what was required. I should think that it has also failed to accord with the Government's draft climate change strategy, which stated:
Alternative fuels…can offer both greenhouse gas and air quality benefits…It is necessary…to stimulate the take-up
of those fuels.
Perhaps we should consider the Government's own assessment of the pre-Budget statement. According to table 6.2 on page 139, relating to road fuel duty differentials, ultra-low sulphur petrol price reduction will reduce nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. However, there is no mention of CO2 reductions because, as other hon. Members have said, there will be none as a result of the differential in question. Have the Government failed to refer to that because, according to page 86 of the 10-year transport plan,
increases in fuel duty reduce the general level of traffic growth and CO2 emissions
and therefore, presumably, decreases in fuel duty must increase the level of CO2 emissions? If that is the case, and I am sure that it is, I should expect some bad news in table 6.2 as well as some good news. The Government have been quite candid in setting out the table, for example highlighting the fact that a reduced rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power will increase carbon dioxide emissions.
My second topic is the impact that the United States has on climate change. Developed countries such as the United Kingdom are the villains with respect to CO2 emissions, but the biggest villain of all has to be the USA. Does the Minister agree that much more hangs on the spoiled ballot papers in America than the outcome of the US elections? The election of Al Gore might mean a successful outcome to the climate change negotiations, but the election of George "Dubya" Bush would be a disaster. No one can doubt that.
The attitude that the US adopts in The Hague will make or break the negotiations. If it was right to impose sanctions on South Africa over apartheid, and on Iraq for its treatment of its own people, surely it is right to impose sanctions on the world's most powerful nation, the last super-power, if it chooses to pursue an anti-environment agenda that threatens the long-term survival of the planet. What sanctions would the Government support? Those would of course apply equally to the United Kingdom if it failed to meet its target. Perhaps sanctions are too radical and financial penalties are what would be required. Will the Minister seek to block proposals by the United States to rely on carbon sinks as a means of meeting targets? I am sure
222WH
that he accepts that carbon sinks are not for eternity. At best they will buy a little time, but they will become carbon generators later.
I want to press the Minister on the extent of the cuts in CO2s emissions that he thinks will be required to stabilise climate change. He has already said in response to a parliamentary question that he thinks that a 60 per cent. reduction in CO2 is needed. If that is so, what national and international measures will the Government implement to achieve that significant cut, and over what time scales? If he is short of ideas, I commend to him "A Strategy for Sustainability", a Liberal Democrat policy paper, which I launched at our party conference in September. It outlines how emissions could be reduced by 50 per cent. from 1990 levels in the next 40 years. It is available free on our website if the Minister or his assistants want to print it.
The outcome of the COP6 conference will either secure or destroy our global future. The Minister will have the support of all hon. Members who are present today, and many others, I am sure, if he goes to The Hague and argues for the toughest possible action to be taken on climate change. We expect nothing less of him.
12.9 pm
Mr. Damian Green: I join hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Thomas) on securing the debate. I, too, wish the Minister well in the Hague, as it is in the interests of people in this country and around the world that that important conference continues the momentum of Rio and Kyoto and comes to a successful conclusion. The conferences are not less important because they continue a process.
I am happy to agree that the Minister represents Wales as much as any other part of the United Kingdom. Wales should not feel unrepresented, because it is represented by the UK Government.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who said that she wished that the environment was a more mainstream part of political debate; I assume that she meant that it should have as much political salience as debates on issues such as health, education and transport. A peculiar, but beneficial, side effect of the horrors visited on many people by the recent floods is that the environment and how best to combat climate change will be higher on the political agenda.
A relatively small band of enthusiasts turns up to debates on the environment. Discussing the issue means debating big, long-term politics and complex and controversial scientific matters. Those who want the environment to be higher up the political agenda do not serve that cause if the debate is conducted in simplistic, black-and-white terms.
It was alarming that some contributions to the debate verged on straightforward anti-growth rhetoric; they were not just attacks on the west, the north or the United States but on economic growth itself, which was deemed a bad thing. That is a foolish proposition; it is unarguable that if there was a world agreement to reduce growth, poor people in poor countries would be

223WH
affected first, and most severely. Turning the argument in favour of the environment into an argument against economic growth is unhelpful.
Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Green: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I would usually give way, but we are under pressure of time this morning.
I shall speak briefly about the key issues before the conference and about the Government's tactics and their performance in respect of Britain's contribution to climate change. Hon. Members spoke about the important issue of carbon sinks and I confess that I thought that the debate was moving into rather simplistic territory on that subject.
The Minister for the Environment is not sure whether carbon sequestration can make a significant contribution to the CDM and I ask him to clarify his thinking on the matter. I am aware that he will not want to give away every detail of a negotiating stance, but it would be helpful if he could give us some details on that issue and on other technologies that he believes should be included within the CDM. Nuclear power does not contribute to carbon emissions but there are other serious questions to be asked about its future. What will be the Government's position on that issue in the conference?
Another area that has not been covered this morning but that I suspect will feature quite largely at The Hague is that of emissions trading. Many of those who are most sceptical, for instance about carbon sinks, believe that emissions trading is a way for developed countries to evade some of their responsibilities. If the Government are tempted to go down that route, I urge them not to do so because there is clearly a serious need for precautions and for limits on how much can be put under the banner of emissions trading. All those who wish to participate in an emissions trading system should be required to meet certain prerequisites in their domestic actions before being allowed to participate.
Having said that, a proper, well-run emissions trading system would offer a powerful, market-based method of driving down carbon and other emissions. We should not let the caveats that we would all wish to issue outweigh the virtues that can come from a decent emissions trading system. If the Government are to play the leading role that they claim for themselves, their own record must bear examination. I do not share the unquestioning praise that many hon. Members have expressed during the debate for the Government's record on emissions reduction. They have set themselves an ambitious target on that, on top of the Kyoto commitments, but while they may not admit it publicly, everyone privately knows that the principal reason that they will be able to meet the Kyoto targets and possibly the more ambitious targets is our reduction in the use of coal, which largely took place from the 1980s.
I do not wish to make partisan points, so I turn to the report of the royal commission on pollution, a body with impeccable and impartial credentials, which states that it is extremely doubtful that the measures in the Government's draft strategy will achieve their targets.
224WH
Indeed, the Government do not think that they will hit the 20 per cent. target for reduction from 1990 usage. The royal commission itself says that there is therefore
something of a hole in the government's climate change programme.
I agree with that. I suspect that the Minister will take the opportunity to tell us when he will unveil the policy in its full glory. If he does, perhaps he could, for the convenience of the many hon. Members who will wish to attend, say whether he will make a parliamentary statement this Friday—otherwise, many hon. Members who would be interested may not be here. The underlying point is that the Government's great claims to virtue in regard to Britain's performance on carbon emissions do not stand up to the detailed scrutiny to which the royal commission subjected them, and that will weaken their ambition to play a leading role in the matter.
My final point is on tactics and on whether the Government can continue to play a leading role. If the Minister is to act as a kind of bridge between the EU and US positions, I urge him to resist the temptation to lapse into anti-American rhetoric. There has already been a report this week of his attacking the US stance on emissions. He should avoid going down the route that the Liberal Democrats apparently favour, comparing the US Government to Saddam Hussein's Iraq and apartheid-era South Africa, which was not a helpful or sensible contribution to the debate. He should resist that cheap anti-Americanism and retain Britain's credentials to act as an honest broker, as I suspect that honest broking will be needed over the next week or so.
I hope that the Minister has a successful week, that the conference succeeds and that the UK plays a significant role, because this is vital, not just for the people of this country, but for people all over the planet.
12.20 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I would like to respond immediately to the good wishes that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has just expressed, which I think were echoed throughout the Chamber, for the Government's success at this important conference. I should like to commend the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) as a worthy successor to a tremendous advocate of the green cause. His speech today focused on a lot of the key issues and I will try to deal with as many of the points as I can.
I regard sinks as one of the make-and-break issues in these negotiations. I have always supported a narrow definition. I will come on to what I mean by that in a moment, if I get that far. However, because there are questions of scientific uncertainty and impermanence—forests burn, die back and are corrupted by pests—and there are problems with base lines and the degree of additionality that one can fairly attribute to sinks, I am extremely cautious.
The EU's position on the CDM is quite clear. We had a long debate on this at the June Council. We agreed that there should be a positive and exclusive list. By that the EU means that it excludes nuclear, which it does not regard as a clean, sustainable technology. The question of air travel and whether there should be a tax on aviation fuel was indeed omitted from the Kyoto

225WH
protocol. Off the top of my head, I believe that aircraft fuel accounts for 3 to 5 per cent. of nitrous oxide, which is one of the main greenhouse gases. If airline travel doubles over the next 10 to 20 years that can be expected to increase. There are problems, because the US is resisting action on this. I will say a little more about how we may be able to tackle the issue.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion also mentioned renewables. Of course we have our 10 per cent. obligation. Ceredigion should be congratulated on its 40 per cent. of energy from wind farms. It is an excellent precedent for many other parts of the country. I agree that the great moral of the fuel crisis, whatever one thinks about cuts in fuel duty, is the need to switch from over-dependence on oil towards renewable sources of energy, particularly wind power, but also biomass and solar power.
The figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted for expenditure on renewables are correct, but that is now being turned around through new investment that has been announced over the past few weeks and through the portion of funds recycled from the climate change levy and other new funding. There is a focus on important newer technologies: £89 million is now committed for offshore wind and energy crops, and there is also £12 million for planting grants for energy crops. I would be the first to say that that is not enough, but there is a definite momentum in that direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) said that some people had not made the co
nnection between the fuel crisis and climate change impacts. I liked the newspaper cartoon of someone proudly rowing down the high street with his coracle full of petrol canisters. That made the point very nicely. The climate change strategy will be published this week, before COP6.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the CDM and said that he did not regard the technology as clean and sustainable. I think that that view is widely shared in the EU. A lack of clear policies for immobilising plutonium or for long-term—one uses the phrase with a view to geological time—disposal of radioactive waste, occasional flaws in safety procedures and lack of managerial rigour and capacity building in some developing countries mean that there can be no ultimate and total guarantee against potentially catastrophic accidents. That is the background against which the EU debate was held.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) asked about carbon sinks and the Hadley centre conclusion about the switch from net absorption to net release, which is serious. He also mentioned the social consequences of loss of sovereignty by native peoples who are displaced by widespread planting, which I recognise. My point about sinks is that the Kyoto target of 5.2 per cent. would save about 250 million tonnes of carbon. With the increase that occurs in the interim, before it falls back—it is to be hoped—below 1990 levels, the figure might be 1 billion tonnes. A loose or unrestricted definition of carbon sinks could give scope for an increase in the allowed emission of carbon of about 2 billion tonnes. In other words, it could wipe away all the benefits to be gained from Kyoto by strict action from other countries. My hon. Friend asked for sinks to be excluded from the
226WH
protocol. They cannot be, as they are dealt with directly in articles 3.3 and 3.4; it is simply a question of how they are regarded.
I shared extremely enjoyable discussions with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) in Committee during consideration of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. However, I think that he is being less than fair on this occasion. He referred to the 3p cut in ultra-low sulphur petrol. First, half the gain for hauliers—£560 million this year and next year—comes from a reduction in vehicle excise duty. For motorists, raising the threshold for the £55 cut in vehicle excise duty from 1000 cc to 1500 cc means that the advantage is available in respect of 4 million cars. Secondly, the cut is not a general price cut in conventional duty but is concentrated on ultra-low sulphur petrol, which is currently used by only about 35 per cent. of motorists. No doubt such use will increase because of the incentive. If so, the environmental gain in the reduction of nitrogen oxides and particulates will be considerable.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the suggestion by non-governmental organisations that a green fuel fund be established. Fine. We have set up a fund, whose exact title I forget—it may be the green challenge transport fund. It asks industry to develop alternative fuels and says that we—or, rather, the Treasury—will offer major or substantial reductions in duty. We are moving in that direction and are keen to make progress.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned rural areas—of course, his own constituency is one—and appealed to us to reduce prices. A moment before, however, he was telling us not to do so. The ultra-low sulphur petrol cut of 3p will especially benefit people in rural areas. He said that we had not referred to transport investment. That is because we have mentioned on other occasions payments such as £170 million on buses in rural areas and the 1,800 new or enhanced services. Over the next 10 years, there will be an investment of £180 billion in transport.
The hon. Gentleman said that carbon reductions have stagnated. Indeed, they have not fallen significantly over the past two or three years. However, we have not yet published, let alone implemented, our climate change strategy. As to flood defences expenditure, we are spending about £400 million over the current three years. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned an extra £51 million, and we are considering what can further be achieved with local authority leaders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) mentioned more support for renewables. I listened to what she said about her constituency projects; it is a nice idea. On the Montreal protocol and ozone depletion, we have given a clear signal that we need to phase out hydrofluorocarbons in the next investment round. In some ways, of course, there is no alternative to HFCs, but have given a clear signal to industry that it needs to come forward with new technologies.
I realise that I am running out of time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I promise to respond to all the points made during the debate, but I shall continue speaking until 12.30 pm—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Time is up.

Lymington Community Hospital
12.30 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Lymington hospital has 112 beds, 60 of which are located in an infirmary and are primarily intended to provide rehabilitation for elderly patients. In addition, the infirmary provides 20 hospital day places. The hospital provides beds for medical, surgical and maternity treatment and has theatre sessions for general surgery, urology, oral surgery, ear-nose-and-throat surgery and gynaecology. The best measure of the hospital's importance, however, is the hole that it would leave if it no longer existed.
Dr. David Balfour is the chairman of the New Forest primary care group, which is to become the primary care trust that will take over responsibility for the hospital. He wrote to me on 14 November, saying:
The local health economy could not absorb the amount of work being done at Lymington if the present hospital were to close. Southampton already has significant problems around lack of space…bed shortages, lack of theatre space…as Southampton increasingly develops as a regional specialist and cancer centre, waiting lists for standard secondary care services are increasing. It is worth noting that one third of all endoscopies done in Southampton and South West Hampshire are done at Lymington. Also if the local Health Economy then had to absorb some 7,000 admissions, 20.000 outpatients, 4,000 day cases, and 17,000 casualty attendances a year, chaos would ensue.
Those 20,000 out-patients, 17,000 casualty cases, 4,000 day cases and 7,000 admissions are a measure of Lymington's contribution to local health care. However, there is a problem.
The infirmary buildings date from 1836 and the hospital dates from 1913. They are dilapidated and unsuited to modern health care. Transport is required between the two hospital sites. For instance, the X-ray and casualty facilities are separated by hundreds of yards of corridor.
Despite the dedication and the overwhelming efforts of the staff, leaving things as they are will result in an unacceptable decline in services, and ultimately to the hospital's demise. Even with a £3 million major refurbishment and remodelling, the hospital would achieve only the minimum acceptable standards.
I believe that the development of public policy will give community hospitals an even more important role, given the increase in elderly patients and the winter crises to which we have been subjected in recent years. In a written answer last Thursday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, ltchen (Mr. Denham), said:
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. 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.—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 378–79W.]
I submit that many more than "some" of them will have to be in community hospitals. In fact most, if not all, will have to be so, because those beds will not be found in residential homes and nursing homes. All over the south-east of England developers are queueing up to buy such homes and build residential properties on the plot. That is certainly the case with Farnley house in
228WH
Lymington and Kivernell house in Milford-on-Sea. Therefore, the role of community hospitals is increasingly important.
We believe that the efficiencies achieved by a level transfer of the existing beds and facilities at Lymington to a designed, purpose-built modern environment will allow the treatment of more patients and provide a wider range of services. That is an exciting vision. We aim to develop a radical intermediate care facility that will make a significant contribution to the health needs of the people of Lymington and the New Forest, and to the local health economy. We want to develop an efficient unit dealing with diagnostic services, day cases, short-stay surgery and rehabilitation. To realise that vision, fundraising began in 1980 and the PFI initiative was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities in 1995. A full business case was presented, which was praised by the private finance unit, and much of the credit for that is due to the chief executive of the Southampton Community Health Services NHS trust, Mike Lager. The site for the new hospital has been purchased and is already under preparation as a result of more than £1.5 million in funding raised by the League of Friends of Lymington hospital. That is a tremendous credit to them. How many hospitals begin with such a signal of good will from their local community? I take my hat off to the fundraising efforts of the League of Friends over many years.
However, there is a fundamental problem. On 2 November, the NHS executive called off negotiations with the Rotch-Schroder consortium, which was bidding to build the £23 million private finance initiative scheme for the new Lymington and New Forest community hospital. Where do we go from here? We expected the new hospital to open at the beginning of 2003, and that itself represented a considerable delay compared with initial expectations. Any further delay will stretch our ability to maintain the services to the required standards in the existing buildings. If we had to start another private finance initiative, the time frame would be such that we would have to invest significant amounts in the existing hospital in the meantime, which would be completely wasted when we rebuilt. Equally, what enthusiasm would there be for a renewed private finance initiative after the investment of so much money, time, effort and good will in the previous bid? There would be no guarantee that it would be any more successful a second time around.
Perhaps I should put my doubts about private finance initiatives on the record. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I have always thought that they had rather more to do with the Maastricht convergence criteria than with sound principles of public finance. [Interruption.] The one thing that I have always accepted, despite my scepticism about the role of the state in many aspects of our lives, is that the Government can raise capital more effectively and cheaply than the private sector.
Setting aside my scepticism about the private finance initiative, I understand the reluctance of the NHS executive to tie itself into a 25-year contract with a private consortium when Government policy on intermediate care is even now under development in the 10-year national plan for the NHS. Indeed, its relationship with the private sector is also dynamic and under development.

229WH
The most obvious and expedient course is to build a hospital with public funds, as the project is already so advanced. Will the Minister play her part in ensuring the survival of this vital asset to the health care economy of south-west Hampshire by showing the Government's willingness to consider with an open mind the case for funding the new hospital with £23 million of public capital? It is a pleasure to share this campaign for a new hospital with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and I am keen to hear how he will support the case.
12.40 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: It is typically generous of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to give me the last portion of his allotted time, and I endorse everything that he has said.
Westminster Hall is rightly regarded as an arena in which confrontation should be kept to a minimum, and there is no confrontation on this issue. We have even had a meeting of minds, to judge by the Minister's reaction to my hon. Friend's doubts about the role of the private sector in raising capital for such a project. Westminster Hall is working its magic.
The Lymington hospital is sited in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, but the new Ampress site—just south of Boldre in my constituency and just north of Lymington in his—is virtually on the border between the two. More importantly, the Lymington hospital, in both its present and future incarnations, has a wide catchment area covering the residents of the New Forest, the Waterside and even further afield.
My involvement in this matter goes back to spring 1995. 1 was minding my own business at my desk in the research department of Conservative central office, when the telephone rang. It was a wonderful lady, whom I later came to know well, called Pamela Combes, who was concerned even then that the Lymington hospital was becoming a political football, and wanted my help in investigating the matter. That led to a chain of events culminating in my accession to the position of prospective Conservative candidate for one of the New Forest seats, to which I was subsequently elected. I am sure that the Minister will not hold the fact that the hospital was indirectly responsible for my becoming a Member of Parliament against it, and that it will not prejudice the prospects for its future.
The problem, even in 1995, was that there was great community concern about where the hospital should be, what the money raised with great effort by the local community should be used for, and how the partnership arrangements should be drawn up. Even the press release from the NHS executive, when it announced that it was pulling the plug on the private finance initiative, acknowledged that the two NHS trusts to which it referred—one on the isle of Sheppey and one at Lymington—had worked hard with their private sector partners under the PFI. Mike Lager and his team have made every possible effort to get this project off the
230WH
ground and to make a go of the PFI approach. That has not worked. Even the Southampton Community Health Services NHS trust accepts that. It thought that it had a deal ready in June, but, as its press release states:
We were all but ready to sign. Since then the Rotch consortium's financial figures have changed—they're now no longer affordable nor good value.
There is no dispute between the NHS executive and the community health services trust that the scheme has not worked, but it is more than five years since I was drawn into the matter and one can imagine the effect on the morale of all concerned—those trying to build a new hospital and those manning the existing one—if the clock were turned back to the beginning and they have to start again.
This is not a matter of doctrine or ideology, nor of freeloading because, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said, the community has raised enough money to buy the freehold of the land. Many people have made an emotional, professional and financial investment in the project. The PFI approach has been tried but has failed, so please do not make us return to that approach with all the time constraints involved. We need the NHS fully to fund the hospital.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I, too, am delighted with Westminster Hall and its non-confrontational atmosphere, but the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) mistook my response to his hon. Friend's views on the private finance initiative. I was merely surprised that he agreed with his party, which was committed to the PFI but never made it work. I am also surprised, and delighted, that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) managed to bring Maastricht into the debate. We could not have had such a debate without a mention of Europe.
I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West on raising the matter, and the hon. Member for New Forest, East on joining him. I know that it causes great concern in their constituencies. I shall set out the steps that will ensure that the hon. Gentlemen's constituents continue to have access to the best possible health care services, but I want to start by making a few points about the main principles behind the private finance initiative.
The failure of the Rotch consortium deal should not be seen as a failure of the PFI process, but as a sign of success, showing that rigorous methods of testing are continuously applied. In a press release, Alan Meekings said:
It is very disappointing that the Trusts involved have had to stop work on the PFI options, but they will simply not deliver viable value for money solutions. The trusts have therefore been unable to complete the business cases for the schemes and they must now be abandoned.
He also said:
Now that the PFI options have been discontinued, the important thing is to move forward as quickly as possible with alternative arrangements to ensure that the healthcare needs of local people are met.
I want to assure the House that the bottom line is to ensure continued good health care for local people.

231WH
The PFI provides extra resources for the NHS building programme, and transfers many capital investment risks to the private sector. Ultimately, we hope to achieve better care for patients and best value for money for taxpayers. The process was designed to allow the NHS and the private sector to work together effectively. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the announcement earlier this week of our proposal to build at least 18 new hospitals around the country at a cost of more than £2.3 billion. We also confirmed our approval for 16 additional schemes worth more than £350 million. Those schemes endorse our commitment to the expansion of the NHS and to improving facilities nationwide. I was delighted to be able to announce schemes involving ambulatory care centres. We have heard about PFI contributing to a loss of beds. In any PFI project, the assessment of beds is made well before the financial decisions are made, so the two issues should never be connected.
Before approval is given to PFI schemes, a number of key factors must be carefully considered. First, we must ensure that key local stakeholders in health economies consider that the scheme will meet the health care needs of the area and fit in with the strategy. Secondly, we must ensure that all PFI proposals represent best value, and decide whether a scheme would be better value for the NHS and the taxpayer under PFI than under the equivalent publicly funded alternative. Thirdly, we must ensure that local health authorities and those that commission services will be able to afford the overall cost of the proposed scheme.
The Government have a major responsibility to support the NHS in managing PFI as well as it can. That is why, last December, we published guidance entitled "PFI in the NHS", which clearly sets out the process for testing the PFI market and negotiating a PFI contract. The guidance was based on the experience of the public sector in negotiating such deals, including the wealth of experience gathered from the first wave of major PFI schemes. One outcome of the review was that standard form contracts are now mandatory for the schemes.
We have seen several successes among the PFI schemes, probably the most striking of which is the new Cumberland infirmary in Carlisle, which had a completion timetable of 25:12 months, compared with the 54 months that was envisaged under the conventional public capital route. It is now open, and was the first major PFI hospital to become operational.
One can sometimes make a virtue out of disaster. I visited the Worcester hospital which had to be evacuated because of the flooding of the River Severn. When I went to the site to which some patients were being transferred, I could see the progress that had been made on the PFI hospital there—it was the first to be started after 1997 and is well on the way to completion. We should not run away with the notion that, because we unfortunately had to withdraw from some negotiations because the project was not viable, the PFIfunded process is more lengthy than the public sector option.
I take this opportunity to reassure hon. Members about the Government's commitment to making appropriate and effective use of community hospitals,
232WH
and to confirm their important role in the delivery of local health care and the future development of intermediate care.
I was struck by the introduction given by the hon. Member for New Forest, West, in which he outlined the huge local support that the hospital has received. It is important to place on the record that it was never suggested that the hospital should simply disappear without being replaced by alternative facilities. He referred to the mechanics of working on split sites—I am familiar with that problem. We agree that we need to move forward constructively.
In the NHS plan, we pledged that by 2004 there will be 5,000 extra intermediate care beds, some of which will be in community hospitals, some in existing facilities and some in new developments. That will provide an opportunity to breathe new life into community hospitals.
I turn now to the events in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the proposed PFI scheme to rebuild Lymington community hospital. I acknowledge that the decision to terminate negotiations must have been extilemely disappointing. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that PFI schemes will only proceed when they represent value for money. It is now important for all parties concerned to move forward as quickly as possible with alternative arrangements. I heard the pleas from the hon. Members for New Forest, West and for New Forest, East about the speed with which the next steps should be taken.
A review process has been initiated to appraise the options to meet the needs of the local health economy. That will engage the Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority, the local primary care groups and Southampton Community Health Services NHS trust. By requesting the debate, the local Members of Parliament have had their chance to contribute to that process, and I am sure that they will continue to do so.
The review will take place over a six-week period and will be fully supported by the south-east regional office of the NHS executive. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on its outcome. It is important that, while proposals are being discussed at local level, the local population are confident that effective community services are in place to help the health economy over this coming winter. All health economies will face surges in demand, and we must ensure that we have measures in place.
I am advised that considerable work has already been undertaken to support this vital area of work. Some £2 million has been identified to support the whole of the Southampton health economy over the winter—£1.9 million to support critical care, and £572,000 for improved access to primary care services. In addition, £525,000 has been allocated to primary care groups and trusts, which will be managed as pooled budgets with local authorities. A number of schemes using these funds have already been agreed, including the establishment of rapid response teams across the health authority, and that covers the constituency of New Forest, West.

233WH
The emphasis will be to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions. It is important to recognise that, although hospital buildings with extra beds are seen as a real improvement to services, rapid response teams, who react quickly and prevent hospital admissions—which is what most people want—play an important part in rebuilding a fundamental structure that enables us to give better primary care.
Additional residential care has been purchased for those people awaiting discharge from hospital. Again, it is important that the flow of patients through hospitals is well managed. The development of an emergency home care service that will operate seven days a week is planned. Again that will cover the New Forest. I fully appreciate the concerns the hon. Gentleman has raised, and it is only right that he and his constituents question how local health services will be provided. I have been reassured by my own discussions with representatives from the regional office and by all the key players who have to participate in that review that they are aware of the sense of urgency.
There is considerable disappointment, as much among the private providers as in the health authority, that the scheme could not go ahead, but it simply would not have been right. We had to recognise at some stage that it did not provide value for money. Part of the consortium had to withdraw four of the five bids that it submitted: one of them was well advanced and looked all right, but the other four had to go back to the drawing board. This is not a delaying tactic and it is not a sign from the regional office that it does not appreciate the needs of the community.
I should also like to pay tribute to the League of Friends. The hon. Gentleman was right in his introduction. It raised a considerable amount of money. Many a hospital scheme would like to be able to start with an endowment as generous as that given by the league. We will build on that—I should make it clear that I mean build in the metaphoric rather than physical sense: that is by no means a ministerial commitment. We will use that good will and support as a foundation on which to progress. Although the withdrawal of the PFI scheme in Lymington has undoubtedly caused anxiety locally, I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that every effort is being made by all parties to bring this matter to a swift conclusion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): We come now to the penultimate topic for our consideration today.

Local Radio
1 pm
Mrs. Christine Butler: I am grateful for the opportunity to outline some major concerns about independent local radio in advance of a communications Bill and the forthcoming White Paper. The concerns primarily focus on ownership rules, convergence and content regulation. Moves to consolidate ownership go back to the Conservatives' Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Broadcasting Act 1996, which accelerated the process and removed most of the ownership rules. The current situation shows that companies want more liberalisation and less regulation.
The 1990 Act removed most of the content controls on local radio, leaving the Radio Authority able to work only through the promises of performance, now called formats. In the past few days, I have received input from spokespersons acting for some of the giants in the commercial radio sector, but today I wish to speak for the wider public interest rather than for specific vested interests. Sound broadcasting is special and cannot be left to competition law and criminal law. Advertisers are the clients of commercial radio but listeners are also important to that commercial interest. Six groups—Capital Radio, GWR, Emap, Chrysalis, The Wireless Group and Scottish Radio Holdings—dominate the market, generating 80 per cent. of commercial radio revenues and owning more than 60 per cent. of the points that make up the radio ownership system. Should we continue with the trend towards more convergence with extensive networking and automation, we shall be in danger of losing the localness in local radio and having national radio in all but name.
As the summer recess began, so did a spate of letters from constituents horrified that they might lose a favourite local radio station, Breeze AM. Common to all the letters was the refrain, "Are you able to do anything to help—please?" The letters reflected the feelings of so many people throughout Essex who over the years had grown to love and, in many ways, depend on Breeze AM and Essex FM. In its early days, Essex Radio covered a wide range of music and phone-in programmes and there was a compelling interaction between broadcasters and listeners. The group started its own charity, Helping Hands, which was relaunched in 1998 as Cash for Causes. It had grown not because of a corporate decision but through a natural evolution that was supported by listener activity. Families, schools and individuals all contributed to community fundraising, benefiting, among others, the local Mencap, the Cot Death Society, Hearing Help Essex, Braintree Women's Aid, Homestart Harlow, Action for Kids, St. Claire's hospice—I could go on and on.
Local people decided to fight for Breeze AM when they became aware that it was to pass into new ownership. They feared losing the character and identity of a local radio station that thousands of people had regarded as run by and for locals—the chat between listeners and presenters, the immediate reporting on local situations such as school closures, neighbourhood events and the minutiae of road works that might affect

235WH
local travel. As one doughty campaigner, my constituent Penny Pringle, said at the launch of the Essex Campaign to Save Local Radio:
Above all, as an observer of one of Peter Holmes' brilliant talks to schoolchildren about the art of communication, remember to stress—as he did—that communication is a two-way process. Breeze speaks to us, we speak to Breeze. But at the moment we must speak for Breeze, because do we really want to lose all this?
I pay tribute to the efforts of Penny, who lives on Canvey island, of Maxine Meadows from Maldon and of Geoff Bonser from Southend, who was a co-founder of the original Essex Radio. They came with me to the Radio Authority in September to argue the case about programming, licensing rules and, essentially, local radio. With the Daily Mail and General Trust as the owner of the Essex stations, there had not been swingeing changes to format and content had not been much affected, but with a new owner, GWR, it was beginning to look like goodbye to all that.
Valerie Davey: Mr. Cook, I should like to point out that in Bristol, where GWR already has a significant presence as well as owning Orchard FM in neighbouring Somerset, it also has a stake in the most recent community radio station, Eagle FM. That was given, to my dismay, to the Bristol Press and Post, which is hardly a local community group, and was subsequently bought by the Daily Mail.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Perhaps I should offer the gentlest of gentle admonishments on two counts. First, in a 30-minute Adjournment debate an intervention is unusual unless it has been pre-arranged with the presiding officer. Secondly, I should be failing in my duty were I not to remind hon. Members that when the decision was taken for parallel proceedings to take place in Westminster Hall it was agreed that they would be overseen by a Deputy Speaker, not by a Chairman. The exception is when a nameplate can be seen, in which case hon. Members may use the Chairman's name, but on other occasions it is Mr. Deputy Speaker. The intervention is unusual—quite extraordinary—so it must be the briefest of brief interventions.
Valerie Davey: Please accept my apology, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had arranged it with my hon. Friend but not with you. I add only that following the takeover of the Bristol Press and Post by the Daily Mail, or DMG, the latter's radio interests have been taken over by GWR, so we have come full circle and the enterprise is no longer local.
Mrs. Butler: I apologise for my earlier error, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I take my hon. Friend's point. In fact, GWR now cuts a swathe across the south of England from the west to the east coast and as far as Peterborough and the midlands. It is a major operator in those regions. That was one of the bells that rang for local people, who were determined to protect not just their own interest, but that of all those who love to listen to independent local radio stations. Indeed, as has been said, there was great
236WH
consternation throughout Essex, and a campaign was started in the wake of GWR's takeover of Breeze and Essex FM, as well as other stations.
Devotees shed tears when local presenters who had given such a distinct character to Breeze began to be given their marching orders. Surely some protection of listeners' interests is needed and we should not be taking a cold view of the matter. The current concentration of ownership allowed by Conservative legislation enables distant groups to do away with valued local services in the pursuit of short-term profit. There is a desperate need for a regulator to stand up for listeners so that they can enjoy a genuine local radio service.
Following meetings with the Radio Authority, and to allow GWR to come within ownership rules, some of the people on our local station, Breeze, were given a reprieve and although there were some changes the format was not immediately switched to Gold. Until now, we have retained a little localness, but that will soon go, because for some of the presenters the reprieve was to last for only a few months. We have lost some really good people, and I am afraid that the spirit has gone.
The licence that was held before the GWR takeover allowed live output for up to 16 hours a day, with automation in only off-peak, night-time and early morning periods, and although Essex was part-networked to Crawley, presenters made sure that the Southend-Crawley split worked well. The station was able to react immediately to any situation. For example, on the evening of the Stansted air crash, listeners to Breeze 1521 in Crawley continued to receive its regular output. Indeed, Ray Clark has, on occasion, presented two different programmes at the same time. Ray joined the station in 1989 and has won five world-class awards, yet he was made redundant. It is regrettable that he and other highly professional and experienced broadcasters were jettisoned. I am speaking for not only one station, but for the nation. The development is ominous in terms of the encouragement of rising stars.
When GWR took over further stations from the Daily Mail and General Trust for 146 million, it exceeded the 15-point limit. It therefore had to sell some of its assets to a third party that would be prepared to broadcast the classic gold format. By October, it had become known that Unique Broadcasting had become a major shareholder of several of GWR's former acquisitions, including Breeze. It was felt at the time that the situation had gone from critical to not quite so dire. However, GWR maintains a 20 per cent. interest, and many observers believe that these interests are being warehoused until ownership rules are relaxed even further.
Unless legislation prevents it, one or two companies will soon own all local independent radio stations. With cross-media ownership, and if members of one company board sit on other company boards, as at present, there is an inherent danger to the public interest. The Radio Authority has suggested ways to protect the public interest in regions and local areas in its submissions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry, in advance of the White Paper and in response to the Green Paper consultations. However, independent local radio takes a different view.

