Sitting of 16 November 2000

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

    ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC
    Ordered,
    That the promoters of the Alliance & Leicester plc Group Treasury (Transfer) 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;
    That no petitions against the bill having been presented within the time provided for petitioning, no petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the bill before the committee.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    BSE and Scrapie
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: If he will make a statement on his Department's risk reduction strategy for BSE and scrapie. [137130]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The risk of BSE is reduced by a range of measures, including the ban on meat and bonemeal in feed, specified risk material controls, the destruction of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy suspects and, in cattle, the over-30-months scheme, the selective cull and the offspring cull.
    1052
    Since becoming Minister, I have pursued research into improved disease control measures, which enabled the development of the current proposals for the national scrapie eradication and control plan. I have also, on a precautionary basis, put in hand preparation of a contingency plan setting out actions that might be taken in different scenarios if, in future, BSE is found to be present in sheep.
    As the House is aware, food safety is of course a matter for the Food Standards Agency.
    Mrs. Lawrence: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but can he confirm that any scientific advice that he receives will be made public, and does he accept that that principle is essential to protect the livelihoods of our farmers and the interests of the public in general? Unfortunately, that fact appears to have been forgotten by Ministers in the previous Tory Government.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When scientific advice that will inform the Government's policy decisions becomes available to me, I put it in the public domain as a matter of policy so that everyone can see what that advice is and draw their own conclusions. I do that to inform debate. If I had doubts about such a policy—I do not—I would find that the current policy was being urged on me by Lord Phillips in his report.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister agree that, however great the temptation to indulge in vicarious pleasure at the problems currently being experienced in France, a major BSE outbreak in that country and the collapse of consumer confidence will do nothing to help the British beef industry? Will he therefore do all that he can to assist the French in combating their problems—if not to help their farmers, at least to ensure that our farmers can export the safest beef in the world?
    Mr. Brown: I have sent Lord Phillips' report to my French counterpart, Jean Glavany. I hope that the thorough examination that Lord Phillips undertook will help other European Union member states and others world wide better to understand this appalling condition in animals, which has implications for human health, and ways in which to get it under control and eliminate it.
    Ms Joan Walley: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the measures that he has taken, but, given that protein has been found in liquid condensate and that the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee recommended that that should not be spread on land, will he explain how MAFF can guarantee that placing untreated liquid condensate in, on, or under the ground is safe?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend asks, essentially, a question about food safety. As she will know, that is a matter for the Food Standards Agency and the Secretary of State for Health, rather than for me, although, of course, agricultural practices are a matter for my Ministry. The lead advice in that regard comes from the Food Standards Agency, and the Ministry will follow such advice.
    Mr. William Thompson: What steps, if any, are the Government taking to ensure that any meat imported from France, and derivatives from it, are free from contamination?
    Mr. Brown: This country's public protection measures, which are very powerful, include a ban on selling any beef product derived from animals that are over 30 months. I cannot go further than that because the hon. Gentleman's question is essentially about food safety, which is now outside my ministerial responsibility. The Secretary of State for Health, not me, takes the lead in that regard, but we in government act on the advice of the Food Standards Agency, which is carefully considering those matters. So far, it has not recommended to the Government a ban on produce from France.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: On the question of French beef, has my right hon. Friend seen a report in today's Financial Times that the Commission will spend up to 60 million euros on providing private storage facilities for the purpose of intervening in the market and, presumably, buying French beef, which, sadly, might be infected with BSE? Does he agree that that is, to say the least, a rather bizarre use of public funds?
    Mr. Brown: The use of private storage aid in these circumstances is something which I understand the Commission has under consideration. The food safety implications will of course be considered by the Commission, but they will also be considered in the United Kingdom by the Food Standards Agency. It is important that these policy matters are dealt with in terms of protection of consumers and protection of food safety, and not in terms of market competition or, indeed, of trade rivalries.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Is French beef safe for British consumers?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman was the Opposition spokesman when the Food Standards Agency was established. Underpinning the establishment of that agency was the fundamental decision to take Agriculture Ministers out of the decision-making process so that the decision would be made—[Interruption.] Let me finish the answer. Ministers were to be taken out of the process so that decisions would be made by the Food Standards Agency in its advice to Government. Subsequently, that advice goes to the Secretary of State for Health.
    To answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly, the recommendations from the FSA are clear: there are no health reasons to ban the importation of French beef. That is what the agency is currently saying to us; that is its professional advice to Government. If the hon. Gentleman wants to dispute that advice or has some extra-scientific evidence of his own, he should put it in the public domain. Has he anything to put in the public domain? No, he has not.
    Mr. Yeo: On the contrary, this week, in the light of clear increases in the BSE level in France, the French Government have started to take the measures that in Britain were taken four years ago. In view of that, is it not clear that, as a precaution to protect British consumers, it would be wise to stop potentially BSE-infected French beef coming into Britain—particularly as, because the
    1054
    Government have refused to introduce honesty in food labelling, British consumers do not know whether they are eating safe British beef or dangerous French beef?
    Mr. Brown: Let me remind hon. Members that, in 1996, the hon. Gentleman said to the House that the public protection measures that have been put in place or are now under consideration in France were a waste of money. I cannot believe that any hon. Member would take advice on food safety from Ministers in the previous Conservative Government—who incompetently presided over the BSE crisis in this country, and now seek to advise on what should be done in France.