237WH
I feel strongly about independent editorial content. Local radio cannot be considered merely as a product. The relationship between the producer—if I may use that term—and the consumer is different. Two important points must be emphasised. One is about quality, diversity and choice. The other is the potential for a monopoly of editorial view. If that were to happen, the situation could become very dangerous. During the recent campaign in Essex alone, one mid-Essex newspaper, owned by DMG, would not cover the activities of local people engaged in their fight to save the distinctiveness of Breeze. We should take the issue very seriously.
The Radio Authority also mentioned access radio. The campaign for access radio, which would be a nonprofit making body, was born out of the frustration of losing genuinely local radio. It has been suggested that it could be funded by a levy on the independent sector, but that sector says that it should be publicly funded. The idea for access radio is a symptom of present ills and not a cure. In my view, the project has only a slight chance of becoming viable. For instance, would the independent sector want to fund access radio until it became popular enough to decrease audience ratings for that sector? I think not. Would access radio, which would be mainly run by volunteers and would work on a shoestring budget, be able to deliver the range—I hesitate to use the word "quality"—of programming that listeners expect?
Some people might say that the internet could provide ready access for everyone, but I urge people to hesitate before concluding that it could cure all ills. Essentially, it is an unregulated medium. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say more about that. I am speaking about traditional radio broadcasting. Whatever happens in technology, I am speaking for the listeners at home. They will be less interested in advanced technologies than they are in what they hear in their living rooms.
I am left wondering whether it might be a better idea to invest more in local BBC radio so that it can undertake more research and perhaps engage in more local documentary programming. We owe something to the listeners out there. I ask all those who lament the loss of truly locally inspired and produced independent radio to come to Essex and learn from us in our attempt to bring localness and plurality of ownership back.
1.18 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) for securing this debate. She has raised an important issue, about which, as she knows from our conversations, I too have strong feelings. I also thank also my Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) for pointing out the similar circumstances that affect her constituents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). I have received a considerable amount of correspondence about local radio. In response to the remarks that have been made, I should like to speak about the Government's commitment to local radio and to outline how we see the future developing.
I visited Breeze FM—I think at the invitation of Eric Moonman, who I believe is its chairman and who was also once a colleague here. I was very excited by what I
238WH
saw and by all the work done with local community groups, charities and so on. I was sorry to learn that some of the presenters who have now gone, including Ray Clark, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point cited as having received five world-class awards. Employment matters are for the broadcaster and we have no power under the Broadcasting Acts to intervene, but I hope that GWR will take note of local concern. I pay tribute to Penny Pringle, Maxine Meadows and Geoff Bonsor for their campaign to save local radio in Essex.
I turn to existing regulation, which is under review. The Radio Authority was established under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to license and regulate independent radio in the United Kingdom. The Act provides that the authority should ensure that the local character of a radio service is maintained during the period of the licence while allowing individual stations the flexibility to make commercial and programming decisions. The authority sets out to meet that statutory obligation to maintain the essential character of a service by requiring output to be within a programme format. I understand that, as of this morning, it has not received any application from GWR to change that format.
The 1990 Act enables a local radio station to change its format, but the Radio Authority may consent to a change only if it would not narrow the range of programmes available by way of independent radio services to people living in the area for which the service is licensed to be provided, or would not substantially alter the character of the service.
Mrs. Butler: It is difficult for the regulator to deal with ownership rules in the local independent radio sector because there is a perceived weakness in what it can and cannot do, notwithstanding section 106(1) of the 1990 Act. Further strengthening is necessary because the drafting of the provision is too loose and open to interpretation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat that interventions must be brief.
Janet Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting those concerns and we shall take them on board in our deliberations on the White Paper.
The Broadcasting Act 1996 promotes plurality and, therefore, consumer interests through restrictions on media ownership, including radio. Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's concern, it is important to say a little about this. As well as the provisions that apply nationally—for example, those preventing any one person from holding radio licences accounting for more than 15 per cent. of the total number of points available, with such points being attributed to licences depending on audience size—a number of restrictions will prevent the concentration of ownership of local radio. A person is allowed to own one FM and one AM licence that share a potential audience. However, a person may hold a second licence on the same waveband with the same potential audience only if the Radio Authority is satisfied that the holding of that licence could not be expected to operate against the public interest. A person wishing to control three radio licences that share a potential audience must have one service on each of the

239WH
AM and FM wavebands. In considering the public interest, the Radio Authority must consider the effect of the proposal on the range of independent radio programmes in the area and, in particular, the impact on diversity in the sources of information available and opinions expressed.
My hon. Friend referred to the need to maintain quality, diversity and choice, and I can reassure her that that is one of the Government's priorities. The authority takes a firm and objective stance in support of the development and growth of a successful UK independent radio network that offers a wide listening choice.
A key point in today's debate is the future for local radio in the context of the communications White Paper. The available spectrum for new radio services is extremely scarce and there is strong competition for new analogue licences, which continue to be advertised by the Radio Authority. Demand for new licences outstrips supply. The Radio Authority, in deciding licence awards, has to strike a difficult balance between the demand from large and small organisations.
Digital radio has now commenced and the Radio Authority is advertising new local multiplex licences at the rate of one per month. Although digital technology enables the available spectrum to be used more efficiently than the equivalent analogue spectrum by increasing the number of services available, the spectrum continues to be limited at present. Digital technology is also enabling broadcast and communications to converge.
The Government are, therefore, concerned that an appropriate system of regulation should be in place that will allow the radio industry to grow, but which will also protect consumers' interests. Last February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, jointly with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that we would publish a White Paper later this year. My hon. Friend has obviously been studying the progress made on that. The White Paper will set out the Government's proposals for the reform of broadcasting and telecommunications regulation. A joint communications team from my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry has been set up to examine how the broadcasting and telecommunications
240WH
industries will develop over the next 10 years, and what regulation will be appropriate in this converging digital environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West and I have exchanged correspondence about the review of spectrum. The Government commissioned a review of the use of FM frequencies earlier this year to determine the likelihood of FM frequencies being found in the United Kingdom for new radio services. The conclusions of that review will help to inform our deliberations on the White Paper.
We consulted widely while drawing up the White Paper and, earlier this year, the team carrying out those consultations invited comments on a range of issues. They included the pace and direction of change in the communications markets; the needs and demands of consumers; the objectives, principles and systems for content regulation; and the implications of conclusions on those issues for the organisational structure of regulation. We received a number of responses to this consultation from both larger and smaller radio stations. I assure hon. Members that those responses will be given careful consideration. I cannot, of course, discuss the Government's proposals in detail before the publication of the White Paper.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Radio Authority's proposal for access radio. We are looking closely at that issue, and I note her concerns about how it might or might not work. I assure her that we are considering that very carefully. It might be possible to establish a fund to assist small-scale, non-commercial radio. Such a fund could maintain, at a low cost, a richly innovative range of services with significant public support, some of which could play a major social role in addressing problems in difficult neighbourhoods. That would fit in with the Government's agenda on social exclusion.
I would like to emphasise once more that the Government appreciate the concern expressed over the sale of local radio licences. We want all participants in the radio industry—large and small, and including, as my hon. Friend said, the BBC—to succeed, as they all have an important role to play in its continuing development. I thank her for bringing the matter to my attention, and I hope that she will give us her views on the White Paper when it is published.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come now to the final topic for our consideration.

A50 (Sudbury and Doveridge)
1.30 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I last raised the issue of road safety in Derbyshire with the Minister on 20 June, when I expressed my concern about the dramatic number of fatal accidents that we have seen on Derbyshire's roads over a six-month period. The latest figures show that there have been some 59 fatalities.
It is incumbent on all hon. Members to consider the subject of road safety and to raise concerns about specific danger areas. For that reason, I want to return to two issues relating to the A50, which runs through part of the southern end of my constituency and has become extremely busy—it is now, in effect, the link road between the M1 and the M6. It has about 38,500 traffic movements a day, and that figure is growing at a rate that is to be expected on such a busy road.
The crossing at Sudbury is the only crossing on the A50 from the M1 to the M6 that is an unmarked crossing going through a central reservation. There is a big pedestrian crossing a mile or two further down, which ensures that people can visit Fosten prison safely. However, people in my constituency who have to use the Aston crossing cannot do so safely. On 1 September this year, I attended a protest when a number of local residents temporarily brought the road to a standstill to demonstrate the great problems that they have in crossing it.
The crossing is just a gap in the central reservation for people who wish to cross from both sides to get to the bus stop, which is the sole reason for using it. I visited the site on Saturday with June Smith, Christine Hickson and Bob Jeffreys, the chairman of Sudbury parish council. The speed of the traffic that went past us was frightening. It is unacceptable to have to try to cross the road in those conditions: something must be done, as a matter of urgency, to put that right. All the indications that I have received so far suggest that there is no intention of doing so.
I received a letter from the Highways Agency, which states:
We are considering a longer-term solution for this section of the A50 that would provide a two-level junction. That would include facilities for pedestrians to cross the A50 safely without conflicting with dual carriageway traffic. We have started the process by asking our Agents to investigate matters further, though this will take some time to complete.
I am worried about the length of time that it will take to improve the road. I know that several hon. Members use it, but I doubt whether any have noticed the existence of the crossing. It is extremely dangerous, and I hope that the Minister will tell me that he will instruct the Highways Agency to look into this problem as a matter of urgency.
On the A38, two sets of pedestrian traffic lights have been installed at the Markeaton island and the Little Eaton island. The Sudbury crossing deserves at least that, as a move in the right direction. We should not be told that we have to wait endlessly while the Highways Agency investigates the whole area to consider whether further measures should be taken.
242WH
I should also like to discuss the new part of the bypass, known as the Doveridge bypass, which is the main part of the link road, and the noise on that road. I raised the issue with the Minister on 20 June, when I pointed out that much of the A50
goes through open countryside and has a whisper concrete surface. However, concrete has been used on a small section of the road, which goes through Doveridge, and the noise increase in that area is amazing. As soon as one hits the concrete surface, the noise level rises. It seems unbelievable to me that Connect, who built the road, was allowed to lay a noisy road surface on the most populated stretch of the A50.
I asked the Minister to send a strong message to Connect to consider the issue and make changes. The problem has a tremendous effect not only on the people who live in Doveridge, who hear the noise of the road, but on people living in Somersal Herbert and Marston Montgomery.
On 20 June, the Minister said:
I come now to the problem of … the A50 … The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Highways Agency has a programme to quieten particularly noisy stretches of road. The A50 Doveridge bypass was not included in the list of most pressing cases, but in view of local concerns, there is no reason why it should not be assessed retrospectively in line with the original criteria. The Highways Agency is considering whether the circumstances at Doveridge warrant further noise analysis as a precursor to early maintenance work, which in turn could reduce the … noise from the road.—[Official Report, 20 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 23–26WH.]
Having pressed the Department and waited for a reply, on 19 July I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State, the noble Lord Whitty, which states:
Turning to noise, at the time the Doveridge Bypass was planned, brushed concrete was an approved surfacing material for roads carrying up to 75,000 vehicles per day. The then specifications allowed a range of surfacing to ensure best value, bearing in mind the local availability of construction materials. The quieter surface materials now used were still on trial at that time and, unfortunately, were not adopted in time to be used in this case.
My attention was drawn to a campaign about the A30, which has a similar surface to the A50. I tabled some parliamentary questions to the Minister, which he answered on 27 July. He said that noise tests were being done on the A30 and that its surface was going to be changed. I then asked him to include the A50 in that scheme. On 27 July, he answered:
I have asked the Highways Agency to draw up a programme for all such trunk roads for agreement. The A50 at Doveridge will be included in this programme. No detailed estimate of the cost of resurfacing …. at Doveridge exists.—[Official Report, 27 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 787W.]
I very much welcome, and was pleased to receive, that answer from the Minister, because it took us forward in a constructive way. However, as often happens, I subsequently received a further letter from the noble Lord Whitty on 12 October, which states:
The A50 Doveridge noise study is progressing well but is taking longer than anticipated to complete. Until we have the results of the study we are unable to indicate the priority cases for treatment.
My constituents were pleased when they heard that there was a good chance of the A50 being resurfaced. However, they were worried that that was being discussed in the context of the Government's 10-year road transport plan. They rightly want to know where they stand in that 10-year plan. On their behalf, I should

243WH
like to ask how it is being put together, where the road is in the lists, and when they can expect some relief from the tremendous noise level increase.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will instruct the Highways Agency to consider the unsafe crossing to which I have referred. I also hope that he can tell us how the work is progressing on the noise studies on the A50, and when he expects a resurfaced road to be laid through the Doveridge section.
1.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) on securing another debate on the A50 trunk road. He mentioned my reference to A50 noise during the Adjournment debate on 20 June. As he knows, a 30-year design, build, finance and operate concession for the A50 Stoke-Derby link was awarded to Connect A50 Ltd., a private consortium, in May 1996. Part of the consortium's remit was to construct the Doveridge bypass. I know that the hon. Gentleman supported the scheme, which provided traffic relief to the village of Doveridge and was fully opened to traffic on 6 February 1998.
The specification at the time allowed the main carriageway of the bypass to be constructed in concrete. I am aware of local concerns about the traffic noise created by the popularity of the route linking the M1 and the M6. The Highways Agency and Connect A50 held a public meeting on 21 November 1998, which the hon. Gentleman attended. They explained and clarified the decisions taken on design and construction at that time. Connect A50 is required to operate and maintain the A50 Stoke-Derby link until the end of the concession period in 2026. There will almost certainly be a need to resurface the Doveridge bypass in that period. As it is a new road in good condition, and given the condition of the pavement, that will not be necessary until after 2010.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the Government's commitment to surface all concrete trunk roads with low-noise surfacing in our 10-year plan for transport. My noble Friend Lord Whitty, the Minister responsible for roads, has decided to consult widely to develop criteria for prioritising the resurfacing of all concrete roads. All local authorities will be consulted in the next two months, and the consultation letter will be published on the Highways Agency website. The Government will study the comments received and finalise the criteria by March 2001. I expect a list of those sites likely to be resurfaced in the next three years to be available early in the spring. I shall ensure that the Highways Agency keeps the hon. Gentleman fully informed of developments.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about road safety. Sudbury is located at the western end of the FostonHatton-Hilton bypass, which opened in 1994 and upgraded that section of the route to dual carriageway standard. With the opening of the Derby southern bypass in September 1997 and the Doveridge bypass in February 1998, we became aware of increasing local concerns about road safety due to traffic speeds at the A50-A515 Sudbury roundabout. As a result, the
244WH
Highways Agency was instructed to introduce several local safety measures in spring 1998. They resulted in an observed improvement in safety at the roundabout, and were well received by the local community.
The Highways Agency was also instructed to commission a further investigation into options for additional improvements, especially regarding the difficulties experienced both by pedestrians crossing the trunk road to the west of the Sudbury roundabout in the small hamlet of Aston, and by drivers accessing the roundabout from the Aston lane side road. A report was produced in August 2000 and a copy was supplied to the chairman of Sudbury parish council for his consideration. The main conclusions were that in the five years to December 1999 there were no accidents that involved pedestrians; the measures that were introduced in spring 1998 have been successful in improving safety and remain so; queue lengths and waiting times at the roundabout are not excessive; and pedestrian movements, even allowing for suppressed demand, are very low.
The report therefore recommended that additional modifications could be made to signing so as to increase drivers' awareness of pedestrian movements and to further encourage lower speeds, and that monitoring of the site should be continued to identify further options for improvement. I have asked the Highways Agency to organise a meeting with the parish council and local residents to discuss the report's findings, consider possible options for the future and report back to me. That meeting will take place on 28 November.
I have also asked the Highways Agency to commission a study of roundabout junctions along the Stoke-Derby route to ensure consistent standards. The study will commence in March 2001 and, when I have received the results, I shall consider the need for major scheme construction within the 10-year transport plan. I recognise, for example, that full-grade separation at junctions could incorporate facilities that would enable pedestrians and side road traffic to cross the A50 without coming into conflict with through trunk road traffic.
Mr. McLoughlin: Increased signing or new signing will not be a significant enough solution to the problem. That is not acceptable, nor should my constituents be asked to cross the road when the amount of traffic is increasing. Several measures have been imposed for pedestrians in other cases, but that has not happened in the case under discussion. That has been due partly to the fact that the whole road was not completed in one go, but was built in bits, which has led to such a huge increase in traffic. I urge the Minister to consider the problem seriously. The days are now getting shorter and the traffic volumes are tremendous. June Smith told me that it once took her 20 minutes to cross the road. That is not acceptable.
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his further exposition of the difficulties experienced by his constituents. He is right to press as hard as possible for a solution to the problem. I hope that I have given him some reassurance that the Government, via the Highways Agency, are seriously considering the problem. There will be an opportunity for the parish

245WH
council and local residents to discuss matters further with the Highways Agency at the meeting to be held later this month.
Finally, 1 advise the hon. Gentleman that full grade-separated standards, with ample facilities to cater for the safety of pedestrians and other road users, will be fully considered within the Government's route management strategy, and that implementation of the strategy will
246WH
deal with the safety concerns at the locations to be discussed. I will make it my business to let the hon. Gentleman know when we are ready to announce the route management strategy for the A50, which will incorporate the whole length from the M1 to the M6.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has for an advertising campaign in the run-up to Christmas to discourage drinking and driving; and if he will make a statement; [136512]

  (2) what representations he has received about previous advertising campaigns which sought to highlight the dangers of drinking and driving; [136506]

  (3) what budget he has set aside for an advertising campaign to discourage drinking and driving during the Christmas period; [136510]

  (4) what budget he has set aside for the on-going advertising campaign against drinking and driving. [136509]

  Measure

  Government target

  Capacity (train kms run)

  10 per cent. increase on 1998–99 performance

  Reliability (unweighted excess journey time—minutes)

  4 per cent. improvement on 1998–99 level

  Customer satisfaction measures (measured through LT's Customer Satisfaction Survey)

  Average score (out of 100)

  Train service

  77

  Information

  77

  Customer safety and security

  83

  Staff helpfulness and availability

  70

  Cleanliness

  69

  The Government do not set specific targets for the performance of London Underground's contractors. Their performance is, however, reflected in the targets set for London Underground itself.

  In addition to the above targets, the 10-Year Plan includes a target to cut journey times on London Underground services by increasing capacity and reducing delays. Specific targets will be agreed with the Mayor after the Public Private Partnership has been established.

  Ministerial Directions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury of 23 October 2000,Official Report, columns 73–76W, on
  652W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]In June this year, we launched the THINK! road safety publicity campaign which brings together the range of road safety messages for all road users. The total publicity budget for THINK! for the current financial year is £9 million.

  Drinking and driving is a year-round issue, and is one of the issues we tackle as part of the THINK! campaign advertising, on television, on radio and in other media.

  However, we shall be focusing again on the drink- drive issue in the the run-up to Christmas and the new year, and we have set aside around £1.9 million for this. Television advertising will run from 27 November, supported by radio advertising and poster advertising. In addition we are producing display materials for use by the police and road safety officers around the country in support of their own campaigns.

  We have received no formal representations about previous advertising campaigns.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets(a) were in place on 1 January and (b) he has set recently for the performance of (i) the London Underground and (ii) its contractors; and if he will make a statement. [137303]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have set performance targets for London Underground covering the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2001. These were announced to the House of Commons in response to a question from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on 4 April 2000,Official Report, columns 309-10W.

  The targets, which are to be met by the end of 2000–01, are as follows:

  ministerial directions, (1) if he will place in the Library the text and supporting documentation of the directions made by Ministers in his Department in 1998; and if he will make a statement; [137297]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the text and supporting documentation of the directions made by Ministers in his Department in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [137296]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have considered these requests under the terms of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and concluded that providing this information would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion within government. The request therefore falls within the terms of exemption 2 of the Code of Practice.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from local authority associations concerning the use of the most recent earnings data in the area cost adjustment. [137329] [138077]

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the local authority associations in relation to the Area Cost Adjustment Settlement for 2001–02. [137511]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Representations have been received both from the Local Government Association and from the Association of London Government on the use of the 1999 New Earnings Survey data in the Area Cost Adjustment. Both pressed the Government to update this data.

  Representations have also been received from two special interest groups, SIGOMA and the "Cliff Edge" group. Both pressed the Government not to update this

  Combustion plant > 300 Mw continuing to emit SO2 and/or NOx

  Power station

  TXU (was Eastern Merchant Generation)

  Drakelow B Power Station, Burton on Trent

  TXU (was Eastern Merchant Generation)

  High Marnham Power Station, Newark

  TXU (was Eastern Merchant Generation)

  Ironbridge Power Station, Buildwas Road, Telford

  TXU (was Eastern Merchant Generation)

  Rugeley Power Stations, Armitage Road, Rugeley

  TXU (was Eastern Merchant Generation)

  West Burton Power Station, Retford

  Innogy (was National Power plc)

  Aberthaw Power Station, Nr Barry, S Glam.

  Nitrogen Two Ltd. (was National Power plc)

  Blyth Power Station, Welwyn Components Site, Bedlington

  Innogy (was National Power plc)

  Didcot A Power Station, Didcot

  AES Drax Power Ltd. (was National Power)

  Drax Power Station, PO Box 3, Selby

  Eggborough Power Ltd. (was National Power plc)

  Eggborough Power Station, Goole

  Innogy (was National Power plc)

  Fawley Power Station, Southampton

  Innogy (was National Power plc)

  Littlebrook D Power Station, Littlebrook Manor Way, Dartford

  Innogy (was National Power plc)

  Tilbury Power Station, Fort Road, Tilbury

  Powergen (UK) plc

  Cottam Power Station, PO Box 4, Retford

  Edison First Power Ltd.

  Ferrybridge C Power Station, PO Box 39, Strangland Lane, Knottingley

  Edison First Power Ltd.

  Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, Widnes Road, Warrington

  Powergen plc

  Grain Power Station, Isle of Grain, Rochester

  Powergen plc

  Ince B Power Station, Chester

  Powergen plc

  Kingsnorth Power Station, Hoo St. Werberg, Rochester

  Powergen plc

  Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station, Nottingham

  Powergen plc

  Richborough Power Station, Ramsgate Road, Sandwich

  Scottish Power

  Longannet

  Scottish Power

  Cockenzie

  Scottish Hydro Electric

  Peterhead

  NIE

  Belfast West

  NIE

  Premier Power (Ballylumford Power Station)

  NIE

  Coolkeeragh

  NIE

  Kilroot

  BASF plc

  Seal Sands, Middlesbrough

  BP Chemicals Ltd.

  Baglan Bay Works, Seaway Parade, Port Talbot

  Alcan Smelting and Power UK

  Lynemouth Power Station, Ashington

  British Steel plc

  Integrated Works, Llanwern, Newport

  British Steel plc

  Port Talbot Works, Port Talbot

  Corus UK Ltd. (formerly British Steel)

  Teesside Works, Steel House, Redcar

  Corus UK Ltd. (formerly British Steel)

  Sections Plates and Commercial Steels, Scunthorpe Works, PO Box 1, Scunthorpe

  Brunner Mond (UK) Ltd.

  Winnington IP Boilers, Winnington Site, Northwich

  Ford Motor Co Ltd.

  Main Site, Dagenham

  ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd.

  Weston Point Power Station, Castner Kellner Site, Runcorn

  Enron Teesside Operations Ltd. (ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd.)

  Wilton Power Station, Wilton

  Phillips Petroleum Co UK Ltd.

  Seal Sands, Middlesbrough

  UML Ltd.

  Merseyside Power Station, Thermal Road, Wirral

  654W
  data. Over 175 representations have been received from local authorities, hon. Members and other interested parties.

  Emissions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by how much the output of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide have been reduced in the last five years; and which power stations continue to emit these substances. [137719]

  Mr. Meacher
  The latest figures available from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory show that in 1998 the total UK emissions of SO2and NOx were as 1,615 and 1,753 kilotonnes respectively. Between 1994–98 emissions of SO2have been reduced by 56 per cent. and of NOx by 76 per cent. Emissions will continue to reduce under the Environment Agency's ongoing regulation of sulphur emissions and, in the longer term, the revised EC Large Combustion Plant Directive and the proposed National Emission Ceilings Directive, which from 2010 will set annual ceilings of 585 and 1,167 kilotonne for SO2 and NOx respectively. A list of large power stations1, that continue to emit one or both of these substances, is listed.

  1(Combustion plants >300MW)

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his latest estimate is of the number of(a) hostel places for rough sleepers available and (b) rough sleepers in (i) London, (ii) Liverpool, (iii) Leeds, (iv) Birmingham and (v) Manchester. [138001]

  Ms Armstrong
  Each of the cities mentioned has a large number of hostels providing a range of different types of accommodation. Information about the extent of emergency access provision that can be accessed by rough sleepers is collected locally and contained in the table. The table also contains the single night street count figures for each area as at June 2000.

  Emergency access accommodation1

  Number of rough sleepers

  Greater London

  2,574

  546

  Liverpool

  42

  19

  Leeds

  249

  17

  Birmingham

  260

  23

  Manchester

  66

  23

  1Number of beds

  Millennium Site, Greenwich (Contamination)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the remaining level of contamination land at the Millennium Site on the Greenwich Peninsula; and what plans exist to remediate the site. [137872]

  Ms Armstrong
  The site of the Millennium Experience has been remediated fit for purpose in accordance with the requirements of both the London Borough of Greenwich and the Environment Agency. There are currently no requirements for further remediation. Any works in relation to foundations of future buildings which require amendments to the remediation strategy that has been adopted and approved to date will be considered at that time.

  Village Speed Limits
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what deadline has been set for the establishment of 30 mph as the normal speed limit in villages. [138067]

  Owner of motive power and rolling stock

  Lessee of motive power and rolling stock

  Contractor for light maintenance

  Contractor for heavy maintenance

  GNER

  Angel Trains; HSBC Rail

  GNER

  GNER

  Angle Trains; HSBC Rail

  WAGN

  Angel Trains; HSBC Rail

  WAGN

  WAGN; Adtranz

  Railcare

  Hull Trains

  Porterbrook Leasing

  Anglia Railways

  Hull Trains; Adtranz

  Adtranz

  EWS

  Locos

  Angel Trains; EWS

  EWS

  EWS

  EWS

  Rolling stock

  Lafarge Redland

  EWS

  Wabtech

  Wabtech

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 457W, what arrangements are made by the Railway Department of the Health and Safety Executive
  656W
  Mr. Hill
  The Road Safety Strategy outlines our commitment to a rural road hierarchy, one result of which would be 30mph speed limits in villages. A Government amendment to the Transport Bill requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the issues relating to the implementation of the hierarchy, and publish a report within 12 months of Royal Assent.

  In the meantime, local traffic authorities already have the power to impose 30mph speed limits throughout any village where they feel this is necessary.

  Farnborough Airfield
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made about the effect on wildlife and natural habitats of plans to cut down woods near Farnborough Airfield. [137971]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]: No such assessment has been made by the Secretary of State as this matter has not come before him formally for determination. The proposal was the subject of a Notice of Proposed Development submitted to Rushmoor Borough Council by the Ministry of Defence. As a competent authority under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994, the Ministry of Defence are required to carry out an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposed works on the Thames Basin Heaths potential SPA and I understand they are undertaking such an assessment.

  Rail Maintenance
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the contractors and sub-contractors responsible to Railtrack for maintenance of the track at Hatfield and (b) the names of passenger and freight train operators using that line, together with the (i) owners and (ii) lessees of the motive power and rolling stock used and their contractors for (1) medium and (2) heavy maintenance of that stock. [138213]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack's contractor responsible for maintaining the track at Hatfield is Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd. Information is not held centrally on sub-contractors used by Balfour Beatty.

  The train companies which use the line at Hatfield and their suppliers of rolling stock and maintenance are given in the table. Train maintenance is normally split into light and heavy maintenance rather than light and medium.

  for the licensing and inspection of (a) contractors used by the owners and lessors of the stock for medium and heavy maintenance and (b) contractors used by other owning or leasing companies with contracts with rail operators. [138212]
  657W
  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive do not license either type of contractor. The duty for ensuring the competence of a contractor in the railway industry lies with the holder of the accepted safety case. The holders of safety cases for the railway industry are (in summary) Railtrack, Railtrack's main contractors, the freight and passenger train operators and London Underground.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the average percentage rises in Council Tax in each of the past five years. [138219]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Average Council Tax increases in England (both average Council Tax per dwelling and Band D) between 1996–97 and 2000–01 are given in the table.

  Percentage increase average Council Tax bill per dwelling

  Percentage increase on on average Council Tax for a Band D dwelling

  1996–97

  5.4

  6.1

  1997–98

  7.4

  6.5

  1998–99

  8.9

  8.6

  1999–2000

  6.8

  6.8

  2000–01

  6.2

  6.1

  The percentage increases in average Council Tax per dwelling give an indication of the increase in size of the Council Tax bill faced by the average resident. The percentage increases for the average Band D Council Tax (based on a dwelling occupied by two adults) are the measure used for tax-setting purposes.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the percentage rise in public sector current receipts for Council Tax in each of the last five years. [138218]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Council Tax receipts

  Level(£000)

  Increase (percentage)

  1995–96

  7,730,839

  8.7

  1996–97

  8,404,016

  8.7

  1997–98

  9,134,089

  8.7

  1998–99

  10,133,609

  10.9

  1999–2000

  10,992,040

  8.5

  Source

  Quarterly Return of Council Tax and Rates (QRC4) returns, DETR

  Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health to discuss the inclusion of housing and health as an agenda item at the Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health in 2004. [138056]
  658W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The links between housing and health are important, and I would be happy to meet with the CIEH to discuss the issues in due course. In the first instance they should write to me with their detailed proposals.

  Heathrow
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to order(a) an environmental impact assessment and (b) a health impact assessment for the proposed Terminal 5 at Heathrow; and when he expects to publish these impact assessments. [137986]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]Heathrow Terminal 5 was the subject of a major Public Inquiry between May 1995 and March 1999. The Inquiry Inspector has said that he intends to produce his report within two years of the end of the Inquiry. The Terminal 5 proposal was subject to an environmental impact assessment and during the Inquiry the Inspector heard and received evidence on a wide range of environmental issues including the potential impact on health. The final decision on Terminal 5 and the associated applications, orders and appeals considered by the Inquiry rests with the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next plans to review aircraft landing charges at Heathrow. [137750]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]Under the 1986 Airports Act the Civil Aviation Authority sets a maximum limit on the amounts that may be levied by way of airport charges, including landing charges, over a five-year period at airports designated by the Secretary of State. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Manchester are those airports which are currently subject to this detailed price control. New price caps are required for the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2008. The CAA is presently conducting a programme of work, including consultation, which will lead to decisions on the new price caps by autumn 2002.

  Ultra-Low Sulphur Petrol
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the environmental effects of the large scale production of ultra-low sulphur petrol. [138230]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]Ultra-low sulphur petrol will have a direct benefit in reducing traffic related air pollutants. It will also facilitate the introduction of new fuel-efficient petrol engine technology. This emerging technology holds the promise of significant reductions in CO2 emissions from the vehicle fleet and will help ensure delivery of the voluntary agreements with the car manufacturers to improve new car fuel efficiency by 25 per cent. by 2008.

  The reduction of sulphur content of petrol from a maximum of 150 ppm to 50 ppm may result in increased energy consumption in oil refineries and hence CO2 emissions, due to the additional processing required. The extent to which this is the case is dependent on the configuration of each individual refinery, and on other factors such as processing lower sulphur crude. The

  659W
  overall effect is, in the short term, likely to be an increase of less than 2 per cent. in the CO2emissions from refineries.

  Ultra-low sulphur petrol will become mandatory throughout the EU from 2005 and the Government's CO2emission projections for 2010 already reflect the impact on refinery emissions of a reduction of sulphur levels in petrol.

  As more vehicles are introduced onto the market, fuel efficiency improvement is expected to be larger than increases in refinery CO2emissions.

  Environment Council (Brussels)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Environment Council held in Brussels on 7 November; and if he will make a statement. [137763]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Deputy Prime Minister and I represented the UK at the Special Environment Council in Brussels on 7 November 2000.

  The main purpose of this Council was to review the EU's negotiating positions in advance of the Sixth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP6), due to take place in the Hague later this month. Ministers discussed the EU's strategy, and exchanged views on possible options which may emerge in the course of the negotiations. Council Conclusions were agreed reaffirming the EU's negotiating position on the main issues—supplementarity, the clean development mechanism, and sinks. These also stressed the Council's commitment to achieving a successful outcome at COP6.

  The Commission also reported on the progress of the European Climate Change Programme, noting that while the Community as a whole was achieving stabilisation of CO2 emissions, a number of member states were not. There was a brief exchange of views between member states.

  Council Conclusions to guide the final round of international negotiations on the UNEP Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, to be held on 4-9 December 2000, were also taken without discussion.

  Car Engines
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many motor cars are registered in the UK with engine sizes(a) above and (b) below 1500 cc; and how many miles were driven on average in each of the last five years in the UK by motor cars with engine sizes (i) above and (ii) below 1500 cc. [138441]

  Mr. Hill
  At the end of June 2000, the most recent date for which figures are available, there were 14,420,933 cars licensed in Great Britain with an engine size of greater than 1500 cc and 9,856,665 cars with an engine size of 1500 cc or less.

  Average mileage of cars in Great Britain is estimated as part of the National Travel Survey. However, results are not available for individual years and are instead
  660W
  combined over three years to ensure a suitable level of accuracy. In the last five years, there has been little change in the average annual car mileage by engine size:

  (i) The average annual distance recorded by cars of above 1,500cc was about 10,850 miles in 1997–99, compared to 11,610 miles in 1992–94.

  (ii) for cars up to and including 1,500cc, the equivalent distances were 7,530 miles in 1997–99 and 7,580 miles in 1992–94.

  Comparable data are not available for Northern Ireland.

  EU Structural Funds (West Midlands)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date the Single Programming Document on aid to the West Midlands was successfully submitted to the European Commission. [138445]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Single Programming Document on aid to the West Midlands was presented to the Commission on 14 April 2000. It was confirmed as acceptable, with full retrospection of eligible spend back to 1 January 2000, in the Commission's letter of 4 May 2000 to the UK Permanent Representation to the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will report on progress in clearing proposed EU structural funds to the West Midlands with the European Commission. [138446]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The West Midlands region will receive Structural Fund moneys through a number of channels. The bulk of these will be delivered through the Objective 2 Single Programming Document. This document is still the subject of negotiation between the Government Office for the West Midlands and the European Commission.

  It is difficult to predict the precise time that the negotiations will be completed. The document is then the subject of consideration by the Commission's internal services committee, a process taking about four weeks. It is currently anticipated that the document will be presented to either the January or February committees for approval.

  Quality Mark (Builders)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many builders have applied to join the Birmingham quality mark trial. [138449]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To date, two firms have been awarded a quality mark, a further 17 are in the process of assessment and are expected to complete shortly. In addition, a further 470 builders have shown their interest by requesting, and being issued with a registration pack.

  Supporting People Programme
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the Government intends to take forward the implementation in England of the Supporting People programme. [138765]
  661W
  Mr. Raynsford
  A consultation paper entitled 'Phased Implementation' was published on 17 May, inviting all the major stakeholders, local authorities, probation services, health authorities and provider organisations to give us their views on the implementation process for this programme. Specifically they were asked to say whether they supported the view that implementation should be phased.

  The responses to the consultation paper have been most helpful to our decision making on this issue, and I am today publishing a summary of the analysis of the consultation responses. Copies are being placed in the Library and will be sent to all those who made responses.

  The overwhelming response from stakeholders was that Supporting People should be implemented in all local authorities in England at the same time, and that phasing the programme would only add unnecessary complexities and cause confusion for authorities, their partner organisations, providers and service users.

  Following publication of the consultation paper, the Comprehensive Spending Review made available substantial resources for the implementation of this programme, the majority of which will be used to resource implementation at a local level.

  The Supporting People programme will therefore be implemented across England in April 2003.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. [138793]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department has today initiated a review of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre (QEIICC). It was established as an Executive Agency in 1989 and must be reviewed every five years in accordance with the latest Cabinet Office guidance. The last review led to a market test which resulted in a five-year service level agreement being awarded to the in-house management team from 1 April 1996.

  The review will, in particular, take account of:

  the role and past performance of QEIICC,

  its fit with Government objectives, and

  the relationship of QEIICC with other bodies in the public and private sectors.

  It will consider all organisational options for the Agency and recommend a preferred course of action. Customers, staff and trade unions will be consulted.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason no fee is being charged to the Ministry of Sound for the hire of secondary venues at the Dome on 31 December. [135735]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 November 2000,Official Report, column 620W.

  Open University Broadcasts
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make representations to the BBC to continue Open University broadcasts. [138162]

  Janet Anderson
  The question of making such representations does not arise, since I understand that the BBC has said it remains fully committed to its partnership with the Open University.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people his Department employs under the New Deal for Young People. [137957]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 551W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Lord-lieutenants
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 2000,Official Report, column 646W, regarding Lord-Lieutenants, what expenditure was incurred by his Department in support of each Lord-Lieutenant for the financial year 1999–2000. [134858]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Expenditure

  Antrim

  741.37

  Armagh

  506.82

  Belfast

  987.09

  Down

  822.54

  Fermanagh

  507.85

  Londonderry

  2,899.49

  Tyrone

  635.68

  Grand total

  7,100.84

  The Lord-Lieutenancy of County Londonderry is higher than that for other counties because that amount comprises two Lord-Lieutenants—Londonderry City, and Londonderry County.

  Pursuant to this, it may be helpful if 1 provide some further information to put the figures in their proper context.

  Lord-Lieutenants are appointed under current legislation by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, following consultations locally and, where appropriate, with the First Minister. Lord-Lieutenants are much appreciated in their counties and areas, particularly as a link with the royal family and for their support of a wide range of local voluntary and community work. Lord-Lieutenants are unpaid. They may however claim

  663W
  expenses from central Government for certain items such as travel and other reasonable non-entertainment expenses incurred in carrying out their official duties. Amounts claimed will clearly vary according to, for example, levels of activity in each county, size and dispersal of populations, and the personal circumstances of each Lord-Lieutenant. Some choose not to claim any expenses.

  In addition most counties provide varying levels of administrative support, as do some Government Departments in respect of functions carried out by Lord-Lieutenants on their behalf.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact of the New Deal for Young People in Northern Ireland. [136475]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those Bills to which the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has given a declaration of compatibility with human rights and also list those which have received an adverse declaration in regard to Bills presented to(a) Parliament and (b) the Northern Ireland Assembly. [136611]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There is no requirement for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to give a statement of compatibility before Parliament or the Assembly can consider a Bill; this is required from the Minister in charge. In the Assembly, this is part of the Minister's statement that the Bill is within the legislative competence of the Assembly.

  Under its statutory functions, the Commission is required to advise the Assembly on whether a Bill is compatible with human rights—including the Convention rights—only when it is asked to do so and on such other occasion as the Commission thinks appropriate.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the total costs to date of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. [138099]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total cost to date of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning is IR £4,131,215. The costs are split on a 50/50 basis shared by the British and Irish Governments.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the total costs to date of the activities of the international arms inspectors. [138100]

  Mr. Ingram
  The amount paid to the international arms inspectors to date is IR £37,160, which includes some travel costs. This is split on a 50/50 basis shared by the British and Irish Governments.

  Service Delivery Agreement
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of the Northern Ireland Office's Service Delivery Agreement 2001–02 to 2003–04; and if he make copies available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. [138190]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Copies of the Agreement have been placed in the Library and also made available to the Vote Office.

DEFENCE

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purpose of the chemical burns experiments conducted on pigs at Porton Down; what measures have been taken to ensure their welfare is protected; and what involvement Salisbury District Hospital has had with these experiments. [136607]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]The primary role of DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down is to provide safe and effective protective measures for the UK and its armed forces.

  Sulphur mustard (mustard gas) remains a significant chemical threat both on the battlefield and from terrorists. The burns that result from contact with mustard heal extremely slowly and are prone to potentially life-threatening infection. The studies undertaken at CBD with pigs have conclusively shown that the technique of dermabrasion can significantly accelerate the healing of such burns and reduce the risk of infection. Staff at Porton Down are now confident that dermabrasion will help save lives and reduce the suffering in any future casualties.

  To pursue these studies DERA employed the skills and experience of two plastic surgeons who had trained at the Burns Unit at Salisbury District Hospital. These surgeons were not working for the Salisbury Health Care Trust at the same time as they were undertaking this research and the trust was not itself involved in this particular research. All animal research is conducted under licence authorised by the Home Office. In addition to statutory controls, an independent body, the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC), reviews the arrangements for animal care and welfare at CBD, monitors the research programmes to ensure the highest possible standards and advises on best practice.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the cost/benefit analysis applied to the chemical burns experiments conducted on pigs at Porton Down. [136608]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]No formal cost/benefit analysis has been applied to the chemical burns experiments conducted at DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down.

  improve the rate of healing by three or fourfold. These techniques will be of significant benefit to service personnel and, more generally, to civilians, by

  665W
  reducing the time currently spent in hospital recovering from the effects of burns form acids, alkalis and other corrosive chemicals suffered at home or in the work place.

  European Security and Defence Identity
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the functions and treaty base of(a) the European Military Committee, (b) the European Military Staff and (c) the Political and Security Committee; and if he will make a statement on their relationship to NATO. [138216]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Helsinki European Council in December 1999, EU member states agreed to the establishment of a Political and Security Committee (PSC), a Military Committee and a Military Staff within the European Council.

  The function of the Political Security Committee is to deal with all aspects of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the Common European Security and Defence Policy, in accordance with the provisions of the EU Treaty. In the case of an EU-led crisis management operation, the PSC will exercise, under the authority of the Council, the political control and strategic direction of the operation. The PSC will also forward guidelines to the Military Committee.

  The function of the Military Committee is to give military advice and make recommendations to the PSC and provide military direction to the Military Staff. The Chairman of the Military Committee will attend meetings of the Council when decisions with defence implications are to be taken.

  The function of the Military Staff is to provide military expertise and support to the Common European Security and Defence Policy, including the conduct of EU-led operations. The Military Staff will perform early warning, situation assessment and strategic planning for Petersberg tasks.

  Medical negligence claims and costs

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Number of medical negligence claims received

  243

  308

  255

  147

  Number of medical negligence claims for which compensation was paid

  58

  58

  112

  79

  Compensation paid (£)

  2,766,821

  3,545,060

  9,816,803

  9,688,420

  Complaints procedures are available to service personnel and their families wishing to complain of medical negligence by military medical personnel. My Department aims to deal with any such complaints in a fair and timely manner.

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the United Kingdom version of the Eurofighter Typhoon will not be armed with a cannon. [137926]

  Mr. Hoon
  The improved minimum range of capability of Eurofighter's Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile over previous such missiles, together with the pattern of operations over the last decade, mean that the 666W
  Permanent arrangements covering the relationship between the EU and NATO on crisis management will be based upon the principle of effective mutual consultation, co-operation and transparency between the two organisations.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer. [137425]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 531W.

  Military Medical Staff (Negligence)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each year since 1990 his Department received complaints from service personnel or their families of medical negligence by military medical staff, stating in each case(a) whether the complaint was upheld by his Department in the first instance, (b) whether the complaint was upheld after recourse to legal proceedings and (c) how much compensation was paid; and if he will make a statement. [138289]

  Dr. Moonie
  A central record of complaints from service personnel and their families alleging medical negligence is kept only of those cases where compensation is being sought. However, prior to 1996–97 such claims were not recorded separately from other common law claims for compensation. The vast majority of the claims detailed in the table have been the subject of legal proceedings, but this does not necessarily mean that they were all heard in court. The majority of claims are settled amicably on a legal liability basis without recourse to the courts. The payment of compensation does not necessarily occur in the financial year that the claim was received.

  gun now has only a minimal operational utility, and this is outweighed by its support, fatigue and training cost implications.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is concerning a ground attack role for Eurofighter Typhoon. [137905]

  Mr. Hoon
  Eurofighter will be a multi-role aircraft, able to carry both air-to-air and air-to-ground weaponry. Its priority role, however, remains air-to-air. With Tornado GR4 and Harriers continuing in-service for many years, there is less immediate need to arm Eurofighter for its air-to-ground role at its entry into service. Existing plans progressively to enhance Eurofighter's capability in both air-to-air and air-to-ground roles, from its entry into service onwards, remain unchanged.

  Former Prisoners of War (Compensation)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about compensation payments to former British servicemen and women who were held in Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. [138158]

  Dr. Moonie
  In 1964 the German Government agreed a £1 million settlement to compensate British victims of Nazi persecution. All those, including British service personnel, who were held in Nazi concentration camps were eligible under this scheme.

  RAF Leeming
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths of personnel at RAF Leeming occurred in the past three months; how many aircraft based there crashed; and if he will make a statement. [138325]

  Mr. Spellar
  Three personnel based at RAF Leeming have died in the last three months. In the same period, one aircraft based at RAF Leeming has crashed. The aircrew ejected safely.

  Hospital Ships
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an order for new hospital ships. [138240]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]We have no plans to procure hospital ships, which are subject to restrictions under the Geneva Convention that limit their utility. We are continuing, however, to define the requirement for a new Primary Casualty Receiving Capability, to enhance afloat medical support. A number of procurement options are under consideration, and the timing of an order will be determined by the chosen option.

  Air Sea Rescue
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department is involved in of the future role of the Army and Navy in the provision of air sea rescue services around the British Isles; and if he will make a statement. [138331]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]There are no studies in progress which are looking at the future role of the Army and Royal Navy in the provision of air sea rescue services around the British Isles.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of the relative effectiveness of the different types of helicopters used in air sea rescue around the British Isles. [138330]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]I can only comment upon the military Search and Rescue helicopters operated by the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, as the responsibility for civil SAR rests with other Government Departments.
  668W
  The military SAR force operates an all Sea King fleet within the British Isles and these aircraft are highly effective in carrying out this role.

HEALTH

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2000,Official Report, column 73W, when he will make an announcement on his proposals for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983; and if at or before that time hon. Members will have access to his Department's summary of responses to the Green Paper. [135669]

  Mr. Hutton
  In my reply to my hon. Friend of 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 987W, I stated that we will set out our plans for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 in a White Paper to be published before Christmas.

  We are today publishing the Department's summary of responses to the Green Paper, "Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 Proposals for Consultation". A copy of the summary is being sent to hon. Members and, where authors have agreed, copies of their responses to the Green Paper have been placed in the Library.

  NDPBs (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the non-departmental public bodies responsible to him which have duties relating to Scotland, indicating their budget and staffing in Scotland, the number of Scottish board members and their emoluments. [137688]

  Ms Stuart
  The following non-departmental public bodies, sponsored by the Department, have a remit which covers Great Britain or the United Kingdom.

  Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee

  Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens

  British Pharmacopoeia Commission

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment

  Gene Therapy Advisory Committee

  Genetics and Insurance Committee

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Human Genetics Commission

  Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation

  National Biological Standards Board (UK)

  National Radiological Protection Board

  Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health

  The Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee

  UK Advisory Panel of Health Care Workers Infected with Bloodborne Viruses

  UK Tissue Banking Group

  United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority.

  The remaining information is not held centrally in the form requested but general information on expenditure, staffing, board members and levels of remuneration is published annually in the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" have been placed in the Libraries of the House. "Public Bodies

  669W
  2000" is due to be published next month. Information on board membership and remuneration can also be downloaded from the Cabinet Office Public Appointments Directory website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk).

  Cannabis
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the anticipated length is of the clinical trials to test the safety and efficacy of using cannabis for medicinal purposes. [137894]

  Mr. Hutton
  The duration of a programme of clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a new medicine is determined by the company developing it.

  Doubly Incontinent Patients
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that the NHS should provide free care for doubly incontinent patients on a drip and confined to bed 24 hours a day. [138070]

  Mr. Hutton
  All residents of nursing homes will have their nursing care needs assessed by the National Health Service. Subject to parliamentary approval, the NHS will be responsible for providing registered nursing care free. When people have health needs at such a level that they need continuing health care in a nursing home, the NHS will be, as now, responsible for meeting the full costs.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the new hospital bids expected to be submitted for selection to the Capital Project Advisory Committee this year. [138455]

  Mr. Hutton
  A decision will be made by the end of November on the hospital development schemes which will go forward for consideration at the next prioritisation round.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to announce the next round of hospital building schemes. [138456]

  Mr. Hutton
  The start of a process to identify the next round of major hospital building schemes was announced on 14 November.

  Cannabis Psychosis
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cannabis psychosis cases there were in each of the last 10 years. [138451]

  Ms Stuart
  The table shows data from the hospital episodes statistics system (HES) and relates to in-patients with a primary diagnosis of psychotic disorder due to cannabinoids who have finished their hospital episodes under the care of a consultant. There are no comparable data prior to 1995–96.

  We know that cannabis can have a range of adverse health effects in addition to those risks associated with smoking tobacco. The Department is currently funding research into patterns of use and the health effects of long-term heavy use of cannabis.
  670W

  Estimated finished consultant episodes with a primary diagnosis of psychotic disorder due to cannabinoids, England, 1995–96 to 1998–99

  Number

  1995–96

  360

  1996–97

  280

  1997–98

  310

  1998–99

  300

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. Figures for 1998–99 are provisional as no adjustments have been made for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  HES

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Energy Market
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on further measures to liberalise the energy market. [138612]

  Mr. Byers
  I am satisfied that the programme of reforms of the electricity market set out in the Government's 1998 White Paper is now substantially complete. I am therefore lifting the stricter consents policy on gas powered stations with immediate effect.

  We considered the stricter gas consents policy necessary as it provided a breathing space for existing coal fired power stations until distortions in the electricity market were ironed out.

  I recognise that the ending of the stricter gas consents policy will create a new market and new challenges for coal which is why we are putting in place an aid scheme for the industry which this morning has been approved by the European Commission.

  I am aware that the end of the stricter gas consents policy is eagerly awaited by industry. New power stations are important drivers of economic growth both nationally and regionally:
  They bring more competition to the power generation market and so put downward pressure on electricity prices for everyone's benefit;
  They can provide cheap power and heat to nearby industry;
  They make businesses more competitive and create new investment and job opportunities around the country; and
  They also contribute to secure electricity supplies.

  I am announcing today decisions on five power station cases which had been placed on hold during the stricter gas consents policy. These power stations are Carrington, Spalding, Fleetwood, Raventhorpe and the Isle of Grain. I am also approving the application in respect of the Langage power station.

  It is important developers considering new power station proposals explore the opportunities to use combined heat and power (CHP). CHP can make a major contribution to reducing emissions as well as bringing other benefits such as increased efficiency. We will be publishing guidance to developers on this matter soon.

  I have also given careful consideration to the impact of lifting the stricter consents policy on the coal industry.
  671W
  The Government's policy remains that it is for the coal industry to find its own place in a competitive energy market. However it is the task of Government to help industry through a period of change. That is why we are introducing a coal subsidy scheme. This will provide the industry with transitional funding so that it is able to respond to the challenges of the new market conditions that arise from the lifting of the stricter gas consents policy.

  Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the(a) role and (b) mandate of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, with particular reference to the nature of the harmonization concerned. [138080]

  Dr. Howells
  The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market deals with Community-wide intellectual property rights. It is responsible for the registration and subsequent administration of Community trade marks. This role is likely to expand following adoption of a Community Regulation which will create Community-wide rights for industrial designs. It is self-financing from fees paid by businesses who use the system, and expects to receive some 60,000 applications for Community trade marks this year. The Office began its work on 1 September 1994 in Alicante, Spain.

  Haulage Companies
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many haulage companies were declared bankrupt each year since 1995. [138279]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table shows company compulsory liquidations and individual bankruptcies for the road transport industry in England and Wales, 1995–2000. The road transport industry includes road haulage, car hire, taxis, bus services, and other road passenger transport—detailed figures solely for road haulage are not available.

  Insolvencies: Road transport industry (England and Wales)

  Year

  Company compulsory liquidations

  Individual bankruptcy orders

  1995

  204

  824

  1996

  197

  1,008

  1997

  174

  971

  1998

  174

  829

  1999

  152

  979

  2000 (to quarter 2)

  94

  495

  Source:

  DTI

  Late Payment
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many invoices his Department paid in 1999–2000; and how many of these were paid within 30 days of receipt or from the date a supplier dispute was resolved. [138401]

  Ms Hewitt
  In 1999–2000, DTI paid 46,500 invoices, of which 93 per cent. were paid within 30 days of receipt or from the date a supplier dispute was resolved.

  Cluster Munitions (Exports)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences were granted for the export of cluster munitions in each of the last five years. [137690]

  Dr. Howells
  The export of cluster munitions is controlled under entries ML3 and ML4 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. Other munitions are also controlled under these entries. It would entail disproportionate cost to examine the records to establish which, if any, of the licences issued in the last five years covered the export of cluster munitions.

  Details of SIELs and OIELs issued between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1999 have been set out in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; copies are in the Library of the House. The Reports list by country of destination the numbers of export licences issued and refused in each equipment category and give details of the military equipment for which licences have been granted.

  For the periods not covered by the Annual Reports, the Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the results are set out in the table.

  Individual licences issued covering the export of goods with the ratings ML3 and MIA to consignees or end-users in all destinations

  Issued from

  SIELs

  OIELs

  1 January to 31 December 1996

  937

  33

  1 January to 1 May 1997

  306

  9

  1 January to 2 November 2000

  754

  27

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307-08W.

  In addition, goods on the Military List may have been exported to certain destinations under certain Open General Licences; copies of all Open General Export Licences are placed in the Library of the House.

  Military Equipment Exports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the countries to which the UK has allowed the export of military equipment in the last 12 months. [137382]

  Dr. Howells
  The most recent information is set out in the Government's 1999 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls which was published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Report lists by country of destination the numbers of export licences issued and refused in each equipment category and gives details of the military equipment for which licences have been granted.

  ADSL Services
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what actions he intends to take to ensure that suppliers of ADSL services do not dilute contention ratios beyond those quoted in their sales literature; and if he will make a statement. [138329]
  673W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]ADSL service suppliers are expected to specify a number of quality/performance parameters as part of their sales literature. It is likely that the suppliers will specify contention ratio as one of the quality parameters within a service contract and they will be commercially obligated to fulfil their contractual requirements concerning quality of service. Competition in supply of ADSL services will enable customers to select their preferred ADSL supplier based on quality and price. It is therefore for market forces to determine which services consumers are likely to demand and what price consumers are willing to pay for such services based on service quality information.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on legal proceedings against his Department in respect of its division of Milk Marque into three separate processing companies. [137974]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]Milk Marque and the National Farmers Union started judicial review proceedings last year. Their main argument is that it was unlawful for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to carry out an investigation under domestic competition law and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to act on their report. The High Court has referred certain questions to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. When the ECJ has given its views the proceedings in the High court can continue. This legal process is unlikely to be quick.

  TrustUK
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial support was given to TrustUK in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000 to date. [137842]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]The Government have not provided any funding to TrustUK, which is an organisation led by the private sector. The Government do however strongly support TrustUK; the Minister for Small Business and E-commerce took part in its launch in July. Officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Fair Trading have contributed to the development of TrustUK and have taken part in its process of approving codes of practice for e-commerce. The Department of Trade and Industry has hosted meetings of TrustUK and is considering what further assistance it can give.

  Newspapers and Magazines
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer to the Competition Commission the impact on retail newsagents of W. H. Smith's proposal to extend their newspaper and magazine wholesale operation. [138291]

  Dr. Howells
  Under UK competition legislation, it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour and if appropriate make a reference to the Competition Commission under the Fair Trading Act 1973 or take action under the Competition Act 1998.
  674W
  The Director General is aware of proposals by W. H. Smith to change distribution arrangements for magazines. He is monitoring developments and will consider any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade if he will discuss with the Competition the operation of its proposed code of respect of the relationship between and suppliers with regard to newspapers and magazines. [138290]

  Dr. Howells
  The Competition Commission has no role in implementing any remedies it recommends.

  The Director General of Fair Trading has been asked to approach those supermarket chains with 8 per cent. or more of the market to agree a Code of Practice concerning relations between supermarkets and suppliers which would meet the concerns identified by the Competition Commission. This process is ongoing.

  Nickel Directive
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further discussions he plans to have with, and representations he plans to make to, the European Commission regarding the Nickel Directive. [138072]

  Dr. Howells
  The Directive has been implemented by The Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Nickel) (Safety) Regulations 2000.

  On 2 May 2000, my officials wrote to the European Commission supporting another member state in its request for a review of the Directive. The Commission replied on 8 June 2000, confirming its intention to review the Directive in the light of technical progress since the Directive's adoption in 1994. Reports are currently being gathered and the findings may be referred to the Scientific Committee on Toxicology, Ecotoxicology and the Environment for an independent assessment. On that basis, the Commission expects to examine an adaptation to the Directive in 2001.

  I have also instructed my officials to liaise with Industry now on these issues. This will enable the UK to make cogent and reasoned representations to the Commission and to obtain the optimum solution for Industry and the Consumer.

  Climate Change
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what strategic measures he is taking to allow for environmental changes induced by climate change. [137181]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment gave on 13 November 2000,Official Report, columns 469-70W.

  Regional Venture Capital Funds
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the proposed regional venture capital funds will be cleared by the European Commission. [138447]

  Mr. Byers
  As soon as possible.

  Ministerial Cars
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was in each of the past three years of petrol for his Department's fleet of ministerial cars; and how many vehicles there are in that fleet.[135028]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was in each of the past three years for petrol for his Department's ministerial cars; and how many cars there are in that fleet. [134579]

  Dr. Howells
  Six cars are used by Ministers in my Department. On fuel consumption, I refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 14 November 2000,Official Report, column 552W, for the Government Car and Despatch Agency.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the non-departmental public bodies responsible to him which have duties relating to Scotland, indicating their budget and staffing in Scotland, the number of Scottish board members and their emoluments.[137696]

  Dr. Howells
  The following non-departmental public bodies, sponsored by my Department, have a remit which covers Great Britain or the United Kingdom.

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  British Hallmarking Council

  Coal Authority

  Gas and Electricity Consumer Council

  National Consumer Council1

  Post Office Users'National Council2

  Design Council

  Competition Commission

  National Research Development Council

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

  Medical Research Council

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Advisory Committee on Cleaner Coal Technology

  Aerospace Committee

  Council for Science and Technology

  Energy Advisory Panel

  Foresight Steering Group

  Fuel Cell Advisory Panel

  LINK/Teaching Company Scheme Board

  Low Pay Commission

  Measurement Advisory Committee

  OSO Industry Board

  Partnership Fund Assessment Panel

  Renewable Energy Advisory Committee

  Small Business Council

  Small Business Investment Task Force3

  Spectrum Management Advisory Group

  676W

  Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property

  Central Arbitration Committee

  Copyright Tribunal

  Employment Appeal Tribunal

  Employment Tribunals

  Insolvency Practitioners'Tribunal

  Persons Hearing Consumer Credit Licensing Appeals

  Persons Hearing Estate Agents Appeals

  1The National Consumer Council has a sub-committee dealing with Scottish issues—The Scottish Consumer Council

  2There is a separate Post Office Users' Council for Scotland

  3The SBITF's remit covers England but advice is made available to the devolved Administrations.

  The remaining information is not held centrally in the form requested, but general information on expenditure, staffing, board members and levels of remuneration is published annually in the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" have been placed in the Libraries of the House and "Public Bodies 2000" is due to be published next month. Information on board membership and remuneration can also be downloaded from the Cabinet Office Public Appointments Directory website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk

  Internet (Price Transparency)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies his Department has undertaken on the competition effects of increased price transparency due to use of the internet; and if he will make a statement.[137331]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 584W.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those projects his Department supports highlighting the dangers of drug abuse to children and young people. [137340]

  Jacqui Smith
  DfEE guidance Circular number 4/95 sets out the statutory position on drug education in schools and was supplemented by the guidance "Protecting Young People" (1998) which gives detailed advice to identify what works in drug education and how best to take that forward effectively. To further support schools in the dissemination of effective drug education DfEE in partnership with the Department of Health commissioned the Standing Conference On Drug Abuse (SCODA) to product further guidance for schools, the three "R's", "the right approach", "the right response" and "the right choice". DfEE has also made funding available in partnership with the charity DrugScope to identify, develop, promote and disseminate good practice in drug and alcohol education and prevention programmes for young people, parents and professionals in schools and in informal settings. DfEE will continue to fund the dissemination of guidance and support materials.
  677W
  Spending on drug education will rise from £7.5 million this year to £17.5 million in 2003–04 (a 133 per cent. increase). This funding is available to all LEAs through the Standards Fund. It will help teachers deliver a drug education programme tailor-made to the needs of all young people which equips them with the knowledge to recognise the dangers of drug misuse and make informed choices. It will also fund drug advisers to work directly with schools, training costs of the Connexions personal advisers for 13-19-year-olds and ensure that key partners are engaged in developing drug education programmes relevant to the needs of the local community.

  We have now established a solid base for drug education in schools. A recent Ofsted survey (July 2000) showed 93 per cent. of secondary and 75 per cent. primary schools now had their own anti-drug policies.

  Disaffected Pupils
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his assessment of the current trend in(a) permanent exclusions and (b) fixed term exclusions.[138266]

  Jacqui Smith
  The rate of permanent exclusions is falling. In 1998–99, the latest year for which data are available, there were 10,400 permanent exclusions compared to 12,300 in 1997–98—a 15 per cent. reduction. We are on course to achieve the national target of 8,400 by 2002.

  Data on fixed period exclusions are not collected centrally, but Ofsted estimated in its report "Exclusions from secondary schools" (1995–96) that there are around 100,000 a year. Some of these may be repeat exclusions of the same child.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils are officially classified as Education Otherwise.[138267]

  Jacqui Smith
  In the January 2000 Annual Schools' Census, nearly 24,000 students were reported as receiving education otherwise than at school, including those at Pupil Referral Units. We do not collect centrally the number of pupils educated at home by their parents.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions his Department has had with excluded young people about the causes of their disaffection.[138292]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him to his supplementary question on 26 October 2000,Official Report, columns 368-69 and to my answer of 9 November 2000, Official Report, columns 358-59W.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to ensure teachers are able to deal effectively with poor behaviour.[138293]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 368, and that given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards on 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 293W.
  678W
  As a result of representations from headteachers, we recently issued new guidance for exclusion appeal panels which indicates that the headteacher's decision to exclude should not be overridden in a range of circumstances including where there is violence or the threat of violence.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of poor behaviour on(a) the achievement of individual schools and (b) the morale of teachers. [138294]

  Jacqui Smith
  On(a) I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 12 April 2000, Official Report, column 184W.

  On (b) we are aware that low morale can sometimes result if teachers feel unable to deal adequately with poor behaviour. That is why we are providing record levels of funding to help schools better manage poor behaviour and why we have made clear that where necessary headteachers can permanently exclude the most disruptive or violent pupils.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure greater recognition of the achievement of schools and teachers who deal most effectively with disaffected pupils.[138295]

  Jacqui Smith
  Disaffection is often manifested by irregular attendance or prolonged truancy. As part of our wider drive to cut truancy levels, the 50 schools which achieve the most in cutting truancy levels in challenging circumstances will have the chance to win a "Truancy Buster" award of up to £10,000 to help them act as Excellence Centres. The first awards will be made early in the new year.

  Beacon status is another way in which we recognise the achievement of schools, and tackling disaffection is one area in which Beacon schools are working to help spread effective practices to other schools.

  Special Needs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what decision he has reached on whether statements of special needs will(a) specify or (b) otherwise set out assistance from a local authority in the proposed code and regulations on special needs.[138324]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are considering the broad range of representations received to these and other issues relating to the draft revised code and proposed amendments to the regulations. We will decide shortly on the appropriate final wording in the Code of Practice to underpin our determination to achieve both clarity and specificity, as has always been our intention.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  ERDP
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what projections his Department has made for the number of successful claimants per year for each component scheme of the ERDP.[136498]
  679W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: We will publish shortly and post on the MAFF website the indicative impact indicators and targets for the ERDP (Table 2). These focus on what the ERDP might deliver, eg the number of training days provided, not the number of claimants.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what potential sources of infection he has eliminated in respect of the recent outbreak of bovine TB in South Shropshire. [137552]

  Ms Quin
  The recent outbreak of bovine TB in cattle in South Shropshire is still under veterinary investigation.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to test badgers for evidence of TB in areas where bovine TB has recently emerged. [137561]

  Ms Quin
  There is no reliable test for bovine TB in live badgers. All badger carcases from the Government's badger culling trial are tested for bovine TB at post mortem. Additionally, a sample of badger carcases found on roads or on farms will be tested for bovine TB in a new survey in seven counties of England, of which Shropshire is one.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the effect of badger protection upon the health of the UK cattle herd. [137554]

  Ms Quin
  The Krebs report concluded that the sum of evidence strongly supports the view that in Britain badgers are a significant source of TB infection in cattle. However, it went on to say that it is not possible to quantify what contribution badgers make to cattle infection. The Government accepted the report's recommendation that MAFF should set up a field trial to quantify the impact of culling badgers on TB in cattle. The trial is in progress and results are expected no later than 2004.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy and practice is regarding post mortems on badgers killed on public highways. [137559]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 48W.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the effect of abattoir closures upon the(a) length and (b) time of journeys for animals consigned for slaughter. [137558]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no plans for such an assessment. The Welfare of Animal (Transport) Order 1997 sets rules, including journey time limits, for farm livestock in transit, including on journeys to slaughter.

  SEAC
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was(a) the total amount of remuneration paid to members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy
  680W
  Advisory Committe in each year since its inception and (b) the highest remuneration of any one member in these years. [137577]

  Ms Quin
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost. However, from April 2000, the maximum daily allowances for attending SEAC meetings, including preparatory time, were £259.00 and £219.00 for the Chairman and the members respectively.

  Flooding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department offers to private landowners to repair damage to river banks caused by flood water. [137518]

  Mr. Morley
  None. Grant aid from this Department for new and improved capital schemes is directed to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities—the Environment Agency, Local Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what effect the installation of new flood defences at Pateley Bridge has had on water levels in the River Nidd at Knaresborough during the early November floods; [137517]

  (2) what action the Environment Agency took to alert riparian businesses and home owners on the River Nidd at Knaresborough about the probability of flooding in advance of the recent floods; and how many properties were affected by the floods. [137519]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency's staff in the north-east are still fully committed to dealing with the impact of the floods in that region, and it would be inappropriate to divert them at this point of time. I have asked the Agency once the immediate work is completed, in conjunction with their partners, to produce a full report on the flooding, its effects, how the flood warning and emergency response worked and what lessons we can learn; this report should be available by Easter. In terms of the specific questions I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information can be obtained.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the deployment of troops to assist in areas of West Sussex disrupted by recent flooding; and if he will make a statement. [137616]

  Mr. Morley
  There are standing arrangements in cases of serious flooding for the Environment Agency to request for military assistance from the Ministry of Defence. In the case of West Sussex, the military has been used in the Chichester area for sandbagging duties and is on standby for bridging work around the City. It has not yet been deemed necessary to call upon the services of the military elsewhere in West Sussex.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instruct the Environment Agency to re-assess the risks of flooding in Buckinghamshire. [138003]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF has set in place a series of high level targets one of which is for the Environment Agency to ensure that inspections of flood defences, main rivers and critical ordinary watercourses are undertaken and, as
  681W
  a result of these inspections, to report to the Ministry on its assessment of flood risk. These reports are due to be provided by April 2001.

  To this end the Environment Agency is undertaking surveys of all defences and structures on main rivers within Buckinghamshire. Local authorities and internal drainage boards are in the process of identifying critical ordinary watercourses, and inspecting flood defences upon these, assisted by the agency teams.

  North Sea Fishery
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) Finnish, (b) Spanish and (c) Portuguese vessels he estimates will fish North Sea stocks after 31 December 2002; how many vessels (i) from the UK and (ii) in total fish these stocks at present; and if he will commission a study on the effect of such fishing on stocks. [137899]

  Mr. Morley
  As things currently stand, from 1 January 2003, vessels from Finland, Spain and Portugal will only be entitled to fish for non-quota stocks in the North Sea. The number of vessels from Finland, Spain and Portugal that fish in the North Sea after 31 December 2002 will depend on commercial decisions taken by the fishermen in these countries. It is not possible to estimate accurately how many vessels will chose to fish in the North Sea. The number is likely to be extremely low. In any case they will have no access to any stock covered by quota arrangements as all main commercial stocks are in this category.

  945 UK vessels currently fish for North Sea stocks. We do not keep information on other member states vessels fishing in the North Sea.

  Foreign Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the report of the Irish Government into the Sea Horse-Exodus incident; and if he will make a statement on its impact on his policy towards UK-flagged foreign fishing vessels. [138165]

  Mr. Morley
  The report of the Irish Government into the collision between the Sea Horse and the Exodus in March 1997 has not yet been published. It is therefore too early to say what impact it may have on policy towards UK flagged foreign owned fishing vessels.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his position towards common EU monitoring procedures for the Common Fisheries Policy, indicating the proposals which are under discussion. [138183]

  Mr. Morley
  I am aware that the Commission is looking at the division of monitoring and control work between national authorities and the Community. It has not issued any proposals and there have been no formal discussions with member states. We shall, of course, give careful consideration to any proposals that may emerge.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he plans to take to 682W
  address the issue of cetacean bycatch in United Kingdom waters; if he will raise cetacean bycatch in the Council of Ministers; if he will raise the issue of protection of cetaceans in the 2002 review of the Common Fisheries Policy; and if he will make a statement. [138016]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]: The Sea Mammal Research Unit is currently undertaking a three-year research project funded by my Department which will monitor bycatch in a number of fisheries not previously assessed. It will also attempt to establish definitively why harbour porpoises become entangled in gill nets, with a view to developing suitable mitigation measures.

  We are also proposing to produce, jointly with DETR, a strategy for the protection of all cetacean species. This will build on that already established for the harbour porpoise.

  The Commission and other member states are already well aware of UK concerns on this issue. The Commission have made clear that addressing the problem of cetacean bycatch is one of the issues for coverage in the 2002 Review. I have already raised this issue in the Fisheries Council.

  Community Plant Variety Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the(a) budget and (b) purpose of the Community Plant Variety Office. [138078]

  Ms Quin
  The purpose of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) is to administer a system of intellectual property rights for plant varieties valid throughout the European Community and to evaluate and decide upon applications for community plant variety rights. The CPVO is self-financing and recovers its costs through fees charged to plant breeders. The CPVO sets a budget each year, which includes estimates of all the office's anticipated revenue and expenditure. The budget is subject to approval by the CPVO Administrative Council, which comprises representatives of all member states and the Commission.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason farmers farming organically may not dispose of surplus organic manure to farms not being organically farmed. [137542]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: This requirement is part of Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 (as amended). Its intention is to ensure that there is a balance within organic farming between livestock production and land available for the disposal of manure. We shall be assessing the impact of this requirement as part of a review of the effects of the implementation of the Regulations.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the need for the use by organic farms of synthetic amino acids in poultry feed. [137543]
  683W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: The use of synthetic amino acids is prohibited by Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 (as amended), but we have received a number of industry representations saying that they are important in commercial poultry production. We shall be assessing the need as part of a review of the effects of the implementation of the Regulations.

  Poultry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those members of UKROFS who have particular expertise in poultry matters, giving in each case the applicable qualifications. [137544]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: Three members of the board of UKROFS have expertise in poultry matters. Two have no formal qualifications but the third has an Msc in Animal Production with a special interest in and experience of poultry production systems. In addition the board has available to it advice from experts within MAFF.

  Pig Disease Eradication Fund
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money is held by Her Majesty's Government by way of statutory levy in the Pig Disease Eradication Fund. [138413]

  Ms Quin
  The Meat and Livestock Commission holds a capital sum of £605,000 on behalf of the Pig Disease Eradication Fund Ltd.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made about the use of children in recent violent clashes between Israelis and Palestinians. [137208]

  Mr. Hain
  I deplore the fact that children have been caught up in recent violence in the Occupied Territories, which has led to tragic loss of life and casualties among children. I support the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' recent statement that the protection of children must be an absolute priority for both parties.

  Ghana
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has of preparation for the elections in Ghana in December. [137941]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK Government have provided assistance to Ghana's Electoral Commission to help eliminate electoral fraud. We are sending a team of thirteen observers to monitor the electoral process. It is important that the elections are held in a free and democratic manner.

  Biological Weapons
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Biopreparat organisation in Russia and the manufacture of biological weapons. [137929]
  684W
  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of widely-publicised accounts that Biopreparat was originally established to support the biological weapons programme of the former Soviet Union. We do not however comment on intelligence matters.

  Russia is a State Party and Depositary Government of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and is currently involved in negotiations on a legally-binding Protocol to strengthen the Convention. The UK Believes that this Protocol will improve transparency and provide internationally agreed mechanisms with which to pursue compliance concerns.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-departmental public bodies responsible to him which have duties relating to Scotland, indicating their budget and staffing in Scotland, the number of Scottish board members and their emoluments. [137700]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2000 Annual Report, held in the House Library, contains a list of non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department which have a remit that covers the United Kingdom. Information on board members and remuneration are contained within. The remaining information is not held centrally in the form requested, but general information on expenditure and staffing is published annually in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" have been placed in the Libraries of the House and "Public Bodies 2000" is due to be published next month. Information on board membership and remuneration can also be downloaded from the Cabinet Office Public Appointments Directory website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk.

  Foreign Policy Centre
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the Foreign Policy Centre in formulating his policy. [138181]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Foreign Office welcomes ideas from outside organisations on all areas of its work. It is established practice for Foreign Office Ministers and officials to have regular contact with policy institutes and NGOs, including the Foreign Policy Centre, and to consider their views when formulating policy. Policy institutes and NGOs can also influence policy through their contributions to a wider public debate.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support his Department gives the Foreign Policy Centre. [138182]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Foreign Policy Centre has received no money from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, nor do we have any plans to provide financial assistance.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received from the United States in respect of the future of DERA. [138161]
  685W
  Mr. Battle
  None. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and representatives of his Department are, however, in contact with the US Administration on this subject.

  EU Council Representatives
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the functions and treaty base of the Secretary General/High Representative of the Council, and the extent to which his functions are autonomous of national Governments of the member states. [138217]

  Mr. Vaz
  The role and functions of the Secretary General/High Representative are set out in Article 207 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and in Articles 18 and 26 of the Treaty on European Union. Article 26 in particular provides that The Secretary-General of the Council, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, shall assist the Council in matters coming within the scope of the common foreign and security policy, in particular through contributing to the formulation, preparation and implementation of policy decisions, and, when appropriate and acting on behalf of the Council at the request of the Presidency, through conducting political dialogue with third parties.

  It is clear from these provisions that the Secretary General/High Representative's role is to assist the Council, which remains the primary EU decision-making body for matters of external policy. It follows that the Secretary General/High Representative is answerable to the Council for all his actions in the name of the EU.

  Defence Attaches
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total(a) direct and (b) associated costs of defence attachés will be in financial year 2000–01. [138317]

  Mr. Hain
  The Ministry of Defence accounts for the pay, allowances and certain other costs of defence attaches and defence advisers. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office accounts for office and residential accommodation, as well as the administration costs at overseas Posts in supporting the activities of such staff. The estimated Foreign and Commonwealth costs in 2000–01 are £14 million.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the extent of the exclusion zones around and above Diego Garcia; and what purpose the zones serve. [138296]

  Mr. Battle
  There are no exclusion zones. Diego Garcia has a three mile territorial sea, within which activities are restricted in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and an area of controlled airspace that extends five miles out and 2,500ft upwards from the runway there.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requirement there is on the US authorities to notify him of progress with their research undertaken on Diego Garcia. [138297]
  686W
  Mr. Battle
  We would expect the US authorities to seek our approval before conducting any research programmes on Diego Garcia.

  GCHQ (Recruitment)
  Mr. HomeRobertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the recruitment statistics for GCHQ in 1999; and what the same figures were in 1998. [138792]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  GCHQ notified the Civil Service Commissioners that, as a result of recruitment schemes run in 1999, 241 individuals have joined the Department or are awaiting completion of the application process. This compares with 187 reported for 1998 recruitment schemes. In addition, nine former members of staff were reappointed in 1999, compared with eight in 1998.

WALES

  Environment (Deeside)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to the environment on Deeside. [136867]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales regularly meets the First Minister and discusses a wide range of issues. I also hold regular meetings with the Assembly Minister for Transport, Planning and the Environment.

  Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet the chairman of the National Education and Training Council in Wales to discuss training issues. [136868]

  Mr. Hanson
  I have no immediate plans to meet the Chairman of the National Education and Training Council in Wales.

  Pre-Budget Report (Women)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of proposals in the pre-Budget Report as they specifically affect women in Wales. [136869]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend announced a number of measures that will benefit women in Wales.

  Women will benefit from improved fuel allowances, an increase in pension entitlements and also from improved New Deal measures. This Government welcome the invaluable contribution that women make to family life and economic stability, and we are determined to support families and provide the best opportunities for women.

  Flooding
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he has identified in rainfall trends which will require additional flood management planning for Wales. [136870]
  687W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Identifying such trends, on a UK basis, is part of the research at the Hadley Centre and UK Climate Impacts Programme. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced that the Government intend to enhance and speed up the research to improve our prediction and assessment of the effects of climate change. The Government also intend to ask a senior independent engineer to carry out a review of technical approaches to flood alleviation.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the recent floods. [136874]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend on a range of issues affecting Wales, which have of course included the recent floods. A meeting of Ministers, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, was held on 4 November to discuss the flooding issues. Sue Essex, Assembly Minister for Environment, Transport and Planning and one of my senior officials also attended this meeting.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator's second national plan and current levels of drugs misuse in Wales. [136871]

  Mr. Hanson
  I meet the Assembly Secretaries on a regular basis, when we discuss a range of issues. I am aware that Jane Hutt, Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services, has welcomed the report by Keith Hellawell.

  Crime (Young People)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about policies to reduce crime by young people in Wales. [136872]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Minister regularly to discuss a number of subjects, including this one. The Assembly takes great interest in the work of the Youth Justice Board and Youth Offending Teams in Wales, in view of their key role in safeguarding the social wellbeing, health and education of young people in Wales. Wales received some £5 million of the £85 million made available for the Youth Justice Board in the last Comprehensive Spending Review. In addition, the Assembly is providing a grant of £371,000 to the voluntary organisation, NACRO Cymru, to provide advice and guidance to Youth Offending Teams and local agencies in Wales.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on progress in paying compensation to miners in Wales. [136873]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and other DTI Ministers and discuss a wide range of issues, including miners compensation.
  688W
  The Government are working hard to bring about greater co-operation from all concerned in order to speed up payments to miners for their claims. In Wales £24.5 million has now been paid out in compensation, £18.8 million of that for respiratory diseases.

  Wales Office
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff work in the Wales Office; and what he expects the cost to be for running this office for the year ending March 2001. [136875]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There are currently 43 full-time equivalent staff working for the Wales Office, with two staff who work part-time. The running cost budget for the Wales Office is £2,250,000 for the year ending 31 March 2001.

  Job Losses (Panasonic and Sony)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he was first informed that there were to be job losses at Panasonic and Sony in Wales. [136876]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government were alerted to the announcements on a confidential basis very shortly before their publication. Such decisions are ultimately commercial ones for the companies to take themselves to ensure their long-term future. It is not the Government's policy to intervene in such decisions.

  BSE Inquiry Report
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on actions he has taken since the publication of the BSE Inquiry report of Lord Phillips on the relationship between civil servants of the National Assembly and those in Whitehall Departments. [136877]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The situation is now different from that on which Lord Phillips' Inquiry reported, in that relationships between civil servants of the National Assembly for Wales and those in Whitehall Departments are governed by the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations supported by a series of Devolution Guidance Notes (DGN). DGN 1 deals with working arrangements between officials. An important part of my role is to ensure that these arrangements work smoothly.

  I have, however, looked carefully at the report to ensure that current arrangements are compatible with the Inquiry's findings.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the National Assembly Education Secretary to discuss secondary school provision. [136879]

  Mr. Hanson
  Both the Secretary of State and I will be meeting the National Assembly Secretary for Education, Jane Davidson, in the near future, and I plan to meet her on a regular basis to discuss education issues that are important to Wales.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received from pensioner organisations in Wales. [136880]

  Mr. Hanson
  In recent months I have received a number of representations from pensioner organisations. I have also met with some pensioner groups.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with Department of Social Security Ministers about(a) the take up of the Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners, (b) the issuing of free television licences and (c) winter fuel payments in Wales; and if he will make a statement.[136883]

  Mr. Hanson
  I speak regularly with colleagues in Whitehall and we discuss a range of issues. My officials are also in close contact with their counterparts in the Department of Social Security on matters that affect pensioners in Wales.

  The uprated Minimum Income Guarantee will help 105,000 pensioner households in Wales. 10,000 more pensioners in Wales will be eligible and benefits will increase for the 95,000 pensioners currently eligible. Over 200,000 over 75 pension households will benefit from free television licences and the increased Winter Fuel Allowance will benefit 500,000 pensioner households in Wales.

  I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the new measures announced for pensioners by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet representatives of pensioner organisations in Wales. [136889]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet representatives of pensioner organisations and I met a group of pensioners on 9 November to discuss a range of issues with them.

  My right hon. Friend has agreed to meet the National Association of Welsh Pensioners shortly to discuss the new measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8 November.

  Public Opinion (Young People)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the operation of the mechanisms in Wales for Government to ascertain the opinions of young people; and if he will make a statement. [136881]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I welcome the way in which the Assembly is taking forward a cross-cutting agenda for support for young people in Wales. They are undertaking extensive consultation with young people and those who work with them in the statutory and voluntary sectors, to develop a Welsh strategy for the young people of Wales.

  NHS
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly on the NHS in Wales. [136882]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Assembly First Secretary and the Health Secretary to discuss Health issues in Wales.

  In addition we are all members of the Joint Ministerial Committee for health. To date, we have met four times and the opportunities to share ideas are proving very useful.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of fuel duty on the Welsh economy. [136884]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced a 2p reduction in duty on Ultra-Low Sulphur Fuel, petrol and diesel, on top of the 1p cut in the 2000 Budget. The Government are sympathetic to the needs of the whole UK economy. However, we also have a duty to environmental protection, and fuel duty and the Climate Change Levy have their part to play.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of vehicle fuel duties on the rural economy in Wales. [136891]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In this year's Budget, the Government gave a commitment to ending the fuel duty escalator and that there would be no increase in fuel duty, beyond the automatic increase in line with inflation. Fuel duty revenues go straight into a ring-fenced fund for improving public transport and modernising the road network. Wales is allocated a percentage of such moneys on the basis of the funding rules, but it is for the National Assembly to determine how the money is spent.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent talks he has had with the First Secretary, concerning the prospects for manufacturing industry with particular reference to the steel industry; and if he will make a statement. [136885]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with my right hon. Friend the First Minister and discuss a number of issues, including the steel industry. The Government fully understand the importance of a successful manufacturing sector, and steel is making a vital contribution to the economy and employment.

  Manufacturing output in Wales in the four quarters to the second quarter of 2000 was 4.2 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of 1999 and 7 per cent. higher than in 1995.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the development of renewable energy in Wales. [136886]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues. Both the UK Government and the National Assembly for Wales support the development of renewable energy as a sustainable energy source for the future.

  Children's Commissioner
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on the Government's legislative programme in respect of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. [136887]

  Mr. Hanson
  Since February this year, following the publication of the North Wales Child Abuse report, the First Minister and I have been in touch constantly about the legislation required to implement the post of Children's Commissioner.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary and the Welsh Health Secretary on the number of people waiting over 18 months for an operation. [136888]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Assembly First Secretary and the Health Secretary to discuss health issues in Wales.

  Moreover, we have all attended meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee on health at which waiting lists and times have been discussed.

  On 23 November, the National Assembly will launch the report of the Waiting Times Strategy Group. This will identify a wide range of recommendations to assist in reducing waiting lists/times.

  Ambulance Services
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representatives he has received concerning the inclusion of the ambulance service in Wales within a UK wide inspection system for ambulance services. [136890]

  Mr. Hanson
  None.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what impact the increases on fuel duty and Vehicle Excise Duty have had on the economy of rural Wales [136878]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In this year's Budget, the Government gave a commitment to ending the fuel duty escalator and that there would be no increase in fuel duty, beyond the automatic increase in line with inflation. Fuel duty revenues go straight into a ring-fenced fund for improving public transport and modernising the road network. Wales is allocated a percentage of such moneys on the basis of the spending rules, but it is for the National 692W
  Assembly to determine whether the money is spent on transport or on other priorities. Our Budget plans for next year promise an abolition of vehicle excise duty (VED) on agricultural machines which will benefit owners of up to 15,000 such machines in Wales, currently paying £40.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Royal Institute of International Affairs
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the degree of access to confidential Government(a) documents and (b) briefings afforded to senior members and staff of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [136246]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have been asked to reply.

  All confidential Governmt documents and briefings are managed under established procedures, which apply without exemption.

  We have regular exchanges with the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) and other similar organisations on many aspects of foreign policy, both privately and publicly.

  Ministers and officials participate in RIIA hosted meetings. According to Chatham House, meetings of the Institute may be held "on the record" or under the Chatham House Rule. When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speakers, nor that of any other participant, may be revealed; nor may it be mentioned that the information was received at a meeting of the Institute.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken in the past three months to install more safe cells for remand prisoners. [137714]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service has developed a safer cell design, which provides protection for those at risk of self-harm. Since 1996, a total of 185 cells have been installed to this "improved cell" standard. 1,088 cells in the new prisons at Forest Bank and Ashfield—Design, Construction, Management and Finance (DCMF) prisons—reflect aspects of the new design requirements.

  A strategy to introduce safer cell design features will be developed as part of a revised suicide prevention policy. There have been no improved cells installed since the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), referred in an Adjournment debate to plans to include them in new houseblocks and prisons, 7 July 2000, Official Report, column 603. But the Prison Service has confirmed its intention to incorporate the safer cell designed features into some or all of the cells in new houseblocks being built in establishments. Two new DCMF prisons under construction at Dovegate and Rye Hill will provide 1,353 cells reflecting aspects of the new design requirement.

  Prisons
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff there are on night duty in each prison holding juveniles; and what the staff to prisoner ratio is in such prisons on night shifts. [137723]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table shows the night staffing figures for those establishments holding juveniles with the corresponding staff-to-prisoner ratio.

  Establishment

  Number of staff

  Staff to prisoner ratio

  Ashfield

  26

  1:15

  Brinsford

  6

  1:36

  Castington

  13

  1:37

  Feltham

  24

  1:6.5

  Hollesley Bay:

  Carlford Unit

  1

  1:30

  Warren Hill

  3

  1:61.6

  Huntercombe

  8

  1:40

  Lancaster Farms

  13

  1:38.3

  Onley

  5

  1:43

  Portland

  19

  1:30

  Stoke Heath

  5

  1:58.7

  Thorn Cross

  9

  1:30

  Werrington

  6

  1:17.6

  Wetherby

  8

  1:45

  Female establishments holding under 18's

  Brockhill

  6

  1:27

  Bullwood Hall

  7

  1:26

  Brake Hall

  8

  1:33

  Holloway

  28

  1:19

  Low Newton

  7

  1:30

  New Hall

  10

  1:32

  Styal

  16

  1:26

  Table 2: Ethnic composition of prisoners in juvenile establishments as at 30 September 2000

  Percentage of Ethnic group2

  Establishment

  Population1

  White

  Black

  South Asian3

  Chinese and Other4

  Not known

  Juvenile establishments

  5,243

  80.2

  12.9

  2.8

  4.0

  0.1

  Ashfield

  362

  85.6

  10.6

  0.5

  3.3

  0.0

  Brinsford

  460

  74.7

  18.4

  3.5

  3.2

  0.3

  Castington

  247

  98.8

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.0

  Feltham

  724

  48.8

  37.8

  4.8

  8.5

  0.1

  Hollesley Bay

  334

  74.1

  17.3

  3.6

  5.1

  0.0

  Huntercombe

  352

  56.9

  35.1

  4.5

  3.4

  0.0

  Lancaster Farms

  494

  92.7

  4.7

  1.4

  1.2

  0.0

  Onley

  593

  72.0

  21.4

  4.1

  2.5

  0.0

  Portland

  501

  76.9

  17.1

  3.8

  2.2

  0.0

  Stoke Heath

  562

  92.8

  5.0

  0.7

  1.5

  0.0

  Thorn Cross

  237

  86.9

  2.8

  4.8

  5.6

  0.0

  Werrington

  104

  90.4

  6.7

  1.9

  1.0

  0.0

  Wetherby

  273

  88.0

  5.5

  2.9

  3.6

  0.0

  1 F1032 population returns

  2 Estimated from Inmate Information System (IIS) data

  3 Bangladeshi, Indian and Pakistani

  4 Includes Other Asian

  5= 100 per cent.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mothers and babies were transported from one prison to another in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999. [137810]
  694W
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the jurisdiction of HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Probations and the Prisons Ombudsman extends to Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. [137799]

  Mr. Boateng
  The authority of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation and the Prisons Ombudsman covers England and Wales only. However, both the Prisons and Probation Inspectorates have on occasion carried out inspections at the request of the Islands' authorities.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ethnic composition is of(a) staff and (b) prisoners in each prison which holds juvenile offenders. [137722]

  Mr. Boateng
  The answer is given in the tables.

  Table 1: Ethnic composition of staff in juvenile establishments as at 31 October 2000

  Percentage of staff who have declared their ethnicity

  Establishment

  Total SIP

  White

  Asian

  Black

  Other ethnicgroups

  Total

  4,252

  96.4

  1.8

  1.5

  0.3

  Ashfield

  267

  96.3

  0.7

  3.0

  0.0

  Brinsford

  372

  93.0

  3.1

  3.6

  0.3

  Castington

  343

  99.4

  0.0

  0.3

  0.3

  Feltham

  633

  88.7

  7.8

  2.4

  1.1

  Hollesley Bay

  326

  99.7

  0.0

  0.0

  0.3

  Huntercombe

  250

  96.3

  0.8

  2.1

  0.8

  Lancaster Farms

  359

  99.7

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  Onley

  387

  96.9

  1.6

  1.3

  0.2

  Portland

  319

  99.0

  0.0

  1.0

  0.0

  Stoke Heath

  387

  97.2

  1.1

  1.7

  0.0

  Thorn Cross

  216

  99.0

  0.0

  0.5

  0.5

  Werrington

  154

  98.6

  0.0

  1.4

  0.0

  Wetherby

  239

  99.2

  0.4

  0.4

  0.0

  Mr. Boateng
  The figures for the number of mothers and their babies transported from one prison to another in 1998 and 1999 are set out in the table.
  695W

  Prisons

  1998

  1999

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  Holloway

  19

  21

  New Hall

  4

  6

  Styal

  7

  7

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Prison Service Health Care Department will publish the 1997–98 annual report. [137805]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service Director of Health Care's Annual Report 1997–98 was published early in 1999. I am arranging for copies of the report to be placed in the Library.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners hanged themselves in 1999; [137801]

  (2) what operational lessons have been learned, and what changes have been made, following the deaths in HMP Leicester in December 1999; and if he will make a statement; [137721]

  (3) how many prisoners suffered permanent damage as a result of an attempted suicide in 1999; [137802]

  (4) what was the elapsed time between estimated time of death and discovery of the body for each prisoner who committed suicide in 1998 and 1999. [137800]

  Mr. Boateng
  86 of the 91 self-inflicted deaths in custody in 1999 were by hanging. There is no reliable information about attempted suicides as at present no distinction is made between forms of self-harm. Long term or permanent physical or psychological damage can result from a variety of forms of self-harm, including substance abuse.

  There were 173 self-inflicted deaths in 1998 and 1999, and full information about the timing of these deaths in relation to the discovery of the bodies could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Of 40—the first 20 in both years—cases examined, 22 inquest reports contain no record of estimated time of death. Of the remainder, nine deaths are estimated to have occurred between eight minutes and six hours 25 minutes before discovery of the body and nine deaths between 15 minutes and 78 days afterwards.

  There have been six self-inflicted deaths in Leicester prison in the last year, including two in December 1999. Internal inquiries are complete in respect of five of the six and have identified no failures of basic procedures or apparent links between the six deaths. Five Coroners' inquests are awaited. Since January 2000, the prison's care suite has been refurbished, is permanently manned and in regular use. Two crisis suites are being introduced. Leicester's good and active Listener scheme has been expanded. Improved accommodation will be provided for new receptions.
  696W
  The continuing rise in prisoner suicides, particularly in local prisons like Leicester, has prompted a major review of the Prison Service's work on suicide prevention. There will be a focus on local prisons like Leicester because they have high proportions of unconvicted prisoners and large throughputs and disproportionate numbers of their populations at the most risk of suicide or self-harm.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners applied for a place in a mother and baby unit in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999 during the reception procedure. [137809]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not the practice in any of the female prisons for a woman to make an application for a place on a mother and baby unit during the reception procedure. The Prison Service Order to Governors on the "Management of Mother and Baby Units and the Application Process" was published in February. This requires all women's prisons, as part of the reception process, to identify all eligible women and provide them with the prisoners' handbook "All About Mother and Baby Units" so that they can apply as soon as possible after the reception process. The order also required all women's prisons to appoint a named liaison officer, to be responsible for ensuring that all women, sentenced or unsentenced, who are pregnant or have a child under 18 months, are identified and informed of the arrangements for applying for a place on a mother and baby unit. All women's prisons now have a named liaison officer.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have given birth while held in HMP Brockhill in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [137806]

  Mr. Boateng
  Brockhill prison we re-roled to a female prison in 1997. Since then, six women have given birth while held in the prison. Five of these were at the Alexandra Hospital, Redditch, and one this year within the prison.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the young woman who gave birth inside New Hall prison this summer. [137808]

  Mr. Boateng
  To date, three births have taken place within New Hall prison this year. These happened in July, August and October. However, in all three cases, staff were only alerted when labour was at a very advanced stage. Therefore, there was not enough time to transfer the women to hospital.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were committed to prison in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999 for each imprisonable offence. [137712]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the table. This information is also published in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (Tables 1.16, 3.8 and 4.5 of the 1999 edition Cm 4805) copies of which are in the Library.
  697W

  Receptions under sentence into prisons in England and Wales by offence, 1998–99

  Offence group

  1998

  1999

  All offences1

  91,282

  93,965

  Violence against the person

  12,942

  12,778

  Murder

  241

  268

  Manslaughter

  194

  164

  Other homicide and attempted homicide

  895

  894

  Wounding

  6,746

  6,678

  Assaults

  3,371

  3,318

  Cruelty to children

  96

  112

  Other offences of violence against the person

  1,399

  1,344

  Sexual offences

  2,715

  2,665

  Buggery and indecency between males

  114

  113

  Rape

  857

  781

  Gross indecency with children

  492

  527

  Other sexual offences

  1,252

  1,244

  Burglary

  11,570

  11,391

  Robbery

  3,595

  3,722

  Theft and handling

  19,866

  21,763

  Taking and driving away

  3,103

  3,050

  Other thefts

  14,999

  16,956

  Handling stolen goods

  1,764

  1,757

  Fraud and forgery

  3,374

  3,296

  Fraud

  3,124

  3,116

  Forgery

  250

  180

  Drug offences

  7,560

  7,810

  Other offences

  27,274

  28,306

  Arson

  400

  416

  Criminal damage

  1,680

  1,653

  In charge or driving under the influence of drink or drugs

  2,607

  2,433

  Other motoring offences

  11,800

  12,202

  Drunkenness

  534

  459

  Blackmail

  111

  111

  Kidnapping

  182

  218

  Affray

  1,504

  1,430

  Violent disorder

  470

  347

  Perjury/Libel/Pervert the course of justice

  696

  699

  Threat/disorderly behaviour

  1,184

  1,228

  Breach of Court Order

  3,387

  4,203

  Other

  2,719

  2,907

  Offences not recorded

  2,386

  2,234

  Non-criminal prisoners

  All offences

  3,290

  3,271

  Committed for non-payment of:

  Wife maintenance (including wife and child maintenance)

  8

  8

  Child maintenance

  14

  9

  Arrears under an affiliation order

  2

  1

  Rates

  13

  4

  Community charge/council tax

  194

  101

  Other debts

  21

  10

  In contempt of court

  588

  586

  Persons held under the 1971 Immigration Act

  2,348

  2,443

  Others

  64

  79

  Committal type not recorded

  38

  30

  1Excludes non criminal offences

  Fuel Theft
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the number of thefts of fuel from service station forecourts. [137629]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Both my Department and the Association of Chief Police Officers are represented on the British Oil Industry Security Syndicate. We support 698W
  initiatives the Syndicate has developed to combat service station forecourt crimes, including the theft of petrol. The Syndicate aims to share information among its members and work with other partners to encourage the spread of best practice.

  One such initiative is the establishment of 'Forecourt Watch' schemes in several areas of the country. These schemes, operated in conjunction with the local police, provide service stations with an early warning system of vehicles and individuals involved with crime on forecourts. When a crime is committed local petrol retailers immediately report the incident to the local police, who transmit warnings via a communications system such as 'Ringmaster'. A number of other schemes are currently being developed.

  Number Plates
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the legislation relating to the issue of registration plates for vehicles in order to reduce the incidence of crime involving the misuse of number plates. [137628]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The possibility of amending the legislation relating to the supply and issue of registration plates for vehicles was discussed in the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team's five-year strategy 'Tackling Vehicle Crime', published in September 1999. We are looking closely at the proposal to legislate in this area.

  Voting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what pilot projects have been introduced since May 1997 on alternative methods of voting at elections in the United Kingdom. [137948]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Representation of the People Act 2000 enabled local authorities to pilot alternative methods of voting for the first time. A total of 38 pilot schemes were carried out at last May's local elections. Of these, there were 15 early voting schemes, seven all-postal ballots, five electronic voting and/or counting schemes, four which offered postal votes on demand, three schemes involving mobile polling, two schemes involving extending polling hours, one weekend voting scheme and one scheme which offered candidates free delivery of election material.

  Police (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many civilian police personnel were based in Gloucestershire on 1 January(a) 2000,
  (b) 1999, (c) 1998, (d) 1997, (e) 1996 and (f) 1992; [137946]

  (2) how many uniformed police personnel were based in Gloucestershire on 1 January (a) 2000, (b) 1999,
  (c) 1998, (d) 1997, (e) 1996 and (f) 1992. [137945]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since April 1995, police numbers have been collected twice a year, in March and September. The information in the table is therefore for 31 March of each year requested.
  699W

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  Year1

  Number of Police Officers

  Number of civilian support staff

  2000

  1,114

  484

  1999

  1,104

  504

  1998

  1,104

  423

  1997

  1,133

  435

  1996

  1,333

  415

  1992

  1,174

  367

  1As at 31 March in each year

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers began basic training in Gloucestershire in(a) 1992, (b) 1996, (c) 1997,(d) 1998 and (e) 1999; and how many he estimates will do so in 2000. [137947]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary informs me that in 1992 the number of police officers who commenced basic training was 16.

  Since 1994, in accordance with the requirements of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, figures have been compiled on the basis of financial (not calendar) years:

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  28

  1996–97

  60

  1997–98

  28

  1998–99

  61

  1999–2000

  59

  The number of recruits commencing basic training in 2000–01 up to the end of December is expected to be 53.

  Proof-of-age Cards
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on proof-of-age cards. [137938]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We support schemes which issue credible proof-of-age cards, believing that they have an important part to play in strategies to control the sale of age-restricted goods to young people.

  Drugs (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in Gloucestershire were(a) arrested and (b) convicted for drug related incidents in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [137937]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not collated centrally on drug-related incidents or offences, neither are data collected centrally on arrests for drug offences. However, information is published annually in the Home Office Bulletin on Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom, on the number of persons found guilty of, or cautioned for, drug offences. Information for the period 1990 to 1999 is given in the table.
  700W

  Number of people found guilty of or cautioned for, drug offences,Gloucestershire, 1990–99

  Found guilty

  Cautioned

  Total persons

  1990

  154

  187

  341

  1991

  186

  310

  496

  1992

  187

  432

  619

  1993

  225

  419

  644

  1994

  249

  553

  802

  1995

  342

  736

  1,078

  1996

  368

  517

  885

  1997

  339

  526

  865

  1998

  496

  890

  1,386

  1999

  537

  591

  1,128

  Source:

  Drugs Research Unit, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate

  Probation Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the overall spending on probation services was for each county in England and Wales in the last 12 months; and what was the average cost of maintaining a person on probation in the last 12 months. [137720]

  Mr. Boateng
  The financial year 1998–99 is the latest year for which the Home Office has details of audited revenue expenditure by Probation Services.

  Probation Services' revenue expenditure in England and Wales for the financial year 1998–99 is shown in the table.

  Probation services revenue expenditure in England and Wales

  £

  Probation service

  1998–99 expenditure

  England

  Avon

  6,951,677

  Bedfordshire

  3,762,279

  Berkshire

  5,778,970

  Cambridgeshire

  4,236,916

  Cheshire

  6,396,271

  Cornwall

  2,770,344

  Cumbria

  4,241,989

  Derbyshire

  6,046,441

  Devon

  7,347,901

  Dorset

  4,459,880

  Durham

  4,394,551

  Essex

  9,220,583

  Gloucestershire

  4,019,954

  Hampshire

  9,763,218

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,471,940

  Hertfordshire

  5,591,181

  Humberside

  6,652,265

  Kent

  10,273,525

  Lancashire

  10,272,761

  Leicestershire

  5,714,639

  Lincolnshire

  4,122,468

  Inner London 1

  39,188,000

  North East London

  9,449,257

  South East London

  6,335,178

  South West London

  4,660,922

  Middlesex

  16,908,882

  Greater Manchester

  25,593,669

  Merseyside

  15,505,714

  Norfolk

  4,450,188

  Northamptonshire

  3,638,041

  Northumbria

  12,596,167

  Nottinghamshire

  8,828,196

  Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  7,805,070

  701W

  Probation services revenue expenditure in England and Wales

  £

  Probation service

  1998–99 expenditure

  Shropshire

  2,610,026

  Somerset

  3,879,240

  Staffordshire

  7,420,133

  Suffolk

  3,804,565

  Surrey

  5,757,167

  East Sussex

  4,465,125

  West Sussex

  3,511,260

  Teeside

  5,419,117

  Warwickshire

  3,495,556

  West Midlands

  25,768,067

  Wiltshire

  3,526,718

  North Yorkshire

  3,904,279

  South Yorkshire

  12,345,562

  West Yorkshire

  20,001,100

  Wales

  Dyfed

  2,246,946

  Mid Glamorgan

  3,494,755

  South Glamorgan

  4,127,093

  West Glamorgan

  3,345,800

  Gwent

  4,020,632

  North Wales

  4,179,887

  Powys

  845,487

  1Pre-audit estimate

  The estimated annual average cost of maintaining a person on probation in 1998–99 was as follows:

  £

  Probation Order

  1,710

  Community Service Order

  1,400

  Supervision under Children's and Young Persons Act 1969

  1,460

  Elderly Prisoners
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners are (i) over the retirement age and (ii) over 80-years-old. [138170]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provisional information for 30 September 2000 shows that there were 578 persons (568 male and 10 females) aged 65 years or over in prisons in England and Wales. This includes both remand and sentenced prisoners. Of these, 12 (all of which were male) were aged over 80 years.

  Constituency Boundaries
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries are due to take place before(a) March 2001 and (b) May 2002. [138023]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. The Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England is required to report on its review of parliamentary boundaries between April 2003 and April 2007. The Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales is required to report on its review of parliamentary boundaries between December 2002 and December 2006. Any changes recommended as a result of those reviews would not take effect until the following general election. There will be no changes before then.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an inter-departmental committee to consider the workings of section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [138185]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have a clear commitment to Freedom of Information. I am well aware of the need for increased openness and am equally aware of the concerns within the scientific community about security and commercial sensitivity.

  I have recently held a seminar comprising representative of animals protection groups and the scientific community to discuss Freedom of Information issues and officials are currently in the process of holding a series of separate meetings with those organisations. In due course, I will be reconvening the group to discuss progress made.

  Private Sector Prisons
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each prison which is managed by the private sector, the number of(a) prisoners and (b) full-time and part-time equivalent staff at the most recent date for which figures are available, indicating the total annual saving to public funds resulting from the use of private sector operated prisons. [138196]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of prisoners and full-time and full-time equivalent staff at private sector prisons is shown in the table.

  Prison

  Prisoners at 13 November 2000

  Staff

  Wolds

  398

  262

  Blakenhurst

  836

  315

  Doncaster

  1,050

  618

  Parc

  841

  350.5

  Altcourse

  795

  526

  Lowdham Grange

  513

  254.3

  Ashfield

  366

  253

  Forest Bank

  706

  339.5

  The comparative costs of the non-Public Finance Initiative (PFI) private sector prisons (Wolds, Blakenhurst and Doncaster) and their closest public sector counterparts have been reviewed annually. In the most recent report for 1998–99, private sector prisons offered on average a saving of 13 per cent. in terms of cost per prisoner but little or no saving when cost per baseline and in-use places were compared. The contractual Net Present Value (NPV) of the PH prisons assessed against their public sector comparator (PSC) is shown in the table.

  Prison

  NPV(£ million)

  PSC(£ million)

  saving (per cent.)

  Parc

  266

  319

  17

  Altcourse

  247

  248

  less than 1

  Lowdham Grange

  127

  157

  19

  Ashfield

  122

  141

  14

  Forest Bank

  204.5

  234.5

  13

  Rye Hill

  154

  209

  26

  Dovegate

  241

  292

  18

  703W
  Work is under way a view to establishing a methodology for comparing the costs of PFI prisons with comparable public sector counterparts.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 October 2000,Official Report, column 430W, how many of those convicted in England and Wales in (a) 1997 and (b) 1998 for possession of cannabis have been convicted again since then. [137999]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Data are available on a sample of 1,324 offenders convicted of possession of cannabis in 1998. The following table shows whether these offenders have been reconvicted of any recordable offence at any time. For those offenders originally convicted in the first half of 1998, the table also presents whether they have been reconvicted of any recordable offence within two years of the original offence. A distinction is made between offences where possession of cannabis was the principal original offence, and where it was a secondary offence.

  Reconviction of sampled offenders convicted of possession of cannabis in 1998

  Measure—whether cannabis possession was original principal offence

  Percentage reconvicted1

  Ever reconvicted

  Principal offence

  49.3 (819)

  Non-principal offence

  56.6 (505)

  All offences

  53.0 (1,324)

  Reconvicted within two years

  Principal offence

  47.5 (402)

  Non-principal offence

  51.2 (244)

  All offences

  48.9 (646)

  1Total number in sample

  Reconvictions are counted only for offences committed after the original conviction. No comparable figures are available for 1997.

  Schengen Information System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if UK nationals have been placed on the Schengen Information System by non-UK Government authorities. [137895]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), on 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 428W. The United Kingdom does not yet have access to data entered on to the Schengen Information System by partner countries.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans(a) to put data on the Schengen Information System and (b) to obtain access to its data. [137893]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are considering, in consultation with law enforcement agencies and other interested parties in the United Kingdom and Schengen partner countries, the arrangements for putting data onto the Schengen Information System (SIS) and having access to SIS data. I am not yet in a position to say when the arrangements will be in place.
  704W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the United Kingdom will not make any inquiries of the Schengen Information System during its first year of membership. [137892]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), on 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 427W. The United Kingdom is not in a position to make inquiries of the Schengen Information System because the necessary arrangements for sharing data with Schengen partner countries through the system are not yet in place.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average custodial sentence imposed in each of the last three years on persons convicted of repeat offences of domestic violence; [137878]

  (2) how many individuals convicted of a second offence of domestic violence were imprisoned in each of the last three years. [137880]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available. Offence classifications used by the Home Office are based upon legal definitions. From the data held centrally it is not possible to identify the relationship between the victim and the offender convicted of committing a crime.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of effectiveness of sentencing policy towards persons convicted of offences of domestic violence. [137879]

  Mr. Boateng
  Statistics held centrally do not distinguish the relationship between an offender and the victim of the crime. It is therefore not possible to tell from those data what sentences offenders who commit domestic violence offences receive or what effect those sentences have. Projects under the Crime Reduction Programme's violence against women initiative, and earlier research, looks at different aspects of domestic violence, including criminal remedies. This work focuses on effective interventions rather than individual sentences. Relevant information is on the Home Office's domestic violence website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/domesticviolence/index.htm. The probation service Pathfinder initiative is currently looking at perpetrator programmes run by the service for those put under its supervision, to see what works for wider adoption.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of sentencing policy towards persons convicted of offences of domestic violence. [137876]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no power to issue sentencing guidelines.

  Powers in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 empower the Home Secretary to direct the Sentencing Advisory Panel to propose to the Court of Appeal that it issue guidelines for specific offences or categories of offence. However, the term "domestic violence" can include a range of behaviour, which could amount to one of a number of criminal offences: it is not confined to one

  705W
  particular offence. It is difficult to see how the Court of Appeal could issue guidelines relating specifically to domestic violence.

  Drugs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with his Dutch counterpart about the policy of the Government of the Netherlands towards drugs. [137887]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his question on 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 431W. I have had no recent separate bi-lateral discussions with my Dutch counterpart.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 610W, on the home detention curfew scheme, if he will list the sentences imposed on those prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme who have since been convicted of a further offence. [137967]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information about sentences imposed upon prisoners placed on the home detention curfew scheme who have since been convicted of a further offence is not held centrally.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people who have been released from prison under the home detention curfew scheme have committed two or more offences since their release; and what sentences they have received. [137884]

  Mr. Boateng
  As of 30 September 2000, the Prison Service was notified of 242 prisoners who had been convicted, cautioned or were awaiting prosecution for two or more offences committed while they were subject to the home detention curfew scheme. Information on the sentences imposed upon those prisoners who have been convicted is not held centrally.

  Gay Relationships
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 425W, how many representations he has received (a) supporting and (b) opposing the civil registration of homosexual and lesbian relationships. [137997]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since May 1997, we have received 37 representations supporting, and 10 representations opposing civil registration. These were predominantly from individual members of the public rather than from campaigning organisations.

  Sex Videos (Juvenile Protection)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 590W, when he will publish his conclusions regarding measures to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit material contained in videos with an R18 classification. [137991]
  706W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I will publish my conclusions as soon as I have had an opportunity to consider the responses to the consultation paper.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses he received to the consultation paper published on 24 July regarding the protection of children from exposure to sexually explicit material. [137890]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To date, 107 responses have been received to the Consultation Paper on the Regulation of R18 videos. The consultation period formally ended on 31 October although several individuals and organisations have sought permission to send responses after this date.

  Football Hooligans
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people arrested at Premiership and Nationwide league grounds during the(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1997–98 seasons were (i) convicted of an offence and (ii) given a custodial sentence. [137889]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available. Most types of offences committed in connection with football are not specific to football; because convictions are recorded by category of offence rather than by the location or circumstances of the offence, no separate record is kept as to which offences took place at football grounds.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission a statistical study of the link between domestic violence and child abuse. [137883]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are well aware of the links between domestic violence and child abuse. These have already been documented by a number of research studies. A useful guide is contained in "Making an Impact: children and domestic violence: a training and resource pack". This document prepared by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), Barnardo's and the University of Bristol was published by the University of Bristol in 1998. The Government's own publication "Working Together to Safeguard Children"—a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, makes clear that everyone working with women and children should be alert to the frequent inter-relationship between domestic violence and the abuse and neglect of children. It also notes that domestic violence in itself is likely to have a damaging effect on children's health and development.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many instances of child abuse were reported in each police force area in each of the last three years. [137882]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not known how many instances of child abuse were reported to the police in the last three years.
  707W
  Offences recorded by the police, which can be identified as committed against children, is given in the table, by police force areas

  Number of offences against children by offence and police force area for the financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000

  Cruelty to or neglect of children

  Abandoning a child under the age of two years

  Child abduction

  Gross indecency with a child

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  25

  3

  1

  —

  2

  8

  7

  4

  29

  30

  22

  Bedfordshire

  3

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  31

  11

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  30

  42

  2

  —

  1

  6

  5

  3

  8

  5

  17

  Cheshire

  59

  71

  —

  3

  —

  1

  4

  —

  60

  37

  24

  Cleveland

  8

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  14

  2

  5

  Cumbria

  14

  23

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  6

  20

  6

  Derbyshire

  19

  22

  1

  —

  —

  3

  4

  6

  21

  17

  14

  Devon and Cornwall

  35

  74

  —

  —

  3

  9

  17

  16

  29

  47

  54

  Dorset

  3

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  28

  16

  10

  Durham

  15

  19

  —

  1

  1

  5

  6

  2

  16

  29

  13

  Essex

  43

  53

  —

  1

  3

  11

  21

  27

  40

  38

  46

  Gloucestershire

  12

  21

  —

  —

  —

  4

  1

  9

  20

  7

  16

  Greater Manchester

  80

  102

  2

  —

  2

  33

  38

  45

  64

  84

  121

  Hampshire

  24

  70

  1

  2

  1

  20

  18

  21

  58

  38

  66

  Hertfordshire

  75

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  4

  20

  18

  Humberside

  39

  38

  1

  1

  4

  21

  20

  21

  33

  36

  23

  Kent

  36

  57

  1

  —

  —

  7

  13

  12

  39

  53

  26

  Lancashire

  52

  37

  1

  —

  1

  4

  14

  13

  —

  49

  50

  Leicestershire

  8

  17

  1

  —

  2

  10

  13

  14

  10

  8

  18

  Lincolnshire

  24

  13

  —

  1

  1

  2

  6

  2

  13

  27

  14

  City of London

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  30

  35

  4

  1

  —

  27

  10

  37

  31

  25

  28

  Metropolitan Police

  884

  1,023

  20

  20

  18

  117

  144

  125

  291

  206

  201

  Norfolk

  8

  18

  1

  2

  —

  1

  4

  1

  10

  10

  17

  Northamptonshire

  12

  10

  1

  —

  —

  3

  7

  8

  7

  12

  19

  Northumbria

  66

  49

  —

  —

  —

  15

  16

  24

  16

  23

  42

  North Yorkshire

  22

  12

  1

  —

  2

  2

  5

  4

  18

  9

  13

  Nottinghamshire

  71

  65

  1

  1

  —

  2

  8

  9

  3

  34

  26

  South Yorkshire

  14

  23

  3

  —

  —

  2

  6

  17

  41

  41

  31

  Staffordshire

  11

  28

  2

  2

  4

  3

  4

  11

  25

  21

  23

  Suffolk

  13

  10

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  6

  20

  15

  34

  Surrey

  21

  26

  —

  1

  —

  7

  3

  5

  40

  48

  20

  Sussex

  45

  30

  —

  —

  —

  9

  18

  19

  19

  30

  38

  Thames Valley

  26

  45

  2

  1

  —

  5

  7

  7

  23

  24

  26

  Warwickshire

  7

  6

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  1

  18

  10

  9

  West Mercia

  55

  9

  1

  —

  —

  3

  5

  15

  23

  16

  38

  West Midlands

  86

  202

  —

  1

  3

  12

  21

  40

  31

  40

  63

  West Yorkshire

  104

  113

  —

  3

  —

  9

  15

  15

  72

  54

  64

  Wiltshire

  22

  13

  —

  1

  —

  5

  3

  6

  17

  10

  19

  England

  2,101

  2,424

  47

  42

  48

  372

  475

  554

  1,230

  1,202

  1,284

  Dyfed-Powys

  42

  66

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  23

  29

  19

  Gwent

  53

  99

  2

  —

  1

  11

  12

  9

  27

  19

  33

  North Wales

  34

  17

  3

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  10

  7

  7

  South Wales

  70

  25

  1

  —

  1

  8

  12

  10

  24

  36

  22

  Wales

  199

  207

  7

  —

  3

  19

  27

  23

  84

  91

  81

  England and Wales

  2,300

  2,631

  54

  42

  51

  391

  502

  577

  1,314

  1,293

  1,365

  Corpus Juris
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those proposals, originally set out in Corpus Juris, which are under discussion at EU level(a) separately and (b) conjointly; and what his policy is regarding the exercise of the UK's veto in each case. [137896]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. and noble Friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, in another place on 25 October 2000,Official Report, House of Lords, column 45WA.
  708W
  for the years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000. Data for cruelty to or neglect of children were not collected separately prior to April 1998.

  The Corpus Juris proposals as a whole have not been discussed in any meeting of the Council of the European Union (EU). A proposal by the Commission concerning the creation of a European Public Prosecutor has been discussed briefly in the Inter-governmental Conference (IGC) but the United Kingdom, as well as the majority of other EU member states, opposed its inclusion in the Treaty of Nice.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 435W, how many

  709W
  responses he has so far received to the consultation paper `Setting the Boundaries: reforming the law on sex offenders'. [137996]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To date, the Government have received 170 responses from a wide range of people and organisations. The closing date for comments is March 2001.

  Credit Card Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of credit card fraud over the last three years; and what plans he has to reduce its incidence. [137886]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Recorded crime figures for credit card fraud and cheque fraud are not separately identified. The total figures for England and Wales in the years ending March 1999 and March 2000 were 141,948 and 173,857 respectively.

  The Association for Payment and Clearing Services (APACS) estimates that the value of credit card fraud relating to cards issued within the United Kingdom for the years ending March 1999 and March 2000 at £135 million and £ 189.4 million respectively.

  The Government take the problem of card fraud very seriously and we liaise closely with the Association for Payment and Clearing Services and others to establish and promote best practice in protecting cards.

  The Home Office held a seminar at the end of June to seek views from the banks, retailers and others about how the increasing levels of credit card fraud in the United Kingdom could be addressed. The main issues are the introduction of chip cards which would significantly reduce the use of fraudulent cards, and the introduction of a cardholder verification system, probably using a Personal Identification Number (PIN) number, to confirm that the user of the card is genuine. We want to see these important measures introduced as soon as possible. We are working in partnership with the industry to examine other ways in which the response to credit card fraud can be improved. A further seminar to take stock of the outcome of these discussions will take place later this month.

  Carriers (Illegal Immigrants)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy toward the European Council Initiative on the adoption of a directive on the harmonisation of financial penalties imposed on carriers for carriage of third country nationals lacking necessary documents. [138087]

  Mrs. Roche
  The adoption of penalties on those who transport inadequately documented third-country nationals into member states is one of a number of initiatives agreed by the European Council to tackle the problem of illegal immigration across Europe. It forms an important part of the European Union strategy for tackling this serious problem. We are fully committed to co-operating with other member states on the issue. The United Kingdom has opted in to this initiative. Doing so is consistent with our policy of participating in immigration measures which do not conflict with our position on frontiers.
  710W
  The United Kingdom already has legislation in place whereby a financial charge may be imposed on carriers transporting inadequately documented passengers. The United Kingdom Government have some reservations about the terms of the draft directive implementing this initiative. We are currently seeking changes to the draft through negotiation.

  Police Procedures
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 520W, when the review of the Codes of Practice which govern police procedures under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will be completed and its findings published. [137990]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The current intention is to publish initial draft revised Codes of Practice for consultation by the end of this year and to lay final drafts before Parliament by the end of March 2001. The revised Codes should be in force by 1 July 2001.

  National Confiscation Agency
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is in respect of the creation of a National Confiscation Agency. [137935]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1158W.

  Licensed Sex Shops
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposal by the president of the British Board of Film Classification for an increase in the number of licensed sex shops in British cities. [137934]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 provides a means of control of sex shop premises. It is for local authorities to decide whether or not to issue a 'sex shop' licence and there are no plans to relax these controls.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Commissioners Decision
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he proposes to take following the recent decision (reference number: C.DLA/714/1998) of a tribunal of Social Security Commissioners in relation to the lower rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance; and if he will make a statement.[138882]

  Mr. Bayley
  The decision, which we generally welcome, should help to achieve more consistency in decision making on entitlement to the lower rate mobility component. However, a part of the decision, which relates to a disabled person's fear or anxiety while out of doors, goes beyond what Parliament intended. That part of the decision proceeds on the assumption that a person may, for the purpose of entitlement to disability benefit, be
  711W
  considered to be incapable of doing something even though he is physically and mentally capable of doing it, but chooses not to do so.

  We are, therefore, considering scope for the introduction of amending regulations which would, subject to parliamentary approval, restore and clarify the original policy intention. However, it would not be our intention that any amendment would affect the legitimate conditions of entitlement to the lower rate mobility component, which would allow those people disabled by serious mental conditions, such as agoraphobia, to remain potentially eligible for benefit.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department will publish the study of Minimum Income Guarantee take-up. [136943]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign is still in progress.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications resulted from his Department's most recent take-up campaign for the Minimum Income Guarantee for pensioners; how many were successful; and what were the principal reasons for failure. [137267]

  Mr. Rooker
  The current Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign is still in progress. So far, we have had over 600,000 responses, and around half of those claims already processed have been successful.

  Departmental Employees (New Deal)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff are employed by his Department under the New Deal for Young People. [137962]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 551W.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the review of Housing Benefit claims from people living in supported and sheltered housing to be completed; and if he will list those local authorities that have not yet submitted information on this matter. [137706]

  Angela Eagle
  Research information from local authorities suggests that the majority will have completed the review of claims from people living in supported accommodation by the end of this calendar year. However, because the information was collected through research we are unable to supply the names of individual authorities which have not, as yet, reviewed their cases. We are collecting management information on other aspects of the scheme and this will be published in the usual way.

  Duplicate Benefit Payments
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2000,712W
  Official Report, column 347W, how much of the £10.5 million lost in duplicate payments of Income Support on 17 and 18 January has been recovered to date. [138342]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Frank Field, dated 14 November 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how much of the £10.5 million lost in duplicate payments of Income Support on 17th and 18th January has been received to date.

  To date, £7.6m has been recovered.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance (Appeals)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what maximum time is permitted for the chairman of a Disability Living Allowance appeal tribunal to produce a full written decision of the tribunal chairman's findings. [138035]

  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for the President of the Appeals Service.

  There is no statutory time limit by which a chairman of a Disability Living Allowance appeal tribunal should produce a full written statement. However, the President is keen to ensure that the public has a clear understanding of the level of performance they can expect. That is why he has set a standard of 10 days for the tribunal Chair to produce a full statement of reasons. This is in addition to standards set by the Appeals Service agency of two days to refer the statement to the Chairman, and three days to type and issue the statement to the appellant. This results in an overall standard of fifteen days.

  We recognise that anecdotal evidence has shown that these standards are not always met. And unfortunately, the management information systems (MIS) in place do not yet give robust information to enable us to establish the proportion of cases in which these standards are being met. MIS are currently being put in place to enable these standards to be monitored.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families will be subject to a marginal rate of income tax of more than 40 per cent. during the period that the Children's Tax Credit is withdrawn from them. [138307]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The highest rate of income tax is 40 per cent.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the additional income would be of the National Insurance Fund in 2000–01 and 2001–02 if(a) the reductions in employers' contributions in 1997 and subsequent years to compensate for the (i) landfill tax, (ii) climate change levy and (iii) aggregates levy, were cancelled and (b) the Treasury supplement were reintroduced at the rate specified in section 1(5) of the Social Security Act 1975. [136049]
  713W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  For part (a) of the question, I refer by hon. Friend to the answer gave him on 17 April 2000, Official Report, column 375W.

  For part (b) of the question, section 1(5) of the Social Security Act 1975 specified a supplement of 18 per cent. of the gross contribution income.

CABINET OFFICE

  Sniffing Tunnels
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her letter of 31 August, what contact has taken place with Ion Track Instruments on drug and explosive sniffing tunnels; and what has been done to monitor the progress of the development and evaluation of these devices. [136807]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Officials in HM Customs and Excise have maintained contact with Ion Tack Instruments, but there have been no significant developments with this portal detection system since my hon. Friend received the letter of 31 August from the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I understand that further tests in the United States will take place early in the new year, in which UK Government officials will maintain an interest in the progress and outcomes.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the non-departmental public bodies responsible to her which have duties relating to Scotland, indicating their budget and staffing in Scotland, the number of Scottish board members and their emoluments. [137627]

  Mr. Stringer
  The following non-departmental public bodies, sponsored by my Department, have a GB or UK-wide remit:

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Advisory Committee on Advertising

  Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission

  Better Regulation Task Force

  Civil Service Appeal Board

  Committee on Standards in Public Life

  House of Lords Appointments Commission

  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee

  Security Commission

  Security Vetting Appeals Panel

  Senior Salaries Review Body

  Sustainable Development Commission

  Women's National Commission.

  The remaining information is not held centrally in the form requested; but general information on expenditure, staffing board members and levels of remuneration is published annually in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" have been placed in the Libraries of the House; and "Public Bodies 2000" is due to be published next month.
  714W
  Information on board membership and remuneration is also available from the Cabinet Office Public Appointments Directory website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk).

  Relocation
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which relocation companies hold contracts with her Office 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. [137195]

  Mr. Stringer
  There are no relocation companies who hold contracts with the Cabinet Office, COI or the Government Car and Despatch Agency for the relocation of civil servants.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord Falconer
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors he took into account in appointing Lord Falconer to each of the Cabinet committees of which he is a member. [137546]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]As under successive Administrations, appointments to Cabinet Committees are entirely a matter for the Prime Minister.

TREASURY

  IR35
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total cost to public funds arising from the implementation of IR35 and the handling of queries and appeals from businesses affected by it. [138442]

  Dawn Primarolo
  So far, the main additional activity undertaken by the Inland Revenue associated with the introduction of the `1R35' legislation has been the provision of advice to taxpayers and their advisers. This service has been provided by existing staff as part of their normal duties.

  Contingency Reserve
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received requesting the contingency reserve to be used to defray additional costs incurred as a result of recent extreme weather conditions. [138214]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Reserve is meeting the costs of the additional £51 million recently set aside by the Government for flood defence activity in England on top of the resources allocated to flood defence in the 2000 Spending Review. Devolved Administrations will also receive increases, calculated according to the Barnett formula. These are likewise being met from the Reserve.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 2 November 2000,Official

  715W
  Report, column 613W, on money laundering, which identification measures for clients involved in distance transactions it is his policy to introduce. [138033]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  All persons and institutions subject to the Money Laundering Regulations 1993 must identify their customer at the start of an ongoing business relationship, when carrying out a one-off transaction of more than 15,000 euro, or where there is a suspicion that a transaction is related to money laundering. These obligations apply for face to face and distance transactions.

  Pensioners (Taxation)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of (a)(i) an untapered and (ii) a tapered age-related allowance of £15,000 a year for pensioners of over 75 years and (b) excluding all pensioners of over 80-years-old from income tax. [136274]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated full year costs for 2001–02 are in the table.

  Costs (£ million)

  Increase the 75+ personal allowance to £15,000 and not tapering

  1,400

  Increase the 75+ personal allowance to £15,000 and tapering from the aged income limit

  1,100

  Excluding people aged 80 and over from income tax

  1,100

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2000 Pre-Budget Report.

  WFTC (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people living in the Tooting constituency receive working families tax credit. [137796]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 515W.

  G-CAT
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what work has been undertaken for his Department in the last three years by G-CAT. [136198]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  For the three financial years ending in March 2000, the Treasury has placed orders for PC servers and other related computer equipment with G-CAT.

  Trader Registration
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what investigations the Inland Revenue has undertaken this year to check whether individual traders utilising internet auction sites are wrongfully failing to register as businesses; [136158]

  (2) in how many cases this year the Inland Revenue has successfully detected traders wrongfully failing to register as businesses; and how much unpaid tax has been recovered; [136157]

  (3) in how many cases this year the Inland Revenue has requested access to the electronic records held by the operators of internet auction sites to check whether individual traders are wrongfully failing to register as businesses. [136156]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue can formally ask for information that would identify vendors on internet auction sites, although they would not normally be entitled to see the electronic records for that purpose. Requests for information like this form part of the intelligence gathering process carried out in local offices. Local officers have discretion on how to use their powers, subject to central guidance, and it is not possible to quantify the number of cases where formal requests for information have been from internet auction sites. it is not possible to say how many traders were identified.

  Elan
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) reports, (b) research and (c) projects have been undertaken for his Department in the last three years by Elan. [134460]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Elan Computing provided IT support to the Office of Government Commerce during the 2000–2001 Financial year. We have no record of any other dealings with a company of that name.

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

Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, at the forthcoming Conference of Commonwealth Education Ministers, they will put forward proposals to increase the funding and effectiveness of the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, education Ministers will consider a number of recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan—the CSFP. Separate reviews of UK support for the CSFP are currently being undertaken by the Department for International Development and the FCO. The purpose of the review by the Department for International Development is to examine how we can focus more effort on training trainers and providing more access to training in developing countries.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she agree that over the years the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan has been a remarkable example of Commonwealth co-operation? Is she aware that a list of its alumni shows literally hundreds of former graduates and fellows who have gone on to be leaders in public life in their own countries as vice-chancellors, Ministers and even Prime Ministers? At the Commonwealth meeting of education Ministers, will Her Majesty's Government do all that they can to ensure that other Commonwealth countries cooperate and contribute at least as enthusiastically as this Government have done? However, is she aware that the grant which this country makes towards the scheme is now in real terms 25 per cent lower than it was in 1992–93? Were we to increase that funding, would that not be a good lead in encouraging other countries to do even better?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that the plan is a remarkable example of Commonwealth cooperation and that, indeed, the list of alumni is impressive. We currently fund two-thirds of the scholarships within the plan. The Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan was established in 1959. Therefore, it is right that it should be reviewed at this time. Through the review, the Department for
268
International Development hopes to ensure that our priorities are being met in terms of poverty elimination.
We shall of course encourage our Commonwealth partners to co-operate and contribute to the plan but we must recognise that they may have other priorities for their budgets. In terms of the grant, as I said to the noble Lord, we currently contribute two-thirds overall.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that it is a marvellous plan. However, can she explain why, during her travels, the Secretary of State extolled the virtues of the scholarships, yet since 1997 she has cut them in number from 10,473 to 9,000 and the training ones from 93,196 to 55,388? Will further cuts in funding be made, as has been the case in so many other areas?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and I have discussed this matter before. Our priorities for education in terms of the Department for International Development budget are quite clear. We are committed to the international development targets for universal access to primary education and achieving gender equality in education. Those are our priorities because, given our commitment to poverty elimination, we need to ensure that basic education is put in place in the poorest countries of the world. In some countries the amount of funding for tertiary and further education students is 20 times higher than that for primary and secondary education students. We are trying to ensure that our funding is balanced. However, given our overall priorities in terms of poverty elimination, we recognise that basic education must be put first.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the people who receive the scholarships are expected to use them for the benefit of their own countries? It is important that people should develop skills and obtain knowledge that will benefit the poorest countries. Therefore, they need to return to their countries with high educational standards.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that that is a priority in terms of the scholarships. The majority of graduates do return to their countries. Over 40 per cent of them work in education, but they also work in other areas of the public and private sectors. The aim of the scholarships is to assist developing countries and, indeed, some developed countries to make contacts and become involved in the network across Commonwealth countries and also to assist the development of developing countries within the Commonwealth.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the course of the review, will the noble Baroness give special attention to the need to assist scholars who are persona non grata in their own countries, particularly those such as Zimbabwe which do not comply with the Harare Declaration?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall find out whether that matter is covered by the review. We are expecting the review report to be completed next month. I am sure that the Commonwealth Scholarships Commission, which is undertaking the review, will have that issue well in hand.

Rail Track Repairs: Progress
2.43 p.m.
Lord Brookman Lord Brookman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the programme of track replacement, to bring some 2,000 miles of railway track up to satisfactory standards, can be completed quickly and efficiently.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, following a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister last Thursday, Railtrack announced that the bulk of track repairs should be completed by Christmas, with the remainder to be completed by Easter. Railtrack has checked 3,000 sites and identified 300 miles of track which needs to be rerailed. So far about 70 miles has been rerailed.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very clear Answer. Is he aware that rail manufacturing in the United Kingdom is carried out at Workington? Is he further aware that 30 per cent of the workforce at that plant are to lose their jobs by the end of the year? Is he aware also that it is the intention of the company, Corus, which was British Steel plc, to make steel at Redcar and ship it to France to make the appropriate length rails for use in our country? Does he agree with that? If he does not, will he do something to help that company to survive in the North West?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my noble friend, with his distinguished record in the steel industry, will know that Corus, previously British Steel, has been supplying the vast majority of rails to Railtrack and, before that, to British Rail. In May of this year, Corus announced a five-year contract with Railtrack to supply rail and welding services worth in excess of £120 million, one of the largest contracts ever awarded.
I understand that part of the contract is for the supply of 72-metre long rails which the Corus plant in Workington cannot produce because of restrictions on the site. Corus has decided instead to supply those rails from a French plant—Sogerail—which Corus recently bought. I am told that Railtrack is sensitive to the potential for loss of rail-making capacity in the United Kingdom. But essentially it says that that is an issue for Corus. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree
270
that it would be very welcome to have the rerailing of British railways undertaken, where possible, with rails made in Britain.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble Lord give some indication of what proportion of the 300 miles of track which requires renewal was laid during the past five years or so?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I cannot yet give those details, but that is a very interesting question. I am told that part of a new phenomenon which is emerging is that gauge-corner cracking appears to be affecting rails which are perhaps only one year old as well as rails which might be 10, 15 or 20 years old. So an expert working party has been set up by Railtrack to examine the question, which is not unique to Britain. I am told that that is happening also in France, Germany and Japan. It appears to be a new phenomenon which we are looking at very closely. I shall report back when I have more details.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as the Minister knows, among the heaviest users of long-distance rail are families reuniting for Christmas in the North West, the North East and Scotland. From what the Minister said today, is he giving an assurance to those families that it is sensible to plan those long-distance journeys at Christmastime or are we to have widespread confusion and chaos in the Christmas rush?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, as I said earlier, the bulk of the rerailing will be completed by Christmas. The Prime Minister is meeting representatives from the rail industry tomorrow and is looking to the industry to publish its national track recovery plan on 17th November, with sustainable emergency timetables which will come into force from 20th November. The meeting tomorrow is the latest in a series of meetings held by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to try to return normality to the railways as quickly as possible.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, my noble friend gave a rather encouraging response in the latter part of his Answer to my noble friend. But are the Government fully aware of the fact that, given the very substantial increase in the need for rails for the current replacement programme and because of safety considerations, the expectation is that there will be a requirement for a higher number of rails in the future? Is it not sad that men at Workington, who currently expect their jobs to disappear, should be asked to work longer hours at present? Does my noble friend accept that the people at Workington, and perhaps many others, may think that France would take a rather different view if the boot was on the other foot?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, those are matters for Railtrack and Corus. However, in July we announced a 10-year transport plan which foresaw the investment of £60 billion in the railways over the next 10 years. Recently, we have seen the rail regulator

271
underpin £15 billion of investment by Railtrack over the next live years. So the Government are doing everything they can to increase investment in an under-invested railway and I believe that that will generate the kind of jobs which my noble friend obviously wishes to encourage.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has tried to do any rail journeys in the past few years. If he had, he would have found it an absolute nightmare. Will he do something to improve the information provided—and not only that given by telephone, which is something of a joke most of the time? Some degree of punctuality needs to be achieved. I travel regularly to and from Carlisle and each trip has been four hours late over the past few weeks. One appreciates the problems of the staff, floods and rails, but at this moment I do not believe that the railway companies are living up to the standards which we expect of them.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, of course, we inherited an industry which had its defects. However, it is an industry in which we wish to invest. We wish to make it more coherent. And we wish to help to see it through its present difficulties by being as positive and supportive as possible. I share the noble Lord's concern over the disruption caused to passengers. Compensation for disrupted journeys is under very active consideration. Noble Lords will have seen that Railtrack has set aside a very considerable sum of money for that purpose. But I agree with the noble Lord that we must get back to having a more punctual and reliable railway network. I hope our investment will help that. I do not believe that running a railway efficiently may be in any fundamental conflict with running a safe railway.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen in today's newspaper the severe criticism of Railtrack by the chief executive of GNER? Will he pay attention to that? Like the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, last week I limped home at 2 a.m. on GNER, the last 60 miles on a clapped-out bus. This week I was told by my local railway company that I could get as far as York and after that I would be on my own. Do the Government realise the effect that this situation is having on the reputation of GNER and on the reputation of the railways in general? It will be difficult to recover any lost business.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is regrettable that almost coincidentally we have had two calamities afflicting the railroads. Clearly, after the tragedy at Hatfield, there have been the problems with broken rails and gauge-corner cracking, but that has been exacerbated by the considerable difficulties of flooding on railway lines. I am glad to say that as of today only eight sections of the rail network are still blocked due to flooding.
On the line mentioned by my noble friend, there has been a serious collapse of an embankment caused by flooding on the East Coast main line between
272
Doncaster and York. Earlier in the week, the forecast was that that may not reopen for six weeks, but I am delighted to say that that has been reduced to two weeks.

Universal Banking Services
2.51 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards the establishment of a universal bank.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Post Office and the high street banks are working together to develop the concept of universal banking services.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. I am sure that many noble Lords will be concerned at what appears to be a lack of progress and a conspicuous muddle in relation to this matter. Has the Minister read the report published yesterday by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in another place which, among other matters, concludes that the universal bank,
"must not be allowed to fail because of … a lack of Government funding"?
Given that this is of great concern to all involved in 1 he negotiations, not least the Post Office, can any assurance be given by the Minister on behalf of the Government that the establishment of a universal bank will not be jeopardised by a lack of funding from the Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was cautious in giving my first Answer for a good reason. Negotiations are taking place at the moment. As the Post Office is negotiating with the high street banks, I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to reveal our hand in public. Of course, government money will be available, but that money forms part of the negotiations. The Post Office would not thank us for speculating in advance on how much money is available. Certainly there is adequate provision in the public purse for the contribution that will be necessary. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that in the spending review 2000 we put aside £270 million for the proposals in the Performance and Innovation Unit report, Counter Revolution.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend refers to universal banking services. Are they the same as the universal bank?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, without declaring the Government's position, can the Minister tell the House whether the report is correct in stating that at present only one bank has shown interest in this scheme? Is the Minister concerned that the delay in forming the universal bank is having dire effects on our

273
post offices, particularly those in rural areas? Noble Lords who took the Postal Services Bill through this House in July expressed concern and were assured that there was no problem? Does the Minister also accept that for the survival of post offices this service must come into being? I understand that approval had to be sought from the European Commission before it could go ahead.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall answer the first two questions posed by the noble Baroness. It is not the case that only one bank has shown interest. We are in negotiations with all the banks, including, in particular, the main big high street banks. All of them are in active negotiation and all have shown interest. As to the accusation that there is delay, it was always intended that negotiations would go on now as they are.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when the Postal Services Bill was passing through the House, the concept of the universal bank came like a rabbit out of the hat late in June? Does he also agree that the government statement made at the time, that they give full backing to the PIU's support for the concept of a universal bank, was based on information gained through consultation and discussion with the retail banks prior to that statement? If so, was any commitment given, or was it just a hope that was floated at the time to allay the fears of people who could foresee the loss of their post offices?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, knows, there had been discussions with the banks before the PIU report was produced, and they had not gone well. Therefore, it was necessary to look again at the provision of universal banking services following the PIU report. That is why new proposals are now being put to the banks. Constructive dialogue is taking place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I know that the Minister probably will not answer this question, but perhaps he can give the House an idea. When will this matter come to fruition? Will it be next year or the year after? If it does not happen—there is a possibility that it may not—do the Government have contingency plans for dealing with the problem?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the negotiations are in place, as intended. To set deadlines for them would weaken our negotiating position and we have no intention of doing that.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, can the Minister say whether Giro Bank could fulfil the needs set out in the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we had a universal bank, but it was sold off by the Conservative Government in 1985. Bearing in mind the state of
274
technology and information technology at that time, it was a rather good bank which would have served our purpose well. It is sad that it is no longer available for that purpose.

United Kingdom Tax Burden
3 p.m.
Lord Northbrook Lord Northbrook asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the impact of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Pre-Budget Report on the United Kingdom tax burden.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the estimated costs for measures announced in the Pre-Budget Report are set out in Table B4 of the report. Tax measures subject to consultation are not included in the Pre-Budget Report projections. If they were implemented, they would reduce taxes and social security contributions as a proportion of GDP from 2001–02 onwards by about 0.2 per cent per year.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In response to my noble friend Lord Saatchi in the Pre-Budget Report debate of 8th November, the Minister stated that the reason for the growth in taxes forecast for the year was the increase in income tax receivable from those put back to work. In Table B12 of the Pre-Budget Report, the figure of increased income tax only amounts to one-third of the extra £20 billion revenue forecast for the Government this year. Does the Minister agree that the balance of £14 billion is stealth taxes, particularly the raising of the upper limit on national insurance contributions, which was not even mentioned by the Chancellor in his speech?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question I was asked and to which I responded concerned direct taxes. I gave a proper Answer to that Question. As to what the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, calls an increase, let me make it clear that if the proposals—even if it were only the transport proposals—are implemented, there will be no increase next year in taxes and social security contributions as a proportion of GDP. The supposition on which the noble Lord makes his final comment is therefore not justified.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, can my noble friend, who is normally very good at these things, give us a broad brush estimate of the impact of the Pre-Budget Statement on things like sustained economic growth, employment, debt reduction, the reduction in the cost of debt servicing and the consequential use of those financial benefits for deserving good causes from pensions to petrol prices?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the Pre-Budget Report made clear, the proposals put forward for changes in the tax and social security contributions system would not result in a net increase in

275
government borrowing. Because the estimate of tax receipts and social security contribution payments has been raised since the 2000 Budget, there is no impact on the security of the economic growth and stability which has been a feature of this Government's policies.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, in the light of the Pre-Budget Report, does the Minister recall his statement in col. 758 of Hansard on 28th July when he said,
"the tax burden is falling"?
Can he repeat that statement today?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already said that, under the plans and if there is implementation of the proposals for consultation, there will be no increase in what the noble Lord calls the "tax burden", which I prefer to call properly "taxes and social security contributions" as a proportion of GDP next year.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House, based on the current family expenditure survey, what proportion of the tax burden is now coming from lower and lower middle income families?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not without notice. However, it is a prime concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we should be moving to eliminate poverty, particularly child poverty, in this country. That implies that there should be not only substantial increases in public contributions to those families, but also, for those of them that pay taxes, a reduction in their taxes. I believe that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, will find is the case.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can the Minister explain why today in Westminster Gardens, the block of flats in which I live, we received a letter from the London Electricity stating that it reckons our electricity will go up by 15 per cent due to announcements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am astonished at what the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, says. I cannot believe it is justified. I particularly cannot think it is justified in light of the fact that we are moving towards the new electricity tariff agreement which is expected to reduce electricity prices by approximately 10 per cent.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
3 5 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 12 [Accounts and audit]:
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("Chief Constable") and insert ("Board").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.
We listened carefully to the concerns expressed about Clause 12 on accounts and audit. We are extremely grateful for the assistance given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, in working through these arrangements and for the detailed correspondence we exchanged. In response, government Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 make changes to subsection (1) of Clause 12, which requires the board, rather than the Chief Constable as Clause 12 is presently drafted, to keep accounts in respect of funds to put at the Chief Constable's disposal by the board. Subsection (2) of Clause 12 is amended to require the board's duty to keep accounts in respect of police funds to be exercised by the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable will still be required to submit his accounts to the board under subsection (4) of Clause 12.
The Chief Constable will be the accounting officer for the police grant as he remains responsible for the day-to-day police expenditure as recommended by Patten. As the report said that,
"the Board should be responsible for negotiating the annua policing budget with the NIO … It should then allocate … [it] to the Chief Constable".
Recommendation 43 of the Patten report specifically recommended that the Chief Constable be the accounting officer for the police grant.
But these amendments recognise that Patten also said that the Chief Constable should remain financially accountable to the board and that the board should have a strong audit department to enable it to exercise its responsibilities in this area. We would not want the changes we are making to meet Patten's recommendation to be taken as implying that the Chief Constable is other than accountable to the board.
The Government's view is that the amendments help to make it clear that the Chief Constable is exercising a delegated function and that the money and accounts "belong" to the board. The amendment shows that the Chief Constable's financial accountability lies to the board and that its oversight of the accounts is unconstrained.
I hope noble Lords will accept the efforts we have made to address concerns about the board's financial accountability role. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I believe we can all agree that this Bill represents one of the most; significant pieces of legislation we have had before us in this busy Session. It seeks a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland, as Patten envisaged.
We fully supported the Government in their aim to implement the Patten report. Our concern throughout has been to ensure that, in giving policing that fresh start, we take the best of what worked, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, and adapt it to meet local needs. What is crucially important is that we get the delicate balance of police governance right.

277
The new police service must be and must be seen to be the impartial servant of all the community. That is fundamental to our system of policing by consent. That means getting the right level of checks and balances in the roles of the Secretary of State, the new policing board and the Chief Constable for securing that transparency. The Government have gone a considerable way towards achieving that. I welcome the government amendments. They may not have gone quite as far as we would have liked. But I am reassured by the statements made by the Government that the board will be able to exercise close and expert scrutiny of the Chief Constable's use of resources; that there will be a code of financial management as robust as the present one; and that the board will need a strong internal audit department. The practical workings of this part and the relationship between the three parties will need to be clarified. I do not intend to press the matter further.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, perhaps I may go further and congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Minister on responding to the concerns expressed by many of us about what seemed to be a most untidy arrangement. I am sure that the manner in which the problem has been resolved will meet with the approval of the board and theChief Constable.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we discussed these matters in Committee and on Report. At the Report stage the Minister, politely but firmly, rejected amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, which were not dissimilar to these. Therefore, one wonders what has happened to change his mind.
Yesterday, in respect of the Freedom of Information Bill, we saw a remarkable Lab/Lib deal and one wonders whether we are seeing another today. However, the important point is that the relationships will be clearer as a result of the amendments. For that reason, we do not object to them.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am concerned. I cannot see how anyone can take on a financial responsibility and properly carry out his duties in overseeing the way in which money is spent without asking many questions about what it is being spent on. To me, it is like putting the Kray brothers in charge of the Met because the Government have put such responsibility into the hands of people who are likely to have been convicted of terrorism—certainly those people nominated by Sinn Fein/IRA from the Assembly. They certainly claim to have no regard for British justice or the police. I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand how the proposal will work.
I am anxious that the Secretary of State shall have the maximum power because he represents all interests. I am happy to support any proposal which works in the direction of the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable having powers to withhold all information which should not be in the hands of some of the people who will be asking for it. I do not know
278
how it can be done but that is my concern. I should like the Minister to reassure me that that what I fear will not be possible.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I welcome the general support for the amendments from around the House, with the possible exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. In particular, I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux.
The amendments require the board, not the Chief Constable, to keep accounts. Clause 12(2) will require the board's duty to keep accounts in respect of police funds to be exercised by the Chief Constable. We believe that those arrangements are appropriate and provide the appropriate degree of protection.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("his") and insert ("the Chief Constable's").
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("Chief Constable") and insert ("Board").
Page 7, line 14, at end insert ("by the Chief Constable").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14 [Establishment of district policing partnerships]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 5, at end insert—
("() In this Part—
"district commander" means a police officer designated under section 20(3); and
"local policing plan" has the meaning given in section 22(1).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 defines the terms "district commander" and "local policing plan" for the purposes of Part III. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [The Board's policing plan]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert—
("() Before making regulations under subsection (2)(b), the Secretary of State shall consult the Board and the Chief Constable.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the Report stage, concerns were raised that the Bill allows the Secretary of State too much interference in the policing plan because Clause 26(2)(b) allows him to set out in regulations what must be included in the plan. Amendment No. 6 requires the Secretary of State to consult the board before issuing any regulations prescribing the contents of the policing plan.
It should be stressed that these regulations prescribe only the minimum contents of the plan. They will say that the plan must include performance indicators, for example, but not what they should be. That will be a matter for the board. The amendment makes it clear

279
that the Secretary of State cannot make regulations without taking into account the views of the board and the Chief Constable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Clause 28 [Arrangements relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("act together with him") and insert ("involve him in the making of those arrangements").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive way in which these provisions have been debated. Again, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. I believe that noble Lords are agreed in substance on the best value provisions but the noble Baroness expressed concern about the wording of Clause 28(3).
Amendment No. 7 changes the current wording of subsection (3). It deletes the requirement for the board to act together with the Chief Constable in making best value arrangements in respect of police functions and substitutes a requirement for the board to involve the Chief Constable in making best value arrangements for policing. This gives assurances that the board will lead in making best value arrangements but preserve the position whereby the board and the Chief Constable must work together to achieve best value.
The Government believe that the Bill now strikes the correct balance. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, one of the most important new ingredients in the Bill is the creation of the new policing board. It will have a heavy burden on its shoulders and will need quickly to win the confidence and support of all the people of Northern Ireland. It will be able to do that only if it has the credibility and respect of all the diverse communities. That is why, throughout our debates, I have sought to ensure that the Bill gives the board real powers and responsibilities equivalent to those of police authorities elsewhere. It deserves no less.
I hope that my own small knowledge in this area has been of some assistance to the Government in teasing out where we should strike the balance. I have greatly appreciated the very generous comments the Government have made about that. I also greatly welcome the considerable improvements which they have made to their original proposals on best value and their recognition of the board's primacy in this area.
Achieving best value must be the product of close partnership working between the board and the Chief Constable. A best value review which did not involve the Chief Constable would be of no value at all. I am delighted therefore that the Government have listened to the Liberal Democrat amendments and made appropriate changes in order to meet both our concerns and the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.
280
Perhaps I may beg indulgence for a moment. I said that the new board would have a difficult job. Indeed, it will. I would therefore like to pay particular tribute to the existing Police Authority for Northern Ireland. Its chairman, Pat Armstrong, and all its members and staff have always striven in very difficult circumstances to help to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland get the best from their policing service. Their commitment and dedication have often gone unremarked and unnoticed, but it is they who have created the climate for a new, open and accountable policing board to be put in place. I should like to place on record an acknowledgement of their fine work. I am also grateful to Fionnuala Gill of the Association of Police Authorities and Elizabeth Hanna of the Whips' Office, who have helped me enormously throughout this Bill.
I conclude by offering to the Government and the new board the support and assistance of the Association of Police Authorities. The board will need a great deal of help to make a success of this venture. Recently, we underwent a similar experience with the creation of the new Metropolitan Police Authority. We are very happy to place all that expertise at the disposal of the new board. I wish it well.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we all support the tribute to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland for its work over a very long period. I refer not only 1.0 the existing authority but its chairmen and members over a large number of years. Alongside the RUC they have had to face the most appalling conditions and difficulties with terrorism and all the rest of it. For a long period a large number of people have worked extremely hard and valiantly to achieve those aims.
As to the detail of the amendment, I tried to find out the legal difference between "act together" and "involve with", which is quite a nuance. It will come to the crunch only if there is a disagreement between the board and the Chief Constable about the arrangements which are covered by the clause. Essentially, the amendment provides that, if there is a disagreement, the Chief Constable's position will be weaker, although not much. Frankly, there is a good deal of difference in the wording. That was my understanding from the noble and learned Lord's introduction. I am slightly cautious about it.
As I said at an earlier stage of our debates, the Government have failed to change the incorrect wording. Under this provision, the arrangements seek economy, efficiency and effectiveness, whereas one should seek effectiveness, efficiency and economy. This police force, and the board which is to be in charge of it, will have a much more difficult job than any other police force in the United Kingdom, if not the world.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I join in the tributes to the police authority for its splendid work over many years. I hope that in years to come it will have influence and that there will be a smooth transition from the present structure to the new one. I agree with what has been said. Nothing could have

281
been more disastrous for Northern Ireland than to have the three main elements of the security situation pulling in opposite directions. In my time in the Armed Forces we did not have what is now called "jointry" and it was not uncommon for forces to act contrary to each other, sometimes with disastrous results. I welcome this clause and the preceding one.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I join in the tributes which have been paid to both the existing police authority and its past members. I deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The aim of the change is to give an assurance that the board will lead in making best value arrangements. But also it is intended to preserve the position whereby the board and the Chief Constable, with the board in the lead, work together to achieve best value. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggests that "effectiveness" should come first as a recognition of the very difficult circumstances in which the police force operates. I readily acknowledge those difficulties. I am not sure that there is any disagreement between us on the three aims which we seek to achieve.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he respond to the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux? The noble Lord feared that the board would be composed of people with diametrically opposite views and, therefore, counsels would be divided. I believe that the noble Lord made a very serious point. The noble and learned Lord has not touched on that matter and I believe that he should.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not dealing with it. It is plain from the terms of the amendment, which deals with best value, that its aim is that the Chief Constable and board should work together. The noble Lord is much better aware than I of the position in Northern Ireland, but I do not believe any of us doubts that the objective is that the board and the Chief Constable should work together.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Recruitment arrangements: trainees and support staff]:
3.30 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 21, line 30, leave out from ("for") to end of line 43 and insert ("measures to be taken to ensure that the composition of the police service is representative of the population of Northern Ireland.
(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5) targets shall be set and schemes shall be put in place with the aim of encouraging applications from persons who are under-represented in the police service.
(5B) Before devising any schemes under subsection (5A) the Chief Constable shall consult—

(a) the Board;

(b) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland; and

282

(c) the Police Association.

(5C) The Chief Constable shall report annually to the Secretary of State on the progress being made in the fulfilment of the aim of subsection (5A).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 and the others in the group would remove the discriminatory 50:50 system of recruitment and replace it with measures to target and encourage applications from the under-represented sections of society in Northern Ireland. I am within the minority that could potentially benefit from this measure. For the purposes of this Bill, which takes guidance from the Fair Employment Agency, having been educated at a Roman Catholic school, I am, in the words of the Bill, perceived to be a Roman Catholic. In my leisure moments I wonder whether, with my RAF added years, I can possibly benefit from the provisions to do with what may be called lateral entry.
However, I am opposed to so-called 50:50 recruitment for the straightforward reason that I am against discrimination in general. Positive discrimination may be all very well but it is still discrimination. In another place Mr Lembit Opik on behalf of the Liberal Democrats vigorously opposed this measure on the same grounds. Although in this House the Liberal Democrats have to an extent acquiesced in the discrimination provisions thus far, I am sure that they will welcome the opportunity afforded by today's debate to refute the kindly suggestion at Report stage by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that their actions were limited because they were "in bed with Blair", by voting against this discriminatory measure in the Lobbies.
Given that human rights are so central to Liberal philosophy, they will be aware of the consequences of permitting the discrimination genie to escape from the bottle. Once it is established that discrimination anywhere is acceptable, it is only a matter of time before statutory discrimination is extended beyond police service recruitment in Northern Ireland to what may be called "others". Those who support statutory discrimination for police recruitment in Northern Ireland must ask themselves why they support this measure. The answer is that there is under-representation of Catholics in the police service in Northern Ireland. No credit is awarded for correctly identifying the problem if one fails to question the causes of that problem.
It is important to remember that there has never been inequality of opportunity at any time in recruitment to the police service in Northern Ireland and that the under-representation of Catholics is a consequence of insufficient Catholic applicants to the police. Perhaps later the Minister can explain exactly how positive discrimination addresses the problem of insufficient Catholic applications to the police service. Surely encouraging applications from underrepresented sections of society—all under-represented sections of society—is the only effective means of addressing the problems of under-representation to achieve the prize of a police service that reflects the society that it polices.
For noble Lords not familiar with the precise system of discrimination proposed by the Bill, perhaps I may highlight one or two aspects. As I mentioned earlier, I would be classed as a Catholic for the purposes of this discrimination. The system proposes that 50 per cent of recruits be Catholic and 50 per cent be "others" or non-Catholics. All sections of Northern Ireland society which did not attend Catholic schools will be discriminated against. Young Catholics who do not attend Catholic schools will be perceived as "others" and discriminated against if they apply to serve in the police.
But the people of Northern Ireland are more than just Catholic and Protestant. Although young Protestants will be discriminated against if they apply to serve in the police force, so will young Muslims, young Jews, young Sikhs and young Hindus who do not attend Catholic schools. On an earlier occasion I reported that the ethnic groupings in Northern Ireland, despite our track record of terrorism, have increased probably at a faster rate than any other community in Northern Ireland.
In order to ensure that noble Lords are completely aware of how this discrimination will actually happen, I shall refer briefly to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, at Second Reading. The noble Lord gave an example of one of many discriminatory scenarios created by the Bill. In this scenario the police have 100 vacancies for recruits. Using the current application ratios, this would assume that 150 "others" apply and there are 50 Catholic applicants. The 50:50 recruitment system dictates that if all 100 vacancies are to be filled, 50 must be from Catholic applicants and 50 from "other" applicants; that is, Protestants and the various ethnic groupings that I have mentioned. Logically, there would be a standard for a successful application. Therefore, we could assume that both 60 per cent of the "other" grouping and 60 per cent of the Catholic grouping make that standard.
As a consequence, we now have 120 applicants who make the grade for 100 vacancies. With positive discrimination, 30 of the 50 Catholic applicants, being 60 per cent, would have made the grade, but although we have 90 applicants from the "other" group who have made the grade, only 30 can be employed. The police require 100 recruits. So does one either accept an under-strength force by lowering the standard for applicants to permit all 50 Catholic applicants to be recruited, thereby corrupting what I would call the merit-based system, or proceed with insufficient recruits?
As the Government have indicated that they do not wish to lower the standard for applicants—we would all agree—the Bill has been furnished with subsections (2) and (3)(b) of Clause 46. The Secretary of State may, by order, vary the percentage of 50:50 under Clause 46(2) so that the police do not become too ridiculously under-strength, an implicit admission that the system is seriously flawed. However, if the Secretary of State makes one or more of what should
284
be termed "his desperate need for recruit orders" in the "previous three years", under Clause 46(3)(b) he can vary the 50:50 system to redress the imbalance.
Therefore, if a prolonged shortfall in Catholic applicants continues for a period, and the Secretary of State makes orders so that more "others" can be recruited to maintain police strength, in a few years it could be 75 per cent perceived as Catholic recruits and 25 per cent perceived as "others".
It is apparent that discrimination in recruitment is immoral. It is unfortunate that the measure, which will be illegal elsewhere in Europe on 31st December 2002, will be legal in Northern Ireland because of the disgraceful express exception from the equal treatment directive that the Government appear to have negotiated for Northern Ireland policing recruitment.
A legal challenge to statutory discrimination in Northern Ireland may still be an option. Will the Minister, who has given much thought to the Human Rights Act declaration of compatibility for the Bill, indicate whether he has considered the following issue? Article 9.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act, states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance".
Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a general prohibition on all forms of discrimination in relation to convention rights. It states:
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status".
Although Article 14 cannot stand alone, it is—I quote from one of the linked organizations—
"an integral part of each of the Articles laying down rights and freedoms".
The 50:50 recruitment system as provided for in Clause 46 infringes Article 14 when coupled with Article 9 of the convention, regardless of whether the 50:50 principle infringes the Article 9 right to freedom of religion standing alone.
In the first article of the European Convention on Human Rights it is clearly stated that the rights and freedoms contained in the convention,
"shall be secured to everyone within their jurisdiction".
Therefore, I question whether the Government can legally discriminate between police recruits within the jurisdiction; that is to say, police recruits in Northern Ireland and police recruits elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
I accept that differences in treatment are permissible in exercising a right of freedom as laid down in the convention. However, only in two definite circumstances are differences in treatment permissible. This particular difference in treatment has,
"No objective and reasonable justification",
or any,
"reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised".
Quotas based on religion are surely correctly described in the directive as "excessive and disproportionate" to the objective of boosting Catholic recruitment to the police. It is at this point that one returns to the key point that the Government have chosen to ignore. The 50:50 recruitment system will not itself increase Catholic applications to the police service. Indeed, the latest census statistics indicate that, on a demographic basis, there are approximately equal numbers of young Catholics and Protestants in the 17 to 23 age range, which is the very grouping with which we ought to be concerned. If intimidation were to be removed from the equation, targets not quotas would produce the desired objective of Catholic recruitment.
Discrimination in society is unacceptable and discrimination in police recruitment is unacceptable. Senior RUC sources are extremely concerned that this measure will, if brought into practice, either corrupt the merit-based system or leave the police short of manpower. That is too horrible to contemplate given that, whatever may be said, the reality is that terrorism is still a force to be reckoned with on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, though, these sources are unable vocally to oppose discrimination because Patten, in taking,
"politics out of policing",
has managed to silence police officers by making the police such a political issue. Then again this is the same Patten who, in,
"putting Human Rights at the Heart of Policing",
has managed to place statutory discrimination at the very heart of policing. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I rise to speak to and support Amendment No. 8. However, we on this side of the House do not support Amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 8 is tabled in practical terms. On today of all days, as we move towards the end of the proceedings on the Bill, it is important to ensure that what is on the face of the Bill leads to practical solutions on the ground in Northern Ireland.
I understand that there are political issues, balancing acts and many imponderable and insoluble problems. I say again that we support a large percentage of the Bill and disagree with small parts, all of which will be highlighted today. Amendment No. 8 is a practical amendment. It does all that we should be
286
required to do in moving as fast as possible towards a police force which directly reflects the composition of the population of Northern Ireland.
With regard to the 50:50 provisions for acceptance into the police force, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has argued the case extremely logically in relation to discrimination and human rights and probably in relation to the practical effects. If, as I have said umpteen times during the proceedings on the Bill, the republicans, the nationalists and the Roman Catholic Church support what comes out of the Bill and support the new police force, we shall not have to worry about the 50:50 business because there are many very good young men and women who would like to join the RUC or the Police Service of Northern Ireland, as it is about to be. I am certain that we can get the balance right—by "right" I mean in relation to reflecting the population—within the force in a short space of time.
I do not think that the Bill as it stands will help in any way to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, it leaves political items at the heart of the policing service. We do not want that and I know that the Government do not want it. I believe that an amendment on the lines of Amendment No. 8, an amendment that does not fly in the face of European human rights legislation, should be accepted. I am sad that I have not heard a view on the human rights aspects from the Liberal Democrats. I hope that I shall hear one in a few moments. I am sorry to see a Bill being passed which flies in the face of human rights legislation and which inevitably at some stage must cause problems.
I support the amendment. The business of 50:50 recruitment and of reaching the right balance in reflecting the population is necessary, but there is a better way of doing it than the way proposed in the Bill. I hope that the Government will be able to find a way and not be stuck with something that is rather meaningless. As I have said, once we get open season for the nationalist population to join the RUC, we are home and dry.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 8. I fully support the intention of gaining the 50:50 balance or at least of ensuring that Roman Catholics and other groups are correctly and proportionately represented within the police. I would point out that the system being discussed is also applicable, under Clause 46(5), to the police support staff. They should all come under the same provisions. However, the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Glentoran, have covered all there is to be said about our disgust for discrimination and, as it appears to us, the dodgy way in which it is proposed to be dealt with. It would not be necessary if the right atmosphere and the right support from various quarters were present.
In Committee, the Minister stopped me in my tracks by saying me that I was going round and round in circles when I was talking about how the provisions would work in practice. It is worth looking at how the system works at the moment. There are successive

287
competitions for people who wish to join the police force. There are plenty of applicants but, sadly, very few Roman Catholics. There are up to 4,000 applicants in each of those competitions. Each competition normally provides at least enough potential recruits to supply up to three or four cadres of recruits of about 90 each. Quite a number of people pass. They reach a mark—be it of literacy, competence or future ability—and they are graded, because the police force in Northern Ireland needs, as does any other police force, to take the best available recruits.
Many people pass—I think sometimes in their thousands; the noble and learned Lord may have a more accurate figure—and are placed in the pool. But the Chief Constable does not leave them in the pool, shut his eyes and pluck out 90 for this cadre and 90 for that cadre. He selects people in an order of merit and offers them a chance to join the force. This enables him to achieve a police force which is worthy of the name and worthy to carry out its functions in society to the best of its ability.
What the Minister is insisting on here—this is where the noble and learned Lord said that I was going round and round in circles—is a pool containing lots of people. When the Chief Constable wants another cadre, he will come along one day and simply take out another 90 names. That will happen even without the discrimination that we do not like, which will distort the selection system even more.
Such a situation is virtually impossible to work. I felt that the Minister rather glossed over it and said "Do not worry. The NIO and the RUC will sort it out". I have tried to break out of that circle. I have approached extremely senior representatives of the RUC, and they say categorically that they have asked the Northern Ireland Office—and, through it, the Government—how on earth they can work such a system. They have been to recruiting agents and outside consultants, not one of whom has heard of anyone recruiting in such a way.
What would happen if a recruit who had a degree in criminology and was an extremely good leader passed the qualification test? He may be suitable to become a future chief constable but, because the names will be plucked out of the pool without any order of merit, he will be lucky to be chosen.
This will have two effects. First, how long will somebody who has the kind abilities that we want for the police force sit around and wait on the off chance that someone will pick his name out of the hat? I would guess not very long. The police force is a well paid and professional body. The people who go into it are not fools; they want a well paid and professional job. If they see that they cannot get it on their merits, they will not be there to take it. Perhaps the Minister can say how this will work. I want—we all want—the best police force we can have.
The second effect is this. Having got people from a lower grade through, and having distorted selection to correct the imbalance—perhaps by enlisting Roman Catholics who did not achieve the grade but who are necessary to meet the 50:50 requirement—what
288
happens on promotion? If the Government are capable of sorting it out at constable level, what do we do thereafter? Logically, not everyone will be in line for promotion—and promotion will be on merit; it ha s to be.
For those reasons I support the gist of these amendments, in particular Amendment No. 8.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I have not taken part in the debates on the Bill, largely because I did not think that there was anything helpful I could say. Having reached the present stage, it is not easy to see an alternative step to that represented by the Bill. It is one more lesson that, if you appease violence, you are almost certainly going to have to take one step after another which you would not take had you had a chance to look at them ab initio.
You also have to face the fact that you have given notice to the people who have relied on violence—and who have got their way by using it—that they cannot lose. You find yourself in this kind of desperate situation where there is no happy solution. No one could have listened today to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, without great sympathy and great sadness. It was the speech of a brave man who has been through very difficult times.
While I do not suppose the noble Lord will wish to divide the House—I do not know—on the three amendments which seek to leave out Clauses 45, 46 and 47, he was nevertheless right to challenge them. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what the clauses cover. They cover recruitment arrangements, the question of discrimination in making appointments and the temporary provisions. One accepts that all three are necessary.
My difficulty—I have only one substantial point to put to the noble and learned Lord—is that all those provisions are workable only with trust. As far as I can see, there is no sign of there being any sudden, dramatic change of heart by men who have never hesitated to use violence and who have never yet made any concession. When it comes to sitting round a table and discussing quite difficult issues, one wonders whether there will be any will to give at a 11. There has not been in the past. I do not know how those who have really suffered will be able to find any confidence! in working together, quite suddenly, to build a new society. I find it difficult to believe that it will come about. Right throughout, the whole thing is stitched through with wishful thinking.
4 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I, too, support Amendment No. 8. The fact that the amendment had to be moved in this House highlights the total difference that exists between the RUC in Northern Ireland and any other police force in the United Kingdom. We certainly would not have to talk about Roman Catholics and Protestants in any other police force in England, Scotland and Wales. We may have to talk about ethnic minorities, coloured people and different groups, but we would not have to talk about religion. The issue is specific to Northern Ireland.

289
The amendment seeks clarification of how the new police force will be constructed. I remember that in 1976, in another part of this building, when we were legislating for fair employment we met with great opposition from the Tories. Many Northern Ireland Unionists were also opposed to it. For some 24 years afterwards—until it was replaced this year by the Equality Commission—the legislation highlighted the tremendous difficulties in Northern Ireland. The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act was not restricted to the RUC—it covered all employment—and yet we saw the tremendous difficulties we had there.
I have asked before in the House and I shall ask again—we will have to see what happens when the Bill becomes law in Northern Ireland—how do you pick a Catholic who is suitable to join the RUC? Does he have to have academic qualifications? Does he have to have religious qualifications to the extent that he went to a Catholic school and lived in a Catholic district? Will they be sufficient qualifications? I know many members of the RUC who do not have academic qualifications. Many members of the Metropolitan Police in London do not have academic qualifications. It is the same throughout all the other police forces in the United Kingdom. You do not have to have the qualifications of a brain surgeon to join the police in this country.
So what will the criteria be in Northern Ireland? However one may approach this Bill, there are many practical problems in relation to the police in Northern Ireland. Catholics who join the RUC at present cannot live in their own towns and villages. Many have had to give up all contact with their families because they have joined the police force. They are unable to go home to the villages where they lived. I refer especially to Crossmaglen and other areas.
I recall a time before 1969 when there were policemen living in Catholic districts in Northern Ireland. They lived in an area adjacent to Turf Lodge and there was one in Andersonstown; indeed, I can think of a dozen of them. Once the Troubles broke out those policemen were either killed or maimed. They had to leave those areas. That led to the situation where the only safe place for a policeman to live was in a Protestant district. That is where they live now. You do not get any policemen living in Catholic areas. If they do, they cannot live there with their relatives. They have to give up their relatives. Sometimes, indeed, Protestant areas are not very safe for the police. Once can recall last year, and the year before, when the RUC was called upon to deal with riotous situations in Drumcree. Many of the rioters there pointed their fingers at the RUC men—we saw it on television reports—saying "We know where you live". In fact, in Carrickfergus, where many RUC men had decided to live, houses were wrecked because they had dealt with a loyalist mob at Drumcree.
Therefore, to attract Catholics, we shall have to look into all sorts of other ramifications; for example, where the potential recruit will live. Will he be allowed to live in a Catholic area? Is he prepared to give up his
290
family for the sake of taking the job? In the final analysis it will not be this House or the other place that decides. It may be the Chief Constable who is given the onerous responsibility of enlisting recruits but the people who, to great extent, will decide the composition of the force as far as concerns Catholics—and I deeply regret having to say this—will be the paramilitaries.
Can we imagine a policeman living in Turf Lodge, in Ballymurphy or in Andersonstown? I know those areas street by street, district by district. I know them; I represented that area for 18 years. Those areas are completely in the grip of the different IRAs—the Provisional IRA, now the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. They are in the grip of paramilitaries. Can anyone put his hand on his heart and say that some young man living in those areas will want to become a policeman in the new Northern Ireland police service? I think it highly unlikely.
I should be delighted if I were proved wrong. However, in the years that lie ahead, I can see that the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland will dictate events. Sinn Fein will want to see the police service built up to its specifications. There is absolutely no doubt about that. As we saw in the Shankill Road riots just a few weeks ago, those particular people, whether loyalists or paramilitaries, have no great admiration for the RUC when it appears that it is not acquiescent to their demands.
However, the biggest question at the back of my mind is: how do we determine whether someone is a Catholic? Is it because he went to a certain school? Is it because he goes to Mass? I was speaking to an RUC friend of mind just recently—believe it or not, I still have some friends in the force, both Catholics and Protestants—who said, "A whole lot of my colleagues here in the RUC are agnostics. They do not pay any regard to any particular religion. But they are put into the category of being Protestants; and they don't like it. In fact, I have suggested to them that we get a whole gang of them all lined up and go down to Clonard monastery in the middle of the Falls Road, which is run by the Redemptorists, and get them all to become Catholics. That will save many of them from the threat of redundancy that they now face".
The amendment before us is a reasonable one. It says that before appointments are confirmed reference should be made to the Chief Constable, the Equality Commission and the "Police Association"—I take that to be the federation that represents some of them. Who could possibly object to that? I believe that to be a most reasonable set of words. It states that, before recruits are taken on, reference should be made to those three bodies. I do not suppose that the Minister will accept the responsibility for telling us what his ideas are on recruitment; indeed, I think that he has enough problems already without getting involved in that respect. However, we should be given some indication.
In my lifetime in politics there have been occasions in Northern Ireland when I was able to refer to a speech that was made in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords in defence of someone I was

291
representing. So probably what is said in this Chamber will become part of the scenario, the culture, of the newly-created police force. As I say, we should be given some indication of how the Government, the Chief Constable and the authorities intend to persuade young Catholics to join the new force.
I was speaking to someone only yesterday in Belfast. He observed that the Catholic Church had not said very much about the police. Many bitterly regret that fact. But someone suggested that young Catholic boys who attend St Mallacy's College in Belfast, or some of the other academic institutions, would want to join the RUC. We must disabuse our minds of that thinking: there is no pool of young Catholics who want to join any police force. Indeed, there are not that many people in this country who want to become policemen. Sometimes it can be a very nasty and dangerous job, particularly in Northern Ireland. I cannot see any of the academic institutions in Northern Ireland pushing all their Catholics into the newly created police service. There are tremendous difficulties to be faced. I believe that Amendment No. 8 attempts to deal with them by making reference to the fact that the Chief constable should consult the "Police Association" and the Equality Commission on the issue. This will be the stone—the brick—on which the whole police force is built in Northern Ireland.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should just like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that there are quite a number of police officers from Northern Ireland serving in the Metropolitan Police. Indeed, one of them used to stand on duty by the door of your Lordships' House for many years. He came from County Down. On a lighter note, I should like to see the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, leading a mass baptism at Clonard monastery. I remind the noble Lord that you do not necessarily have to be a priest to conduct baptism: in emergencies it can be a layman.
I turn now to this group of amendments. I am doubtful about a series that tries to compress four clauses of the Bill into a very few words in Amendment No. 8. I am a little surprised that the amendment should have received support from the Official Opposition who, I notice, have not added their name to the sponsors.
I have mentioned my next point to various chief constables and Ministers. I refer to the possibility of recruiting in to the new police service of Northern Ireland Roman Catholics from outside that jurisdiction. I ask the Minister whether I am right in thinking that as many as 12 per cent of the adult population of Northern Ireland do not consider themselves to be either Protestant or Roman Catholic? The figure may be as high as 12 per cent if one takes into account people who have attended integrated schools, members of other faiths, agnostics—who have already been mentioned—and people who have been born outside Northern Ireland. If the figure is anything like as high as I have indicated, that opens the possibility of having 44:44 recruitment rather than 50:50. That might make things a lot easier.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in speaking to this batch of amendments it will be recalled that on Second
292
Reading I suggested substituting quotas for targets. This would have kept Northern Ireland in line with the rest of UK practice with regard to, for example, ethnic recruitment to the police. In the ordinary course of events, targets would have been preferable. However, the situation in Northern Ireland is very different. As I said in Committee, in the intervening period it had been put to me by the Equality Commission that the RUC has for many years been given targets to improve Catholic recruitment which it has failed to meet. Targets, then, have not been a credible solution in the context of Northern Ireland. They are a "busted flush". It may be, in the event, that quotas will not be fully realised, but the pressure will be on Church leaders and the nationalist and republican political leaders to encourage Catholics to apply for the new police service. They, like Patten, seek quotas and it behoves them therefore to help quotas to be achieved in the medium term. In the light of that, we on these Benches oppose these amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, why does he imagine that young Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland, any more than young Roman Catholics in the Province of Quebec, in France, Spain, Portugal, or Italy today, as opposed to 30 or 40 years ago, will do what their priests tell them to do? They do not do that any longer.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, nevertheless it behoves those leaders who want quotas to be inserted in the Bill to encourage their co-religionists to apply for the new police service.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, the outcome that I am sure the whole House seeks is the creation of a police service that has the confidence of all the people in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, it is the delivery of the service and the people's confidence in it that matter.
I hope that the Minister can respond to my next point. There seems to be a distinction in the Bill between the clauses which deal with the formation of the police service and the schedules which deal with the formation of the board. As regards the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers in the schedule, the Bill refers to his duty to ensure that the body is representative. I wonder why the schedules deal with the matter in one way and the clauses in another. I am sure the whole House recognises that we have a difficulty; namely, how we change the culture that surrounds policing in Northern Ireland. Perhaps we might be helped if the Minister gave us some indication of the strategy that the Government are pursuing in the clauses. There may be some justification for imposing the measures in the clauses for a period of time if they result in a more balanced arrangement in terms of the formation of the service. I should be interested to know why the Government have chosen to move in one direction with regard to the formation of the board and in another with regard to the formation of the service.
Lord Eames: My Lords, I commence my remarks from a different starting point from that of many of the previous speakers in that I support the amendment. I do so not because of arithmetic or established quotas but simply because of the experience I have, and continue to have, in Northern Ireland.
The other day I spoke to a colleague in the Roman Catholic Church who occupies an extremely senior position. Not unnaturally, the conversation turned to the role of the Churches in the police debate. We discussed some of the details that are before your Lordships' House this afternoon. He said something which I believe that noble Lords should hear. He referred particularly to 50:50 representation in relation to recruitment and service. He said that no provision of the Bill is a greater judgment on the history of the Province of Northern Ireland than that it is necessary to talk in terms of the two communities. I entirely endorse the sentiments behind my colleague's words. It is a judgment on what some of us have allowed to fester, albeit we inherited that from previous generations. But the point is the following. A shudder goes through many of us when the word "discrimination" is mentioned, whether it be constructive discrimination or that corrosive discrimination which has, unfortunately, bedevilled the history of my homeland.
When I read the clauses in the Bill which concern the question of recruitment and 50:50 proportions I know exactly what Her Majesty's Government are attempting to do. I have no problem with that and entirely understand it. However, right across the House and, I dare to say, without a single exception, we all want the best possible police service for all the people of our divided community. Where we may differ is in emphasis or methodology. In this instance what we must look forward to is a situation where young, qualified Roman Catholics—despite some of the comments made on a previous occasion in this House, they exist in great numbers and deserve the same opportunities as their Protestant fellow citizens—can progress in any profession. They need to be viewed as wanting a police career not to make up some quota but because they want to serve the new community that is emerging. I hope that is the vision noble Lords have, not just for the police service but also for the people of Northern Ireland. I suggest that as the Bill is drafted at present with regard to recruitment and 50:50 ratios, the wrong message will be sent out to those who most need to hear the right message.
I have spent the past two days fulfilling my duties on the Fermanagh, Cavan, Monaghan border. As noble Lords know, a major atrocity could have occurred there recently but for the vigilance of the security forces in the area. During the past 48 hours I have talked to clergy and people in the area and have many reflections on those conversations, only one of which I shall relate. I refer to an isolated farmer on the border living miles away from his neighbours. Noble Lords may judge his religious designation from what I am about to say. That farmer said, "Is not this the argument? The fact is that this atrocity could have taken innumerable lives, but for its discovery. Is not
294
this the real argument for why we need a police service in which people want to serve in it because there is a better future for all our young people?".
I earnestly believe that if we are stuck with a definitive quota such as this, it will send out the wrong message. I want to see a police service supported right across our community, effective because of its professionalism and its integrity. However, I believe that the way to achieve that will not be enhanced by this part of the Bill as it stands
Perhaps I may say a final word. From time to time, references have been made to Church leaders who encourage members of their flocks to join the police service. Noble Lords will forgive me if I say that I entertain a slight private smile when I hear statements of that kind. I have no illusions as to who would listen to me. I have no illusions as to what would be the private thoughts of Anglicans in Northern Ireland, were I to say, "Do this, do that and do the other". I have a feeling that ecumenism might well go out the window and their thoughts could turn to the Vatican. Indeed, I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in front of the whole House that I am very encouraged to hear that, as a member of my flock, he is taking his ecumenism so far.
However, we are debating here an extremely serious issue, of which this is an extremely important part. I want to make a plea that we engender in this Bill the encouragement that Northern Ireland needs to recognise that people in a new police service will be respected because they want to serve the community. They want to be regarded as guardians of the law in a new era. I beg to suggest that the present wording would not enhance that view.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in an ideal world, we would have no quotas for gender, ethnic minorities, Catholics or Protestants. But if we are to reach that ideal world from one that is currently far from ideal, we need to do more than simply hope that the world will become a better place. The noble Lord, Lord Eames, spoke truly: it is an indictment of all of us—not only of those who live in Northern Ireland—that a 50:50 split has to be considered. That is because people on the mainland have tolerated so much of what has happened and, for many years, have not done anything about it. That is an indictment, but that is not to say that it is a false indictment. It represents the true crisis of Northern Ireland.
Whenever proposals for positive discrimination are put forward, a certain set of arguments is always employed; namely, that people will get in, not because they want to get in, but because it will be easy to get in. Promotion will take place not on merit, but on grounds of colour, gender or religion. Alternatively, the quality of whichever professional body is concerned will be downgraded. Those arguments make two assumptions. First, that the present force—which is based, after all, on corrosive discrimination—has within it people who are all fully qualified and merit their success. That cannot be true. Secondly, around the world, a great deal of experience has been gained of positive discrimination. We are not the first

295
to have tried it. In the early 1960s, I was a young student in the United States. The problem of integration in police forces was then prevalent. I heard all the arguments: there were no qualified black people who could possibly join the police force; they would be corrupt; they would not be able to hold down the job and so forth.
In our debates discussing the provisions of Clause 1 on Second Reading, in Committee and, on Report, it has been stated that there are a great many well-qualified Catholics who would join the force. However, they cannot join because of paramilitary threats. We are told that there is a pool of talented Catholics and that what is required is for Sinn Fein/IRA to remove its sanctions. I feel that part of the removal of those sanctions requires a 50:50 recruitment to be put on to the face of the Bill.
We may differ on this view. Indeed, it is a moot point whether it would violate the Human Rights Act. I am sure that my noble and learned friend will respond to that. However, we should be under no illusion that, unless a dramatic gesture is made here—a gesture made in the full knowledge that it should be removed as soon as possible, because under any circumstances it is somewhat invidious—we shall not give a clear signal of our serious intention to reverse the decades of corrosive discrimination which has existed in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to say briefly that this Government, along with other governments before them, have sent signal after signal and made confidence-building gesture after confidence-building gesture, but have never received anything in return. Have the Government asked Sinn Fein/IRA and the SDLP to make a public declaration that they do not oppose the existence of the RUC and that they do not oppose the entry of Catholics into the RUC? That is the central issue here and those are very simple questions which could be answered simply and quickly.
I do not understand how anyone could be expected to watch those people serve on the board of the new police authority if they are not prepared to make a statement now—that is, before the Bill is passed. At any rate, that must be done before any steps can be taken towards changing the quality and nature of recruitment. It is a very simple bargain. We have always negotiated with these people in exactly the way in which they wish the negotiations to move: we offer; they take and give nothing in return. All they need to do is to make a public statement of support to their supporters. That has never been done.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the collective effect of Amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 11 would be to remove the so-called 50:50 recruitment provisions and to replace them with a provision to require the implementation of affirmative action measures to bring the composition of the police service into line with that of the Northern Ireland population. This is a
296
critical part of the Bill and these provisions—rightly—have been fully debated on a number of occasions both in another place and here in your Lordships' House.
The starting point of this debate is always the same place, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Eames. Perhaps I may begin by quoting from the Equality Commission, which has stated that:
"The creation of a police service which is representative of the community is essential both to the effectiveness of the police service and to the establishment of a peaceful Northern Ireland … a police service which has the confidence of the entire community is an essential element of the new society … which was envisaged by the Agreement".
The issue is how to set about achieving this.
The Patten report fully recognised, as do the Government, the significance of affirmative action methods in bringing about compositional change. At paragraph 15.2 of the Patten report, it states that,
"The key to making [the] police service representative of those communities—indeed the key to the successful implementation of nearly everything in this report—is that the leaders of those communities now actively encourage their young people to join the police service".
The report contained a range of specific recommendations to that effect. For instance, in relation to the role of community leaders, the establishment of links between schools and universities and the police service and advertising strategies. Patten's clear view, which is shared by the Government, is that the imbalance between Catholic/nationalist and Protestant/unionist is so extreme that exceptional measures are justified. As the Equality Commission has highlighted, the proportion of Catholics in the police has increased by just over 1 per cent—from 7.3 to 8.4 per cent—in the past 10 years. This is in spite of the fact that the proportion of Catholics in the population has been on the increase, and in spite of the various affirmative action measures which have been implemented by the RUC. The commission has expressed the view that,
"goals and timetables and affirmative action measures … are unlikely to produce the necessary change in the composition of the police for a considerable period".
Fifty:fifty recruitment is an exceptional means of addressing an exceptional problem. Because it is exceptional it will remain subject to regular review and renewal, on the basis of the impact it is producing. Most importantly, the merit principle will be preserved, in that candidates will still be required to meet the qualifying standard for entry to the police.
The Government went some way in Committee to address concerns in relation to the 50:50 provisions by placing a ceiling on the Secretary of State's power to aggregate the quota at 75 per cent. This will ensure that no fewer than 25 per cent of either community background group must be appointed. It is therefore explicit in the Government's position that this exceptional measure is required to achieve the aim of a police service which is representative of the community as a whole.
I shall now deal with some of the points made during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made the point that intimidation is a

297
reason for low Roman Catholic recruitment. The Government accept that intimidation has been a major reason why Roman Catholics have not come forward. But there are also other reasons. We do not say that 50:50 recruitment on its own can solve matters. Indeed, Patten recognises that Roman Catholic community leaders and Roman Catholic political leaders need to encourage Catholics to join the police service. However, we believe that 50:50 recruitment will lead to that process being reached much more quickly.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. He will have noticed, as will the rest of the House, that the leaders of the Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein are saying that the Bill is inadequate for their purposes. If they maintain that position, is it likely that intimidation will cease in the way that he describes?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we believe that all community leaders should, first, denounce intimidation and, secondly, encourage young people from their communities to join the police service. We believe that the exceptional measure of 50:50 recruitment will bring closer the day when the police service has cross-community support.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked me to explain how positive discrimination could deal with a situation where there was an insufficient number of applications to the RUC from the Roman Catholic community. The recruitment provisions in the Bill are designed to deal with appointment. They cannot on their own make Roman Catholic applicants come forward. However, the Government hope that the measures will engender confidence. As I keep saying, on their own these measures cannot do it; other measures are required as well.
The noble Lord then gave a particular example of numbers in relation to applications. I repeat: all candidates must achieve a single standard of merit, as provided for in Clause 44(5). If that standard of merit is not reached, the individual applicant may not become a member of the police service. I shall come later to the detailed questions asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked also about human rights compatibility. The issue of human rights has been considered carefully in relation to the compatibility of this provision with the Human Rights Act and the human rights convention. The clear view is that it is compatible with the human rights convention because the effect of the Bill is not to give anyone a vested right to a job; therefore, it does not engage the human rights convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also asked about the human rights convention, and I have dealt with the point. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, raised a number of questions about how the provision will work in practice. He said that senior sources in the
298
RUC say that this approach will not work. The Government have worked closely with the RUC and the police authority to work out the details.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I did not say that they said it would not work, or that they said anything like that about the Bill. What I said was that they did not know how to work this system.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I responded to what I thought the noble Viscount had said. The Government have been working closely with the RUC and the police authority to work out the details of how the recruitment process will work. I have set out in general terms how it will work; obviously, I cannot go into the precise details. Candidates will apply and will be selected to join a merit pool, and will obviously have to meet the qualifying standard. From the pool, an equal number of Catholics and non-Catholics will be selected, as required by Clause 46(1).
The noble Viscount answered his own question in relation to promotion. This does not affect promotion, because 50:50 measures do not apply in relation to promotion. I hope that that answers the point.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, the point is that, having got candidates for the pool, there will be a variation in the ability and aptitude of those people. The numbers will be greater than required—I do not mean in terms of Catholics or Protestants. It would be a fool who did not then choose people out of the pool according to their merits, in terms of either ability, aptitude or some form of qualification.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Viscount's point. Of course, all the candidates must satisfy the qualifying standard. The effect of discrimination in favour of a particular group will inevitably mean that some people, who would not perhaps have got in, get in because of the discrimination provision.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I am not talking about discrimination; I am merely saying that once these people are in the pool, there will be more people than are required and one must still, presumably, take the best of them first. Some people will have just scraped in according to the required level. A few others, however, may make wonderful chief constables by one's estimation. Does it mean that such a person will remain in the pool until he is required and until someone may pluck him out of it—remembering that there will be more people than are actually required?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously, the best people will be selected, but subject as well to the provisions in relation to discrimination.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the question of redundancy in respect of existing officers. These provisions do not apply to existing officers; they apply only in relation to people who apply to join.

299
The noble Lord also asked how someone's religion will he decided. The basis for monitoring community background is based on existing regulations: the fair employment monitoring regulations, which have been in place for a decade. The view of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is that these procedures work well and provide an accurate assessment of perceived community background.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, then asked, as it were, the vital question: how do you get Roman Catholics to join the police force? We believe that it will be by implementing Patten's vision of a new beginning to policing by selecting an external recruitment agency of human resource professionals to carry out the recruitment. The Chief Constable hopes to make the appointments next month. The recruitment agency and the Chief Constable will work together to prepare an advertising and recruitment strategy. They will build on existing efforts, such as visits to schools and police recruiting sergeants.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, will the Minister give way? This matter is of tremendous importance. It has already been referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who I believe alluded to my remarks. I said that the IRA on the one hand—the Catholic paramilitaries—and the loyalists on the other will determine whether anyone will be accepted into the RUC from the districts that they presently control. The noble Viscount said that Gerry Adams said only today that the Bill as presently constructed is totally unacceptable to Sinn Fein, and therefore to the IRA. That means that they will not permit or call upon any Catholic to join the newly-constructed police service. How do you get over that difficulty?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have repeatedly encouraged all parties and community leaders to encourage their members to support the new arrangements, and it is very much hoped that they will do so. However, the fact that not every single leader in the community is prepared to endorse them is not a valid reason for failing to take steps to create a fair police force.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we will not regard their failure to do what the noble Lord suggests as a veto or a reason for not going forward with sensible steps to seek to achieve a fair and representative police force.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He has been most generous. However, with great respect to him, that really will not do. Would he agree that the present position of the SDLP in Roman Catholic areas is being eroded by Sinn Fein/IRA to the point of disappearance; that they increasingly control, by all sorts of extremely reprehensible methods, the streets and areas that were formerly controlled by the SDLP; and that his fond hope—I think we must describe it as
300
such—will not be borne out by the reality on the ground? It is all very well to say that the Government encourage people to take these desirable steps, but the truth of the matter is that their writ does not run there.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, by moving this Bill through Parliament, the Government are setting up a situation which they believe will promote the creation of a representative police force. On 6th June, in another place, Seamus Mallon said:
"we do not yet have a police service that can belong to all the people. That is what I and my party want to achieve, and we have striven to achieve that not in the comfort of debate or theory, but in places such as Derry, the Bogside, south Armagh, south Down and west Belfast…If we get the Bill right, I will go into the hardest parts of Northern Ireland and I will ask people to join the police service and to support it".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/00; col.196.]
That is the prize for which we are aiming. Although it is an incredibly difficult issue, the Government believe that they have got the Bill right. Noble Lords are right to point out that some terrorist and other groups do not encourage people to join the police force. However, that is not a reason for not proceeding with the Bill, which we believe promotes the aim for which we all strive.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord give way? As I understand it, in order to create the room for the 50 per cent quota, a number of existing officers will have to retire. I know that this will not come about for another two years. Nevertheless, a number of senior needed officers are retiring because space has to be made. Can we now afford to have that space made in pursuit of an aim which is generally suggested in the House to be pie in the sky?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I understand the position, the issue is about recruitment, not about existing officers. I shall write to the noble Baroness about whether or not there is any compulsory redundancy. I am not aware that that is the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a question with regard to those parts of the population that are neither Roman Catholic or Protestant. About four per cent of the RUC is categorised as neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic. I do not know the percentage figures with regard to the community as a whole, and I shall write to him about that.
The Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford drew a comparison between the board, referred to in Schedule 1, and the make up of the police force. Dealing with the board, the Schedule sets out a very small number—19 or fewer public appointees, not employees. Patten called for the appointments to be representative. In addition, 10 members of the board are appointed by d'Hondt, a democratic process. Patten recommended the recruitment of about 400 police officers at each go, which is a totally different approach.

301
Finally, I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eames. He has expressed the same objective as the Government have. With regard to the particular provision that is sought to be removed, the Equality Commission commented as follows:
"The Commission places great emphasis on the importance of the provisions of Clause 46, which allow for equal numbers of Roman Catholics and others to be recruited from a pool of qualified applicants. In Northern Ireland, a society coming out of conflict, a police service which has the confidence of the entire community is essential. That means that it is vital that change in the community composition of the police is rapidly effected. The Commission would therefore urge you to support this exceptional measure".
I agree that not every part of the community yet supports these measures, but surely the introduction of this Bill must be a step in the right direction. I therefore invite noble Lords to reject Amendment No. 8 and those that follow.
I deal briefly with Amendment No. 9, which I understand is not supported by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Amendment No. 9 removes Clause 45, which deals with the encouragement of lateral entry, as it has become known. Clause 45 would give effect to Patten's recommendations 127 and 128. The Clause will enable only the appointment of suitably qualified external candidates who have to compete in open competition against internal candidates. In this respect, Clause 45 is unlike the other 50:50 recruitment provisions. It deals merely with encouraging such applications. I accordingly ask the noble Lord not to move that amendment when the time comes.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord to clarify one point before he sits down. If as many as 12 per cent of the population of the Province are atheist or agnostic, as my noble friend Lord Hylton has suggested and as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, seemed to confirm, and if at least one per cent are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or whatever, is it not the case that only 37 per cent of new recruits can be Protestant, as Clause 46 is presently drafted?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the provision is for 50:50 because it seems a simple approach. I quite understand the arithmetic that the noble Lord has outlined. However, even having regard to the non-Roman Catholic and non-Protestant aspects, the 50:50 approach recommended by Patten is sensible.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I wish to thank sincerely all who have contributed to this debate, which has to a great extent broken new ground as far as the affairs of Northern Ireland are concerned. Although I understand the difficulties that confront the Minister, this is not necessarily the final word between now and Prorogation. In my view, the other place should be given another opportunity to compensate for the very limited amount of time that they were given in July. While I have listened very carefully and with great appreciation to the words of the Minister, I have to seek the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 8.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 175; Not-Contents, 185.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Greenway, L.

Ackner, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Ampthill, L.

Hambro, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hanham, B.

Arran, E.

Hanningfield, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Hanson, L.

Astor, V.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Attlee, E.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Barber, L.

Higgins, L.

Bell, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Belstead, L.

Hogg, B.

Blaker, L.

Home, E.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Howe, E.

Boardman, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Bowness, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Inglewood, L.

Burnham, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Buscombe, B.

Jopling, L.

Byford, B.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kirkham, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Laird, L.[Teller]

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Carrington, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Chadlington, L.

Listowel, E.

Chalfont, L.

Luke, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Cockfield, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Colwyn, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Courtown, E.

Mancroft, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mar, C.

Craigavon, V.

Marlesford, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Crathorne, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Monson, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Deedes, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eames, L.

Naseby, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Noakes, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Elles, B.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Feldman, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Fitt, L.

Palmer, L.

Flather, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fookes, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Freeman, L.

Peel, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glentoran, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Goschen, V.

Plumb, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

303

Prentice, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Prior, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Pym, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Rawlings, B.

Stewartby, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Reay, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Rees, L.

Strange, B.

Renton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Swinfen, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Tebbit, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Tenby, V.

Rogan, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Trumpington, B.

Saatchi, L.

Vivian, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Waddington, L.

Wakeham, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Walpole, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Selborne, E.

Wilcox, B.

Selsdon, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Sharples, B.

Wolfson, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Addington, L.

Falkender, B.

Ahmed, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B

Alli, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Filkin, L.

Amos, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Andrews, B.

Gale, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Geraint, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B

Avebury, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bach, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Barnett, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Billingham, B.

Goudie, B.

Birmingham, Bp.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Birt, L.

Grabiner, L.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Borrie, L.

Greaves, L.

Bragg, L.

Grenfell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brookman, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Burlison, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Harrison, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Haskel, L.

Chandos, V.

Haskins, L.

Christopher, L.

Hattersley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hayman, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hollick, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Crawley, B.

Hoyle, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

David, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hylton, L.

Desai, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Dholakia, L.

Dixon, L.

Islwyn, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jacobs, L.

Dubs, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Elder, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Elis-Thomas, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Judd, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Ezra, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

304

Kirkhill, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Sandberg, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Sandwich, E.

Lipsey, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lockwood, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Serota, B.

Longford, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

McNally, L.

Stern, B.

Maddock, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Taverne, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Methuen, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Mishcon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mitchell, L.

Thornton, B.

Molloy, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Morgan, L.

Tope, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Nicol, B.

Turnberg, L.

Northover, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Uddin, B.

Orme, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Oxford, Bp.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Peston, L.

Walmsley, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Warner, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Weatherill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Whitaker, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Whitty, L.

Razzall, L.

Wigoder, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wilkins, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richard, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Winston, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Russell, E.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Clause 45 [Recruitment arrangements: other ranks]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Discrimination in appointments]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 47 [Expiry, renewal and repeal of temporary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Regulations as to emblems and flags]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 28, line 36, leave out from ("may") to the end of line 38 and insert ("—

(a) within three months of the passing of this Act make regulations altering the name in the emblem in use by the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the time of the passing of this Act to any new name of the force adopted under this Act; and

(b) make regulations concerning the use of the emblem—").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again we come to an amendment which has been debated thoroughly several times in your Lordships' House. However, it concerns a subject that I believe is closely associated with practical, effective policing.
In order to put the matter into context, as I attempted to do on Report, I believe that we need to consider what is happening on the ground. In Northern Ireland is developing probably the most serious situation in the kingdom. According to the Belfast Telegraph of the night of the 13th:
"Crisis looming as crime rises by 10 per cent".
That followed a report a week earlier which stated:
"RUC in disarray as levels of sick leave reach peak".
Although I shall not go into them, there are articles which give details supporting both those headlines, as noble Lords would expect.
Why is that important? It is important because the matter should be put into context. As I said previously when debating this subject, it is vital that we have a professional, fit, high-morale police force. The police force needs to have courage. It takes guts and courage to go out on to the streets of Belfast and elsewhere. It requires camaraderie. Everyone in the RUC would certainly welcome more colleagues from the nationalist areas. Interestingly, according to crime statistics, the area with the biggest increase in reported crime is—surprise, surprise—West Belfast. That is an area where people will not join the police force and where it is almost impossible for the police force to go. Therefore, the situation is difficult.
We have agreed that the name of the police force will be changed. However, perhaps even more deeply felt by the members of the force but much less noticed by the population is the matter of hat badges. As has been said before, people are remarkably unaware of them. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith telephoned various constabularies in this country to find out about their hat badges. I must tell your Lordships that every police force in this country has the Crown on its hat badge. That has been the case virtually since Peel.
It is hoped that we shall be setting up a new police force based on the present one which is efficient and proficient. Therefore, why do we want to remove that Crown? Northern Ireland, as agreed in the Good Friday/Belfast agreements, is still totally and completely a sovereign part of the United Kingdom. There was nothing in the Good Friday agreement which said or suggested that sovereignty should be fudged, that there should be joint sovereignty or that there should be non-British sovereignty.
I suggest that when the people who serve in that force bravely go out on the streets, they should have the right to know that they are guarding the Queen's peace as members of her sovereign state. That is their authority. The badge gives them that authority and no other will do the same. For years it has been a shared and bipartisan badge with, as I said before, the harp and the shamrock.
I shall not go over the arguments which I have placed before this House and which noble Lords have heard umpteen times over. However, I say simply that this is a police force which operates within the United Kingdom. Why should it be any different? I suggest that the Secretary of State has a dilemma and I have much sympathy for him. In his report, Patten said extremely unwisely that the new police force should have a badge which is basically representative of no one and of nothing. It is vitally important for any regiment or corps to have an insignia to rally round, to have on their flag and to wear on their uniforms, and so on. I believe that Patten made a serious mistake. I beg to move.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendment in support of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I, too, support the retention of the cap badge and the insignia of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Some noble Lords and, indeed, some political commentators have stated that it is only a crest. They say that it should not matter what insignia forms the crest of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. However, as anyone who has ever served in or belonged to an organisation well knows, some crests are more important than others.
People have died in the service of the RUC. Others have been cruelly and horribly maimed. The crest has meant enough to the remaining officers to risk death and injury day in and day out throughout the past 30 years. I believe that it still means a lot to the families of the 302 officers who have been murdered in the service of the police in Northern Ireland. The families were justifiably proud of those men and women. And we, as a community, in Ulster are justifiably proud of them. That is the reason why we are fighting so hard to retain the badge and name.
The families of those who were murdered knew and believed that their sons and daughters were defending society and, indeed, keeping Ulster from anarchy. The name was good enough for their sons and daughters to die in the service of all the people of Northern Ireland. The crest is on their headstones in cemeteries the length and breadth of Ulster. Not even the Patten report and this cowardly Government can remove it from there. I support the amendment.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I do not believe that I need to repeat what I said at earlier stages of the passage of the Bill about the importance of symbols and flags. Noble Lords will have noticed the support from all parts of the House for what the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said.
Others also agree with the noble Lord about the importance of symbols. Why, otherwise, do commercial organisations spend so much time and money on their own symbols? An enormous amount of publicity has been given to BP-Amoco, which appears to have spent vast quantities of its shareholders' money in trying to get its logo right. There is a reason for that. The symbols attached to an organisation surely embody the traditions and aspirations of that organisation and they matter very much to all those who work in it.

307
Of course, if it applies to commercial organisations, I suggest that it applies dramatically more to members of organisations which must go out and face the sort of mayhem which the police force in Northern Ireland still has to face. If they are to do that and to show the extraordinary esprit de corps and morale that they have shown over the past 30 years under appallingly difficult circumstances, I suggest that the continuity of the symbol is at least as important now as ever it has been.
Those noble Lords who think that the words "Royal" or "the Crown" will put off anybody whose allegiance is to the Republic of Ireland need only travel to the capital of the Republic of Ireland, where 78 years—if my mathematics is right—have elapsed since independence was declared and 51 years since the Republic left the Commonwealth, to see that the words "Royal" and "the Crown" are not so repugnant to the citizens and government of the Republic as to make them disappear from everyday national life South of the Border.
The second point that I make is a point made by my noble friend Lord Glentoran when he talked about the role of the Crown. I was much reassured that during the course of the debate on another piece of rather curious legislation that the Government are trying to push through at the moment—the Disqualifications Bill—the Minister who was replying for the Government assured me with some vigour that there was absolutely no question that the Province of Northern Ireland would leave the United Kingdom without the majority support of its inhabitants for doing so. Of course, that has been a mantra which governments of both persuasions have reiterated during the course of the entire peace process.
If that is so, then is it not equally so that a part of the United Kingdom, whether or not all of its inhabitants wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, should, for its own institutions, be happy to see the Crown, which is the principal symbol of the United Kingdom, remain part of the badge of the most important law enforcement agency in the Province?
A number of us have felt increasingly on this issue, as well as many others—perhaps our relationship with our great European home may be another case in point—that Ministers are rather prone to maintain that there is no question of what a number of us fear ever happening and that such a suggestion is absurd. That has been true over the entire Northern Irish peace process. We have been assured that the Northern Irish people will remain part of the United Kingdom no matter how much pressure is put on the British Government until those people wish that situation to change.
Yet we are all too well aware that a number—I put it no higher than this—of the actions of the British Government and the agreements they have reached have made it at least apparent, particularly to a number of people who live in the Province, that perhaps there is something of a gap between what is claimed and what actually happens. For example, it is becoming clear that the Republic is developing a fairly
308
effective veto, first through the Maryfield Secretariat and through other means, on any policy initiative which is taken in Northern Ireland.
If we are to be reassured as much as we should like to be by the efforts of Ministers from that Dispatch Box to give us that reassurance, then keeping the badge of the RUC, or whatever may turn out to be the name of its successor police force—the police force of Northern Ireland, I presume—would be an enormous reassurance, not only to those of us in this Chamber who are worried that there is an extraordinary hollowing-out in the assurances about the Province remaining part of the United Kingdom which the Government give us but, more importantly, to those people who are very much in the majority in the Province.
I believe that the Government have an opportunity to keep a badge which is extremely important to the morale and effectiveness of the new police force because of what it represents. I believe also, in a broader context, that they have an important opportunity to give a wider reassurance, not only to this Chamber but, more importantly, to those who live in the Province that the Government intend to keep their promises and that, under the surface, they are not moving to a condominium or a united Ireland.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, this is an important issue. The noble Viscount is quite right to say that symbols are extremely important and this is a very important symbol. Therefore, it is right that the House should vote on the matter, and I hope that it will vote on it fairly soon.
It is right too that we should reach finality in this House on this particular issue. After all, this is about the fifth time that we have had this debate. We had it on Second Reading, quite extensively in Committee and on Report. In my view, it would not be right for us now to go over the same ground, very frequently with the same words uttered by the same people to the same effect. We all know what the issue is and, with great respect, it is more important that the House should now take a decision rather than having another debate.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. There are many on the government Benches and on the Liberal Democrat Benches who seem to disagree with us on this issue this evening. Those noble Lords may feel that it is inappropriate for the badge of the RUC to be retained by the new police force. But your Lordships must look at the harp and the shamrock for a moment. They are both older than the divisions in Ireland. The harp is used on the emblems of provinces in the Republic of Ireland. It is not on the emblem of Northern Ireland, which has the red hand. The shamrock, likewise, is used.
When I was at a small school in the North of England, there were children from Ireland who were always given shamrock on St Patrick's Day. That was before the Troubles.

309
More recently, the nationalists hijacked the shamrock and Protestants were almost ashamed to wear that shamrock. So it is more of a nationalist emblem in the North of Ireland. Noble Lords may say that I would say that, but it is true and if noble Lords went over there, they would see it. The shamrock is more of a nationalist emblem than a Protestant one at the moment. St Patrick's Day is reasserting itself, as it should, as a national day for Protestants, for Catholics and for all the people of Ireland.
Do not let us criticise the shamrock and the harp for being Ulster, being Protestant, being the RUC. That is complete and absolute rubbish. They are serious Irish emblems, more so for the Republic than for the north. I ask noble Lords who have listened to the debate this evening to give the matter that consideration and support. Ultimately, there has to be a badge that is inclusive. Those emblems are inclusive.
Lord Prior: My Lords, on more than one occasion I was saved from death by the RUC, but that has nothing to do with my views on this amendment. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne said, it is symbolic. Most things in Northern Ireland are symbolic and this is perhaps one of the more crucial, yet at the same time, one of the smallest issues.
Over the past three years, during the course of these debates, I have felt it to be my duty, whenever possible, to support the Government in the policy they have put forward, and I still do that. However, I believe that the symbolism of this matter for the RUC and for the Protestant community is of enormous importance. Too often, in our desire to try to reach and maintain a peaceful settlement, we have under-estimated the enormous sacrifice that we have asked of the Protestant and the unionist side in the negotiations. I say that from a position that in many ways is regarded by the Protestants as being too much in favour of the nationalist view.
From the point of view of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and from the point of view of the symbolism of this matter to the unionist community, the Government should consider the situation extremely carefully before going ahead with it. Recently in this House we have been round this point five or six times—although I have not taken part on those occasions—but more and more I have felt that this is an issue on which it is right to ask the Government to think again. If it is a small issue, it should not be too much for the nationalist community to understand it, and if it is too much for them, the prospects for long-term peace are small indeed.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that I have not spoken on the subject before so I shall not be repeating anything I have already said. Yesterday I had the joy of hearing the chairman of English Heritage speak about the fact that our past is part of our future and both are part of our present. The Crown on the cap badge of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is part of the past as it sits on their
310
tombstones. It is part of the future as it is carried in our hearts and it should be part of the present on the badges.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, all noble Lords know that the Patten report, which the Government are implementing, recommended that the Northern Ireland police service adopt a new badge and symbols entirely free of any association with either British or Irish states. That is behind the Government's reasoning.
Before the Patten report was produced, how many Members of this House knew the design of the badge of the RUC? I see raised hands, but I wonder. I have talked to many people and I do not believe that it was particularly obvious. I believe that interest in this matter has increased because of the politics associated with implementing the Patten report recommendations rather than because of any knowledge about the design of the badge.
It is clear to me that quite a number of police officers in Northern Ireland are much more relaxed about this issue than are the politicians who allegedly speak on their behalf. Many police officers are much more concerned about the integrity of policing, the way in which they enforce law and order and the support they receive from their community than in endless arguments about the badge which simply maintains the policing of Northern Ireland at the centre of party politics. That is exactly what the police do not want. I believe that the traditions of the RUC, the way in which they have suffered and the enormous bravery that they have shown will last for many hundreds of year, long after arguments relating to the badge and the name are forgotten.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I regret the reference to the Patten report as though it were an infallible document. It is one person's view. Although I launched Mr Patten on his career when I appointed him my PPS when Leader of the other place, I certainly believe that in this instance he was wrong. I associated myself with my noble friend Lord Prior when says that the badge is dear to the unionist community; I add the footnote, dear to the unionist community, both Protestant and Catholic.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, the case for the retention of the badge and the emblem have been well made. If the Government do not appreciate that, and if the amendment should be rejected, the people of Northern Ireland will draw one conclusion: that this Government will do anything to please the Sinn Fein/IRA. Unfortunately, they do not know enough about Sinn Fein/IRA to know that to change the badge and emblem to please them will not make one bit of difference and it will not encourage anyone to join the police.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, seek to require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the RUC emblem within three

311
months of Royal Assent and to prescribe the nature of the emblem. The amendments, in effect, propose that the House should decide now on the substance of the emblem rather than, as the Government propose, that in the first instance we should seek consensus in the community in Northern Ireland as to what should be on the badge. In default of consensus being reached, the Secretary of State will produce regulations that can he debated by both Houses of Parliament. That is the choice that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, place before the House today.
We have debated this issue before and it has been debated in another place. I make no complaint whatever about that, but it is plainly a significant issue. The Government recognise and understand the strength of feeling of noble Lords on this matter. However, it is equally clear that while they and many others cherish the emblem of the RUC, there are many others who do not. Perhaps I may quote the remarks of the honourable Member for South Down in another place:
"If the new police service is to be accepted, there needs to be a satisfactory resolution of the issue of emblems and flags. The cultural proposals in the Patten report are both symbolically and structurally important. They are an expression of the new beginning to which I have referred. Much more importantly, they are and will continue to be an invitation to all sections of our community to accept and join the new service".
All noble Lords agree that we seek a police service that members of all communities in Northern Ireland would want to join. I quote that passage at length because it gives a clear indication of the views of the nationalists. In a sense, the Government are caught in the middle. They are asked by noble Lords to provide clarity—that noble Lords should decide now—and to retain the elements of the existing emblem. But there is an opposing view. It is against that background and the recommendation of the whole of the Patten commission that the Government concluded and continue to believe that the police board, which should be representative of Northern Ireland society and which will have a majority of members drawn from the elected Assembly, should be involved in the decision-making process.
As we have said before, we would rather not have to make changes that will hurt some in the RUC family, but, like all Members of this House, we want to achieve a new beginning to policing with a service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole. We believe that our approach will do that. I earnestly ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords for taking part in this crucial and critical debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with whom I agree that we need a decision and we need it now. I have said before that I have every sympathy with the Secretary of State for the position in which he finds himself with the Patten recommendation to remove the hat badge and hence the signs of sovereignty. I suggest it is our duty in this
312
House to pass the message that the Secretary of State does not have Parliament's authority to do that and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 174; Not-Contents, 192.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fookes, B.

Ackner, L.

Freeman, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Arran, E.

Glentoran, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Goschen, V.

Astor, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hambro, L.

Attlee, E.

Hanham, B.

Barber, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanson, L.

Bell, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Belstead, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blackwell, L.

Henley, L.

Blaker, L.

Higgins, L.

Blatch, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Boardman, L.

Hogg, B.

Bowness, L.

Home, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Howe, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Byford, B.

Inglewood, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jopling, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Kingsland, L.

Carrington, L.

Kirkham, L.

Chadlington, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Chalfont, L.

Laird, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Luke, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Lyell, L

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mar, C.

Cumberlege, B.

Marlesford, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Deedes, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Denham, L.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dundee, E.

Montrose, D.

Eames, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Naseby, L.

Feldman, L.

Noakes, B.

Ferrers, E.

Northbrook, L.

Fitt, L.

Northesk, E.

Flather, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

313

O'Cathain, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Onslow, E.

Seccombe, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Selborne, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Selsdon, L.

Palmer, L.

Sharpies, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Patten, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Peel, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strange, B.

Strathdyde, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Plumb, L.

Tebbit, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tenby.V.

Prentice, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Prior, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Pym, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rawlings, B.

Vivian, L.

Reay, L.

Waddington, L.

Rees, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Renton, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Walpole, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rogan, L. [Teller]

Wilcox, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Saatchi, L.

Wolfson, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dubs, L.

Addington, L.

Elder, L.

Ahmed, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Alli, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L

Amos, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Andrews, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falkender, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Avebury, L.

Filkin, L.

Bach, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Barnett, L.

Gale, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Geraint, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Billingham, B.

Gilbert, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Birt, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Blackstone. B.

Goodhart, L.

Borrie, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bragg, L.

Goudie, B.

Brennan, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grabiner, L.

Brookman, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Greaves, L.

Burlison, L.

Grenfell, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Hamwee, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Chandos, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Christopher, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Harrison, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Haskins, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hattersley, L.

Crawley, B.

Hayman, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

David, B.

Hollick, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Da vies of Oldham, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Desai, L.

Hoyle, L.

Dholakia, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Dixon, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

314

Hylton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Rennard, L.

Richard, L.

Islwyn, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Jacobs, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Russell, E.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sandberg, L.

Judd, L.

Sandwich, E.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Serota, B.

Laming, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Shepherd, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lipsey, L.

Simon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Longford, E.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stem, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Taverne, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Maddock, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Thornton, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tomlinson, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tope, L.

Tordoff, L.

Methuen, L.

Turnberg, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Uddin, B.

Mitchell, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Molloy, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Morgan, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Walmsley, B.

Nicol, B.

Warner, L.

Northover, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Orme, L.

Whitaker, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Whitty, L.

Paul, L.

Wigoder, L.

Peston, L.

Wilkins, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winston, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Razzall, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.41 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Clause 59 [General duty of Chief Constable to report to Board]:
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 31, line 8, leave out ("personal") and insert ("personnel").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee it looked as though "personal" might be a printing error, but we learnt that it was in fact intentional. Amendment No. 15 is therefore an amendment of principle and not just one of drafting.
The Patten commission recommended that requests for reports of sensitive personnel information relating to individuals might be referred by the Chief Constable

315
to the Secretary of State. There can be little doubt about that. I understand "personnel" in that context to refer to police personnel. Substituting "personal" as the Bill does, greatly widens the scope. It broadens it to include sensitive personal matters affecting any member of the general public. That, in my view, goes too wide and unnecessarily limits the board in relation to the Chief Constable.
We are dealing with the board's right to full information on policing matters. We should remember that we are talking not about published reports, but about reports that are internal to the board, which might well be confidential or have some higher security classification.
The Government's reply in Committee was not exactly convincing. The noble and learned Lord said that "personal" has been inserted so as to be consistent with the Data Protection Act. That may not be a pure red herring, but it hardly seems to compare like with like. We are not in this case discussing data protection, but rather policing and how to make the board effective and to keep it informed about operational matters over which it has some responsibility but no direct control. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I hope that the Government do not fall for the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on this occasion, ingenious as he has been in putting the amendment forward. There will be some information about other people—not policemen or members of the civilian police staff—which is likely to be contained in such reports. It should not be spread around, particularly if the board includes people in close touch with terrorists and others, as may well be the case.
A later amendment attempts to avoid that—at least to some degree—but even if it were passed it is likely that there will be some people on the board to whom it would not be sensible to release personal information.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Clause 59(3) sets out the grounds on which the Chief Constable may refer a board's request for a report on a policing matter to the Secretary of State because he believes that the information should not be disclosed. Clause 59(3)(b) provides that one such ground is,
"because a matter relates to an individual and is of a sensitive personal nature".
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, wants to change the word "personal" to "personnel". We believe that that would be wrong for two reasons. First, there is a clear definition in the Data Protection Act. Secondly, when, as here, we are here dealing with matters which should not be disclosed "personal" is a more appropriate word, dealing with the private affairs of individuals, both employed and not employed, rather than "personnel", which is limited to matters of employment. Therefore, we believe that the draft is correct as it stands.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for the perhaps modified support offered by the noble Lord,
316
Lord Cope of Berkeley. I have not convinced the Government and this is not a matter on which I wish to divide. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 [The Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation]:
Lord Laird Lord Laird moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 37, line 18, at end insert—
("() shall enable the foundation to undertake joint initiatives with the Royal Ulster Constabulary Widows Association, the Royal Ulster Constabulary Disabled Police Officers Association or any other organisation or person within the Royal Ulster Constabulary family, as may be appropriate in matters of common interest;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 is very important. It proposes that the foundation shall,
"undertake joint initiatives with the Royal Ulster Constabulary Widows Association, the Royal Ulster Constabulary Disable Police Officers Association or any other organisation or person within the Royal Ulster Constabulary family, as may be appropriate in matters of common interest".
It is easy to sit in this place and talk about the brave men and women of the RUC, of a thin green line which has protected us from anarchy. Words come cheap. It is easy to mouth platitudes and the Government have done plenty of that in both Houses. However, want to focus for a moment on the reality behind the phrases; the reality as it affects the RUC family.
The current strength of the RUC constabulary is 8,500 full-time officers and 3,000 reservists. Throughout what we have euphemistically called "the troubles", many thousands of men have stepped forward to put on the bottle green uniform of the RUC. The RUC family extends far beyond the men and women who served in the force. The mothers and fathers of those officers, their brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, aunts and uncles, cousins and in-laws could be said to make up the RUC family—and with good reason. Every time a loved one went out on duty those left at home lived with the worry and fear that whenever they saw or heard a news bulletin, or heard the telephone ring, or heard a knock at the door they would learn that he or she had been killed or injured.
The family of every police officer in the United Kingdom must live with the possibility that harm might befall the officer in the course of his or her duty. Thank God that such men and women exist in our society. But not every officer in the UK faced—and, as the events of the past few days have shown, still faces—the additional risk run by the men and women of the RUC. They were at risk on duty and off. On duty they had to respond to telephone calls for assistance, in many instances knowing that they were being lured into certain areas in order to be attacked by stones and petrol bombs, by gunmen, booby-trapped bombs or landmines. There was no respite off duty. Many officers were murdered while shopping; some were even killed on their way to or from church on Sundays. It takes a very special individual to run risks like these on behalf of others.
It took very special people, Protestants and Roman Catholics, to wear the uniform, and their families are justifiably proud of them. And the families of the 302 murdered officers and the many thousands who were injured share that pride. As my noble friend Lord Rogan said, that is the reason why we fight so hard to retain the badge and name. The families of those who were murdered rightly believe that their sons and daughters defended society.
I have already spoken of the terrible injuries suffered by many officers. Young men and women have been blinded; others have lost limbs and must go through life with terrible wounds. One must never forget the families who have endured that pain and suffering with them. That is why the sacrifice and service to the force means so much to the families and to anyone who respects law and order. Any attack, physical or verbal, on the RUC is an attack on the memory of those killed or injured in the service of the force.
We are all indebted to the RUC, and it is a debt that money can never repay. Many people have been hailed for their contribution to the peace process, but if there is one group which deserves credit it is the RUC. That was the force which held the line between two communities and stopped Northern Ireland slipping into anarchy. I do not believe that I stretch a point if I say that civilisation in Northern Ireland was saved by the RUC. The force protected everyone in these islands. There are people alive today who are unaware that they owe their lives to the RUC. The RUC stopped loyalist bombs reaching Dublin and IRA bombs reaching the mainland, and all the while it undertook normal police duties.
This amendment proposes to recognise the sacrifice and service of the men and women of the RUC. Words are cheap. I know that money can never replace a loved one or take away pain and suffering, but support can demonstrate that this House cares enough about the sacrifice of the RUC to do something tangible rather than just talk about it. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it may assist the House if I speak first. The effect of this amendment is to enable the RUC GC Foundation,
"to undertake joint initiatives with the Royal Ulster Constabulary Widows Association, the Royal Ulster Constabulary Disabled Police Officers Association or any other organisation or person within the Royal Ulster Constabulary family".
The Bill sets up the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation for the purpose of marking the sacrifices and honouring the achievements of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. We support both the sentiment and wording of the amendment and, therefore, when the time comes we shall agree to it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing to the amendment, which I intended to support. I simply add, although in a sense it is superfluous because the Government at least agree with it, that we are not concerned simply with atrocities committed years ago.
318
Over the past few days while we have debated the Bill another police officer has been disabled. He had his leg blown off by a bomb in Castlewellan. That is one more statistic but a tragedy for that officer and his family. At this time we think of that officer as well as the more than 300 who have been killed and others. I am very glad that the Government propose to accept the amendment.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful that the Government intend to accept the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, at previous stages of this Bill I have consistently voted with the Government and followed all of this with deep personal interest, not least because of my family connections in both the north and south of Ireland. At an earlier stage I intervened to express the wish, which I know would be shared by all of my relatives and ancestors and my wife's relatives, that we put the past behind us as far as we can and see what can be done to move to a more peaceful future. It is my belief that the efforts of the present Government at least have a chance of success. For that reason, we have consistently supported the Government in the Division Lobby. In the case of this particular amendment, had it gone to a Division I would have voted against the Government. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Laird, expresses a very reasonable point, and I am delighted that the Minister intends to accept it.
Lord Eames: My Lords, it will not surprise the House that I too greatly welcome the indication by the Minister. Some months ago I had occasion to thank him for a similar gesture towards those who had suffered most. I make one slight plea to the Minister as he considers the way in which this will be implemented. We owe a tremendous debt for past service and sacrifice, but we are moving towards a new police service and, it is hoped, a new era in Northern Ireland. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should try to view this particular part of the Bill in a continuing sense; in other words, they should concentrate on whatever sacrifice is to be made by those from—please God—both communities who serve in the new police service. Their sacrifice will not be dented simply because it is not a historic fact. Theirs is a continuing sacrifice on behalf of the law-abiding community in Northern Ireland.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not think that it is generally appreciated this side of the water, certainly not in metropolitan circles, that the number of RUC men and women murdered over the past 30 years equates, in proportionate terms, to 10,500 police officers in England, Scotland and Wales being killed over the same period. For that reason, I am very glad that the Government intend to accept the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I rise briefly to congratulate my noble friend Lord Laird on getting his amendment accepted.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I rise briefly to thank the Government very much on behalf of Royal Ulster Constabulary widows. The Minister may also be interested to know that on Saturday last at the War Widows Association service held at the Cenotaph the wreath was laid by a Northern Ireland widow.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I rise to thank all those who have spoken to this amendment, and I thank the Minister for accepting it on behalf of the Government. This may not appear to be very important to some people, but it is to us. On a number of occasions in this House I have said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has been extremely compassionate and helpful on the question of widows and the disabled. Once again, I pay tribute to him for helping us tonight. I have received support from many people, a number of whom are in your Lordships' House tonight. It is perhaps wrong to single out those who have been of particular assistance. Having said that, over the past week I have much valued the encouragement and help provided by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield in developing the amendment. I very much appreciate what the Government have done today.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Orders and regulations]:
6 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 39, line 25, after ("such") insert ("consequential,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which makes it clear that orders and regulations made under the Bill may make consequential as well as supplementary and transitional provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Commencement]:
Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 41, line 20, at end insert ("only after the Secretary of State has a made a declaration that all terrorism in Northern Ireland has ended").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, the Bill was first brought before this House on 13th July of this year. As noble Lords are also aware, Northern Ireland has yet to be in an era of peace and all terrorism has yet to end. Paramilitaries have continued to ignore the clear message that the people of Northern Ireland sent to them at the time of the referendum on the Belfast agreement. That message was that the people of Northern Ireland do not want violence.
Yet since 13th July of this year we have had loyalists killing loyalists and republicans killing republicans. We have had bomb attacks at Armagh barracks, at Magilligan army camp and at Stewartstown. We have had a grenade launcher attack on the MI6 building here in London. We have had explosive finds, at Hannahstown for a bomb which was destined for England, detonator finds and weapon finds. On many occasions we have had incendiary devices. But because
320
of the conscientiousness and diligence with which the RUC carries out its duty, we have had numerous foiled attacks.
The incident on 10th August in Londonderry which led to the large explosives find in Donegal is but only one example of this conscientiousness and diligence. With such a high number of attempted operations, it was as inevitable as it was tragic that two weeks ago—as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, mentioned—we witnessed the attack on the Castlewellan police station where a police officer lost his leg. Unfortunately, some people at home would term such a despicable act "a success". But where is the success in leaving a husband and a father maimed for life? That so-called "success" is insufficient for the terrorists. Only last week we had the attempted so-called "barrack buster" attack in County Fermanagh, planned to take place on Remembrance Sunday—as if people in Northern Ireland have forgotten or could ever forget the horror of the last Remembrance Sunday attack in County Fermanagh.
What do we get from Sinn Fein? We have a return to "the refusal to condemn" such acts. Instead, it offers a mere acknowledgement that such an attack would "not help anyone".
Sinn Fein/IRA started condemning republican and dissident attacks after the Omagh tragedy, and yet how quickly they have forgotten Omagh, a horror that is permanently etched in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland and so deeply etched in the minds of the citizens of Omagh.
The Patten report stems from the Belfast agreement. That agreement was designed to provide for, as well as bring about, a peaceful Northern Ireland and an end to all terrorism. The Patten report is largely based on the Chief Constable's fundamental review which provided for policing in Northern Ireland in a terrorist-free environment. Unfortunately, at this time, the police are not operating in a terrorist-free environment and all terrorism has not ended.
The terrorism we have experienced in Northern Ireland over the past few months, and the terrorism we are experiencing at the moment, and the residue of over 30 years of terrorism. We are not witnessing the death of the ideology of terrorism in Northern Ireland. What we have in Northern Ireland is a steady level of attack from operational so-called loyalist and republican terrorists.
The police in Northern Ireland require the capability to deal with this terrorist activity. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, the police will not have the capability to counter the continuing terrorist threat.
Several aspects of the Bill in particular will have an adverse effect on the morale of the police service and on its ability to counter terrorism, especially, in the light of the welcome decreasing army presence and the dismantling of many military installations. The Bill provides for the downsizing of numbers of police officers and the phasing out of the police reserve. To compound the effect of the downsizing, the police will now experience recruitment problems as a

321
consequence of the discriminatory recruitment system referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead.
Therefore, we shall have a smaller police force continuing to combat terrorist and non-terrorist crime. Yet it was reported only last Monday in the Belfast Telegraph that Northern Ireland is about to experience a crime crisis. Unfortunately, crime figures in Northern Ireland show an increase in reported crime. However, in the previous financial year it was reported that downsizing will proceed. The police would still require a large number of officers to combat non-terrorist crime, even if all terrorism did indeed come to an end. The police authority recently reported a £15 million shortage in police funding with respect to its ability to deal with crime.
The morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is at an all-time low. Pushing forward aspects of the Bill, such as the removal of the title "Royal Ulster Constabulary" for operational purposes and the changing of the cap badge could push depressingly low morale to critical levels.
It has been reported that the Royal Ulster Constabulary currently has 1,200 or so officers off sick. That is approximately 10 per cent of its total manpower. That leaves the police with 10 per cent fewer effective officers to respond to 10 per cent more crime. If the Bill is enacted immediately, consider how many more officers will be sick—sick at the name change, the badge reforms, and the downsizing in the light of the continuing terrorist threat.
A moratorium on Patten is essential in order to salvage morale within the ranks of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in order to have a police force capable of combating the continued threat of terrorism and the spiralling crime rates in Northern Ireland, especially in the city of Belfast.
The amendment would pause these police reforms until such time as Northern Ireland makes the change into an era of peace, when bombs have stopped exploding and lives have stopped being lost through terrorism. The Mafia sub-culture in Northern Ireland will embrace the Bill with open arms as one that weakens police effectiveness when terrorism continues to exist as a sponge to so many police hours.
The sense of hurt and sadness which is felt by those in Northern Ireland who respect law and order has been eloquently expressed, if not always understood, throughout the passage of the Bill.
The Ulster Unionist Party leader, in another place, referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary when he said to the Prime Minister:
"Nothing the Government say or do can dishonour the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the officers who have served in it, but they can dishonour and are dishonouring themselves".
Bearing in mind the Bill, I completely agree with that statement.
The demand for a moratorium on police reform until all terrorism has ended is not a demand based on the honour of the RUC, as the Government have demonstrated that they have no respect for the honour
322
of the RUC. The demand for the moratorium on policing is based on the necessity for an effective police service in Northern Ireland. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in moving his amendment. The leitmotiv behind the Government's rhetoric as they have pushed the Bill through both Houses of Parliament has been clear. They have assumed that peace is on the way. Indeed, as part of the almost inevitable success of the peace process, the Bill has to be passed pretty well unamended if the conditions precedent to the achievement of that eventual peace are to be fulfilled.
I have to say, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that that assumption is, to put it at its lowest, a heroic one. I shall not weary the House by repeating what has been said many times during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, but we know that peace in the Province is at best illusory. Furthermore, it is clear from the rhetoric of Sinn Fein/IRA that those on that wing of terrorism, as opposed to the so-called loyalist wing, think that the Bill does not fulfil their understanding of the peace agreement and they reject it. Therefore, it is at least questionable for the Government to say that the Bill will nail down an important part of the peace process. If one of the principal terrorist organisations does not accept its provisions, I think that the Government seem to have taken leave of reality to a degree remarkable even by their own very high standards in that respect.
I also shall not weary the House by quoting verbatim from the statement issued by my right honourable friend Mr Patten shortly after the publication of his report. As your Lordships know, I quoted it in extenso at Second Reading. At the very least, my old and right honourable friend seemed to be saying that the implementation of the full provisions of his report should perhaps be delayed until peace had actually been established in the Province. I have endeavoured to make sure from my right honourable friend that he actually meant that, but so far there has been no public elucidation on his part as to whether he did or not. However, it must be said, as noble Lords will have noted if they were unfortunate enough to listen to what I had to say at Second Reading, that what he said could at least be easily interpreted in that way. If that is so, I have to agree with my right honourable friend that it would be most unwise of the Government—and not only because of what Sinn Fein/IRA are saying—to implement the provisions of the Bill until peace had been established.
It is also worth reminding ourselves, not only for reasons of the peace process itself but also for straightforward policing reasons, that it is most unwise at this juncture to reduce the anti-terrorist capability of the RUC. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, shakes his head. I hope that he is not shot or has a missile sent at him as a direct result of reducing that anti-terrorist capability.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Viscount is getting at. All I was trying to say with that shake of my head was that that is not the Government's intention. The Government are as determined to defeat terrorism as they ever have been.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that the Government are determined to do it; in which case I am very sorry that their determination is not translated into practicality. It seems to me that throughout the passage of the Bill endless examples have been given of how that anti-terrorist capability is being undermined. Some of them were given by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, a few moments ago. If a police force is set up to police a peaceable community, which by and large some of our communities still are in Great Britain, it is at least sensible for that police force not to gear itself up, as a primary objective of its activities, for anti-terrorist operations. But it seems foolish for it not to do so in the present circumstances in the Province.
The people who will suffer are primarily the law-abiding inhabitants of the Province from both sides of the sectarian divide. Terrorists are active not only because they are members either of 32 Counties Real IRA or Sinn Fein/IRA but also as, sadly, people who destroy the honourable name of loyalist by their own terrorist activities on the Protestant side of the divide. It is clear that the people of the Province will suffer if the provisions of the Bill are brought into operation before real peace breaks out. But other people will suffer too. It is all of us on this side of the water. It is entirely thanks to the RUC that we have not faced at least one "spectacular" in the past week. Who is to know whether there is not another spectacular in preparation as a kind of Christmas present from the Real IRA for those of us who might be tempted to shop anywhere but Harrods, but at least somewhere in London.
Back in May of this year I was privileged to accompany a delegation to Dublin. It consisted of the very associations which the noble Lord, Lord Laird, made the subject of his amendment and which the Government rightly and so generously accepted. We were delighted to be received by the Taoiseach, who gave us a great deal of his time. He spoke at a party I ventured to throw at Buswell's Hotel in Kildare Street and endorsed the courage of the RUC. It is perfectly plain that in practical terms the republic itself regards the RUC as one of its first lines of defence against terrorism.
If we undermine the anti-terrorist capability of the RUC by implementing the provisions of the Bill fully and before true peace has broken out in the Province, we will make ourselves more vulnerable not only in the Province but in the rest of the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the island of Ireland. If that is so, I have no hesitation in saying that the House should be clear who to blame—and that is the Government. After all, it is the Government's primary duty to ensure that Her Majesty's subjects are at least safe when going about their ordinary business. It is not up to the Government to make that less likely. The reverse should be the case.
324
If we are to have an RUC—a police force—that is capable, it should not only enjoy the kind of morale that will follow from keeping the cap badge, but in practical terms its real capability should not be undermined until peace has broken out and it can become a police force more like the police forces that operate in my home county of Dorset and elsewhere.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. What we have really been discussing in relation to the Bill is operational reforms and, to a certain extent, operational reforms which are intended to act as a carrot to the other side; namely, to the terrorists, both loyalist and republican. Quite frankly, we have been told that if we give up the present composition of our police force- —relinquish its emblems and so forth—and give up any claims on prisoners, then we shall get something in return. However, it is quite clear that the SDLP and Sinn Fein, along with all the others, have stated that there shall be no return on this. Therefore, the process is not working.
I should like to clarify two points. First, it is assumed that the present terrorist violence taking place is all the work of dissident groups such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA. But that accounts only for the recent overt bombing campaigns from which we have lately suffered. I am entitled to mention the bombings again because I live 10 miles away from he "barracks buster" that was found two days ago Although these groups are referred to as so-called "splinter groups", at what point do the splinters become larger than the remaining groups? This is becoming a realistic notion. Noble Lords may comment that, "Of course he would say that", but it is a realistic point. Those groups are much more powerful than is commonly thought and I am extremely proud that last week our police force stopped that bomb from coming to London.
Secondly, I shall refer to the kind of violence of which not much is seen or discussed because fewer statistics are produced on it. I shall not go over the details, but noble Lords will know that such violence takes place all the time. That violence comprises the intimidation, beatings, fraud and other violent acts being committed by both sides—loyalist as well as republican. I should make that clear. While the bombs seem to be emanating from the Real IRA or Continuity IRA and thus are probably republican, the kind of violence to which I now refer is being perpetrated by both sides. Indeed, it may be even worse on the Protestant/loyalist side. However, on the republican side, the people involved in this level of criminal activity may not necessarily form part of the Real IRA or Continuity IRA. An FBI report recently pointed out that the vast proportion of criminal acts of a very serious nature—I do not refer here to domestic wife beating and so forth—committed in urban areas are being carried out by organisations and by people who still form part of the Provisional IRA, the UVF and the UDA. Let us not think that all we suffer is a little violence emanating from splinter groups. Outsiders only have to consider the bombings, which

325
engender publicity. For those who live in Northern Ireland, violence is endemic and its perpetrators have not ceased to carry out their criminal acts.
If the Chief Constable is happy with the operational changes being proposed in the Bill, then why not—for once—say that the terrorists will get the cosmetic side only when and if the remainder of such activity stops?
Lord Smith of Clifton: Perhaps I may begin with a simple observation. No government Minister in any western liberal democracy could certify that all terrorism has been exorcised from his or her country. One of the reasons why we have the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998 is precisely because that guarantee cannot be given, so there is a basic and in-built absurdity in the amendment.
Arguments can be advanced in support of both sides of the debate on this issue. As the unionists say, the current peace is too fragile to implement these far-reaching reforms. But, as Patten and the Government say, one reason for the fragility is precisely the lack of policing by consent. Progress towards implementing Patten is one of the keys to creating a more robust peace. Of course there are no guarantees that the proposals contained in this Bill will result either in quick or complete success, but delay is definitely not an option. On the contrary, it would be likely to fracture the existing fragile situation. For that reason alone, I oppose this group of amendments.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall be brief. It was reported in yesterday's press that Sinn Fein insists that any IRA re-engagement with de Chastelain will be contingent on the implementation of Patten on police reform, substantial demilitarisation and an amnesty for members of the IRA on the run. The only time that the IRA has ever made any kind of gesture in our direction was when the current Secretary of State had the courage and intelligence to call its bluff and stand up to it on the issue of disarmament in the Assembly. I feel that this is another such moment: the bluff should be called. Members of the IRA should be made to see that they cannot issue threats.
I little thought that I would ever do this, but I shall quote with immense approval the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin, who stated on 12th November:
"The people of Northern Ireland should not be asked to accept a position that would be unacceptable to the people of the Republic; namely, the participation of Sinn Fein in government without a clear commitment to follow an exclusively democratic path. There would have to be disconnection between Sinn Fein and government and the IRA. We must not be prepared to advocate for the people of Northern Ireland a position which we would not accept ourselves".
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I, too, shall be brief. I should like to echo the words used by my noble friend Lord Cranborne as regards the assumption that peace is on the way. So far, the Government, in their pursuit of peace—which is what everyone wishes to see—have travelled a long way and have given in to
326
people who have not, in return, conceded anything at all. Those people have not hesitated to use the bomb and the bullet and they have shown their total contempt for the ballot box.
I should like to explore the Government's mind on one point. In order to justify our continuing journey down this road, can the noble and learned Lord rise to his feet and say that he is truly confident that, given the measure which we are now about to pass, there is a real prospect of peace in Northern Ireland? Furthermore, can he confirm that those who so far have made a success out of using the bomb, the bullet and every other form of violence, will be content to lay aside their weapons and live in peace in a way that so far they have not even attempted?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, from this Dispatch Box, my noble friend and I have said constantly that this Bill contains important reforms which we support, as well as certain aspects which we have not supported. However, the questions of when and how these reforms are to be implemented are matters of crucial importance. That is why we support these amendments.
The Belfast agreement reached on Good Friday in 1998 promised a way out of the conflicts in Northern Ireland. That promise still exists, but it has not yet been fulfilled. Whatever my right honourable friend Chris Patten may have said personally, the Patten report constantly discusses matters such as "looking forward" to policing in a peaceful society. As we have heard once again during the past few minutes, we have not yet attained that peaceful society.
Page 1 of the Patten report expresses the essence of that agreement; in the words of Abraham Lincoln, as,
"a spirit of mutual compromise".
Since that time, the Government have consistently compromised, but the terrorists have not. We have not seen any mutual compromise. The terrorists retain their full capacity for terror—the main organisations as well as the so-called splinter groups. Furthermore, they are continuing to use terror in support of brutal criminal rackets which are a great source of concern. While that is the case, then it is at the very least dangerous to blunt the efficiency of the police.
But there is also the politics of the situation. The amendment would make the Bill a promise to the terrorists and others of things to come when they lay down their arms and accept the democratic authorities. That way it would be a positive encouragement to peace, whereas weakness encourages violence.
I should at once make the point that this is not about unionists and nationalists, Protestants and Catholics. The police, the RUC—or whatever they are called in the future—have shown an exceptional even-handedness over the years, as I know personally from when I saw them at close quarters. They have had to stand up—and still have to stand up—to so-called "loyalist" violence as well as to republican violence, particularly in the past few years.

327
I referred earlier to the bomb at Castlewellan. I understand that forensic tests show that it is thought to be a loyalist bomb that blew off the leg of a policeman the other day. A little earlier, the latest policeman to be killed was killed also by a loyalist bomb. But, of course, the threat is just as great from the other side.
This is not only about the politics but, as I said, it is also about the rackets. At the moment, the rackets worry me quite as much as the political inspiration of violence. The RUC is not alone in the fight against the rackets. Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security among government organisations, and many others, need to be, and are, directly involved. But the RUC is, quite properly, in the lead in the fight against rackets, and is crucial to it.
It is interesting that the Patten commission visited quite a few overseas police forces, but did not visit the Italian police or the authorities there. They have had considerable success against the Mafia in recent years— by no means total, of course—and make a highly relevant comparison. We should never forget that the Mafia started as a political organisation—the Sicilian Independence Movement—but it has long been involved in criminal rackets. The organisations in Northern Ireland have gone down the same road.
The basic point is that in politics, and in all kinds of negotiation, timing is all important. These reforms should be timed to encourage the move towards a peaceful society. It is that timing which the amendments seek to ensure.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendments would make the commencement of the Bill dependent on a declaration by the Secretary of State that all terrorism in Northern Ireland had ended.
Before dealing with the substance of the amendments, I want to record the Government's acknowledgement of the work of the RUC in, for example, intercepting the mortar at the weekend. It continues selflessly to protect the community. The Government are indebted to it, and to the army in support. We will not take chances with the lives of its members or those of the community as a whole.
These amendments are not necessary. If they were accepted, they would block changes which the Good Friday agreement, the Independent Commission on Policing, the Government, the police and all political parties—including those of the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment—see as welcome and positive. The amendments also ignore the fact that already certain aspects of Patten implementation—and that does not only include aspects in the Bill—are security dependent.
The Good Friday agreement, in the section on policing and justice, makes it clear that the policing structures and arrangements,
"must be capable of maintaining law and order including responding effectively to crime and to any terrorist threat and to public order problems. A police service which cannot do so will fail to win public confidence and acceptance".
328
So it envisaged change taking account of the security situation, but it did not say that there should be no change until the threat had disappeared.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, mentioned, Patten in turn recognised the need to take account of the security situation. In the first chapter of his report, for example, he said:
"Organised terrorism and threats to public order have limited what the police have been able to do and have felt themselves able to do in partnership with the community. Even after the Agreement is—we hope—fully implemented, those factors will continue for some time to cast a shadow on policing".
In chapter 7.1 Patten stated:
"others [recommendations] will depend to a greater or lesser degree on how the security situation develops, and judgments will need to be made over the next few years as to when they should be introduced, or whether some should only be introduced in selected areas".
The Government are clear, and have always been clear, that there are a number of Patten recommendations which are dependent on the security situation. We made that clear in the Government's implementation plan published in June. Perhaps I may give some examples of the security-dependent provisions: phasing-out of the full-time reserve; amalgamation of Special Branch and Crime Branch; progress towards an unarmed police service; changes to police buildings and vehicles; repeal of emergency powers; and the need for Army support.
These amendments, however, would block any change for as long as there is terrorism of any kind. While, therefore, I am sure that it is a shared aim of every one of your Lordships that there should be—that there must be—an end to terrorism in Northern Ireland, I cannot accept that we should prevent non-security-dependent changes to policing, changes which the Good Friday agreement called for.
The amendments would, therefore, undermine the value that the changes in the Bill and implementation of Patten generally would bring for policing. For example, the Chief Constable has said that,
"the vast bulk of the recommendations are simply about good and effective policing—they should be proceeded with as soon as possible".
The chairman of the Police Federation, Les Rodgers, has said:
"because it is mainly based on the 1995 RUC Fundamental Review, and incorporates most of our own recommendations to Patten, there is much to find favour with in Patten".
During Second Reading in another place, the right honourable Member for Bracknell, Mr Andrew Mackay, said:
"the great majority of the recommendations should be implemented straight away but others should be implemented only when there was no longer a security threat".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/00; col 187.]
Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Laird, said only yesterday:
"we support about 90–95 per cent of the changes that are required under the Police Bill".

329
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to consider those points and not to press his amendment to a Division. The Government have made it clear that they will continue to move on implementation only as the security situation permits. Changes which are not dependent on security should not be stalled.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 179.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Ashcroft, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Astor, V.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Attlee, E.

Jopling, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kingsland, L.

Bell, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Belstead, L.

Laird, L.

Blaker, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Blatch, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Boardman, L.

Lucas, L.

Bowness, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Marsh, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Monson, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Naseby, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Noakes, B.

Cranborne, V.

Northbrook, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Palmer, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dundee, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eames, L.

Peel, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Fookes, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Freeman, L.

Prentice, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Glentoran, L.

Reay, L.

Goschen, V.

Rees, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Higgins, L.

Rogan, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hogg, B.

Seccombe, B.

Home, E.

Selborne, E.

330

Selsdon, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Sharples, B.

Tebbit, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Walpole, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Weatherill, L.

Strange, B.

Wilcox, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Swinfen, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Addington, L.

Goudie, B.

Ahmed, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Alli, L.

Grabiner, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Amos, B.

Greaves, L.

Andrews, B.

Grenfell, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Avebury, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bach, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Barker, B.

Harrison, L.

Barnett, L.

Haskel, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Haskins, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hattersley, L.

Billingham, B.

Hayman, B.

Birmingham, Bp.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Birt, L.

Hollick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Borrie, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bragg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brennan, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hylton, L.

Brookman, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Burlison, L.

Islwyn, L.

Carter, L [Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Chandos, V.

Christopher, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Judd, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Crawley, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Lipsey, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Longford, E.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dholakia, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Dixon, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Elder, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

McNally, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Maddock, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Falkland, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Methuen, L.

Filkin, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mitchell, L.

Gale, B.

Molloy, L.

Geraint, L.

Morgan, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gilbert, L.

NicoL, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Northover, B.

Goodhart, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

331

Orme, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Peston, L.

Taverne, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Thornton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Tope, L.

Rennard, L.

Tordoff, L.

Richard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Uddin, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Russell, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Walmsley, B.

Sandberg, L.

Warner, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Serota, B.

Whitaker, B.

Sharman, L

Whitty, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wilkins, B.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Simon, V.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Winston, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Stern, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 41, line 25, at end insert—
("() Part III of Schedule I and section 2(2) so far as relating thereto;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, government Amendment No. 20 commences on Royal Assent the provisions enabling the appointment of the shadow policing board. Given that the process is under way, rather than make a separate commencement order shortly after Royal Assent, the Government think it sensible to alter the Bill in this way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Northern Ireland Policing Board]:
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 46, line 49, at end insert—
("(d) he has at any time been convicted of a scheduled offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 or Part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000;
(e) he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not);
(f) the political party of which he is a member is linked to any organisation which has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997;
332
(g) he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or
(h) the political party of which he is a member is linked to an organisation that has failed to satisfy any of the four factors set out in section 3(9)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before introducing the amendment, I crave the indulgence of the House. This is the last amendment at Third Reading save for remaining government amendments. As spokesman for the Opposition, and as an inhabitant of Northern Ireland, I should like to take this opportunity to thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the way in which this "very Northern Ireland" debate has been conducted—for the passion, the patience, the intellect and the goodwill that has been generated almost all round the House. I should like to say a big thank you to all noble Lords.
In moving the amendment, I should like also to link it to Amendment No. 25. Once again, I return to practicalities and safeguards, and to reality. These two amendments seek to increase the disqualification conditions for membership of either the police board or the DPPs.
We have heard an enormous amount in these debates about policing in Northern Ireland. We have heard about the levels of crime and terrorism. A single police force has to cope with smuggling, terrorism from two different factions, a rapidly increasing drugs problem: it must cope with "baronies" and in-fighting between various gangs, to say nothing of in-fighting between paramilitaries. It is well recorded that the task of any Northern Ireland police force is really most daunting.
Members of the police force are doing a wonderful job. I know that all of us in this House wish them every success in achieving that aim in the future. However, their management is through the police hoard. At this stage in their life, and in the life of Northern Ireland, it seems to me that we should take every precaution reasonably possible, regardless of politics and of virtually everything, to ensure the integrity of the people who will carry out the management and the supervision of that police force.
Perhaps I may refer, first, to the board, which has a lot of power. It has to be closely integrated with the Chief Constable and his senior officers. Inevitably, it will be party to classified information of one sort or another. Someone on that board could have a serious police record. Equally, someone serving on it could have no serious police record, but because it is very hard to get convictions in Northern Ireland—indeed, it has been so for years—he or she could be known to be part of an east Belfast gang, sympathetic to it, a Godfather of it, or whatever.
Alternatively, that person could be part of a west Belfast gang, a Ballymena drugs racket, and so on. We all know that there are many such people running about loose in Ireland, especially in Northern Ireland, who, because of the paramilitary situation and various other matters, have not been brought to court and have not been convicted. We owe it to the new police force to make sure that every single

333
precaution is put in place so that we ensure that there is no possible risk, be he or she political or apolitical, that a member of the board could be anything other than whiter than white.
I turn to Amendment No. 25, which relates to DPPs and addresses a similar argument. If they are to work properly, the DPPs will need to be much nearer the ground. We did not move the relevant amendment, but we should bear in mind the way that Belfast will be broken up. The four sections of Belfast really make little sense I suspect, when it comes, to policing—but I am not a professional policeman, so I cannot comment on that—and certainly to DPPs (or the subsidiary level of them). Again, those people will be very close to the policing process. It is highly possible that those people will be very close to the criminal elements in the west and east of Belfast. I should not differentiate, they will probably be close to criminal elements in all parts.
I do not believe that the Bill is strong enough at present to ensure that our new police force, which, after the Bill is passed, will become the police service of Northern Ireland, will be protected from having anyone who could be referred to as "a hood", "a criminal", "a crook", or whatever, on either a DPP or the board by dint of being an elected representative, or not, or being a political member. I think that I have made it pretty clear. Noble Lords have heard my arguments before. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I broadly support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Both he and I have been involved in public life in a part of the United Kingdom. We know that, just as on this side of the Channel, all appointees there at whatever level must be whiter than white; otherwise, not only will they bring discredit on the body on which they are serving but they may also have the effect of destroying confidence in the ranks of the general public. They may also destroy the faith and the respect for the body to which they perhaps wrongly belonged.
On a previous occasion I referred to what I call the "Ulster Contingent". On their behalf—my colleagues sitting beside me—I should like to express our appreciation and indebtedness to the government Ministers, not least the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and his colleagues, for their infinite patience. I know that they will take heed of what we have said today. Perhaps in some form or another, we shall find that some of our respectful advice has been implemented at some stage.
I should also like to thank Her Majesty's Opposition for their co-operation and for assisting us with their advice. When we embarked upon this rather trying spell after the Summer Recess, we probably did not realise all that lay ahead of us. However, I believe it is right to say that, collectively, we have survived the test.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, seems to preface each introduction to an
334
amendment by referring to the practicalities of the situation. It seems to me that this amendment, as presented, is not exactly practical. Let us take, for example, paragraph (e), which refers to someone who,
"has at any time been convicted … of any offence".
That appears to me to fly straight in the face of the rehabilitation of offenders order, to which I believe I referred on Second Reading. Most of us seek to achieve the reintegration of people who have offended in the past, into the community.
Paragraphs (f) and (h) of the amendment refer to,
"the political party of which he is a member".
Could not that stipulation be very easily got round simply by the person resigning from the political party? Paragraph (g) contains the proviso that,
"he is not committed to non-violence".
Who decides that? In some cases it will be an entirely subjective decision. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this amendment.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support the amendment. As regards one issue just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I accept that we want reintegration in society of people who have recently been released from custody. However, what we are talking about here is those who have been released very recently. We are not just talking about reintegration into the local society so that people help them to adjust. We are talking about putting them in a position of responsibility almost immediately after their release. That seems to me to be going too far at this stage.
I shall not repeat what I said at the previous stage, but I believe that my sentiments are shared by many people in Northern Ireland. It is intended that the DPPs and the board will gain people's respect. It is intended that they will gain the respect of law-abiding people on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, outside of which we are all agreed that the people involved in terrorism and the other activities we are discussing constitute a small proportion. How can we honestly pretend that the DPPs will gain the respect of law-abiding people in those communities who are the victims of the crimes we are discussing? It seems rather ridiculous to hope for that.
The future of Northern Ireland lies with the young, as noble Lords on all sides of the House have said on many occasions. Will those young people look up to people whose criminal records have been disregarded and who will be appointed to positions of, supposedly, some stature? If we include in the provision too many who may have committed crimes, whether terrorist or other crimes, they will not have the necessary stature for young people to look up to. Also people will believe that they can commit small criminal acts and progress to more serious ones later in life. Those people will not gain the necessary respect and they will not form the kind of bodies that we wish to see formed in the communities.
7 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Hylton with regard to the proposed paragraph (e) in Amendment No. 21, as I said at an earlier stage of the Bill. However, that matter can easily be rectified in another place when the Bill returns there. The rest of the amendment is commendable. The fact that paragraph (e) probably goes too far is no reason for not passing the amendment tonight, if we can. As I say, any defects can be rectified in another place.
Lord Desai: My Lords, across the world in every country of the British Empire which has been given independence terrorists have become Prime Ministers. They do not have to be, dare I say, whiter than white? They do not even have to be purer than pure. They just have to have standing in a community. Whatever we may say, some of these people have standing in the community.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in expressing my gratitude for the way in which the debates on this extremely controversial Bill have been conducted at all stages. I thank what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, described as the Ulster contingent in relation to the tolerant and understanding way in which they have dealt with a Minister who has little experience of the issues we are discussing.
The underlying purpose of Amendment No. 21 has been debated on a number of previous occasions, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, acknowledged. The proposers of the amendment continue to seek to impose disqualifications from membership of the policing board in a way that neither Patten, nor indeed the Good Friday agreement, envisaged.
Not only does the Good Friday agreement state that,
"structures and arrangements should be capable of delivering a policing service, in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels",
but it also specifically includes in the terms of reference for the Patten commission a requirement to make proposals designed to ensure that,
"there are clearly established arrangements enabling local people, and their political representatives, to articulate their views and concerns about policing and to establish publicly policing priorities and influence policing policies".
Against this background the Government believe that they have put in place effective and appropriate safeguards for both independent and political members.
I set out the Government's position as it is reflected in the Bill. Political members may be appointed to the board as of right by virtue of being elected to the Assembly. They have a democratic mandate; the same mandate that enables them to be appointed to the Northern Ireland Executive. But having been appointed, the Bill has clear removal provisions. So if a political member is convicted of a criminal offence, or is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means—the test in the
336
Northern Ireland Act 1998—or if they are otherwise unfit to discharge their functions, the Secretary of State may remove him or her from office.
For independents, the Government have made it clear that there will be character checks which is standard practice for public appointments. The application form for the ongoing appointment process requires criminal records to be disclosed. In addition, on top of the removal criteria for political members, independents may be removed from office if they do not disclose a conviction when appointed or if they do not comply with their terms of appointment. The Bill has those safeguards to set against the provisions of the Good Friday agreement. I thought it important to repeat them. In the light of those provisions I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment No. 21.
As with Amendment No. 21 to Schedule 1 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Cope, Amendment No. 25 seeks to tighten the disqualification provisions for DPPs. As I did with the board, I should like to set the DPPs in context. First, their role is explanatory and consultative—nothing like that of the board. Secondly, to repeat an important point made at earlier stages of the Bill, the DPPs do not impinge on operational independence; their role is in accountability. It is also important to put on the record again the safeguards on appointments which are in place.
For councillors—as I have mentioned, the Good Friday agreement and Patten saw the need for political representatives to be involved at local level—there are criminal record disqualifications which apply before an individual can become a councillor. They would be disqualified if imprisoned for three months or more, whether suspended or not, until their sentence and then a five-year period had elapsed. They, of course, have a democratic mandate.
Independents on the DPPs are subject to stricter disqualification criteria. If they have a sentence of imprisonment, whether suspended or not, there is an automatic bar in the Bill. Furthermore, independents and councillors are both subject to removal provisions if they are convicted or fail to comply with their terms of appointment.
There are other safeguards. The Secretary of State will issue a code on appointments which will be required to be on merit, and this will cover advertisement, interview, involvement of an independent and appointment by the board. There is also a default provision in Clause 15 which enables the Secretary of State to act if appointments are not made in accordance with the Bill. He may direct the council to remedy the fault and, if it fails to do so, empower the board to act.
I ask noble Lords to consider the powers of these bodies, the requirements of the Good Friday agreement—which the Government want to see implemented in all its aspects—and the safeguards the

337
Government have built in. We think that the Bill gets the balance right. I ask the noble Lord not to move Amendment No. 25.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed and positive response to my amendments. I sincerely hope that he and the Government are right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Transfer of functions, assets, liabilities and staff of Police Authority for Northern Ireland]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 52, line 30, leave out ("of the Board").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 22 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 26 which are all technical drafting amendments.
Government Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 remove superfluous references to the policing board. Government Amendment No. 23 corrects an inconsistent reference to the "police staff" of the authority. It should read "police service staff", as elsewhere in the Bill.
Government Amendment No. 26 deals with references to the RUC and PANI in the Freedom of Information Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 52, line 45, after ("police") insert ("service").
Page 52, line 46, leave out ("of the Board").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [District policing partnerships]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Amendments]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 72, line 3, leave out from ("1") to end of line 5 and insert ("—

(a) for "Policing Authority for Northern Ireland" substitute "Northern Ireland Policing Board"; and

(b) for "Royal Ulster Constabulary" substitute "Police Service of Northern Ireland".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons; with certain amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof and with amendments to the words so restored to the Bill; with other amendments agreed to with amendments and with consequential amendments to the Bill; and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons reasons and amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past seven o'clock.

  Forest Enterprise: Timber Sale Prices
  Forest Enterprise: Timber Sale Prices
  Television Licence Concession Scheme
  Television Licence Concession Scheme
  ASSIST Programme: Revised Criteria
  ASSIST Programme: Revised Criteria
  West Papua: UN Operations, 1969
  West Papua: UN Operations, 1969
  Bahrain: Shura Human Rights Committee
  Bahrain: Shura Human Rights Committee
  Environment Council, 7 November
  Environment Council, 7 November
  Chinook Helicopter Accident
  Chinook Helicopter Accident
  National Parks and AONBs in Multi-Modal Study Areas
  National Parks and AONBs in Multi-Modal Study Areas