    Veterinary Products
    Mr. Mark Todd: When he last reviewed the costs of veterinary products available to farmers.[137132]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): On 30 March, we announced as part of the Government's strategy for agriculture an independent review of dispensing of prescription-only medicines by veterinary surgeons. Additionally, the Office of Fair Trading is conducting an investigation into certain aspects of the supply of veterinary medicines in the United Kingdom, including whether there is any evidence of anti-competitive practices that breach UK law.
    I think that the House will also want to know, although the decision is not finally made, that I am considering commissioning a review of the costs and utilisation of all agricultural inputs, including veterinary products and interventions. I hope to have more to say about that next week.
    Mr. Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, particularly the latter part of it. Farmers in my constituency regularly draw to my attention the price discrepancies between the veterinary products that they themselves can purchase and those that their competitors and colleagues in France can purchase there. Is it not another example of how British regulatory environments fail to support the competitiveness of British agriculture? It is another example given by the better regulation taskforce, which published its report yesterday on the environmental regulation of farming.
    Mr. Brown: I think that my hon. Friend is on to a very strong point—although not so much the regulatory framework as the trading framework is at the heart of it. That is why I am considering taking a longer look at it with others who represent the different interests in the industry, including the interests of farmers. I welcome what my hon. Friend has had to say on the better regulation taskforce's work, and I commend Lord Haskins on the job that he has done.
    Mr. James Gray: The Minister will be aware of the onward march of the varroa jacobsini mite through the beehives of England. Is he aware that, under the veterinary medicines directorate rules, only the German-created drug Bayvarol may be used to fight varroa jacobsini—whereas, in the old days, we used to use good old-fashioned talcum power, which was more or less free. Bayvarol costs £10 per hive per year. That cost

    1055
    is putting bee farmers out of business and is having a significant effect on arable agriculture. Will the Minister pay particular attention to beekeeping in his review?
    Mr. Brown: In fact, we have a research programme designed to help beekeepers. There is some money in my Department's research budget for precisely that purpose. The use of an intervention in one part of the European Union and doubts about whether it can be used in this country are precisely the matters that I want to be thoroughly examined.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the cost of veterinary services can be crippling, particularly for the deer industry. The deer farm in my constituency—Round Green farm—told me this morning that the cost of a qualified vet being present at the abattoir when animals are dispatched is £43 an hour, while that of a meat inspector is £14 an hour. The time at the abattoir is split between the meat inspector and the qualified vet, but the industry is fearful that, as from next April, the regulations will change and a vet will be required to attend the abattoir all the time that animals are being dispatched. Will my right hon. Friend therefore look at that issue and ascertain whether it would be possible for a qualified meat inspector to be present at the abattoir, rather than a fully qualified vet?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. I have already considered whether we could use meat hygiene inspectors, rather than qualified vets, under the EU directive, which is more than 30 years old. I have managed to convince my ministerial colleagues in the EU that we should review the directive, but of course that will take some time. In the meantime, the cost of the veterinary services represents a heavy burden on the small abattoir sectors. The Maclean report is now being considered in government and I hope to announce a response to that soon. I think that it is a response that my hon. Friend will welcome.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: We are all well aware that the high cost of veterinary products in Britain represents a heavy burden on British farmers. As has been said, those costs are higher than in the rest of Europe, but is not the real problem the over-zealous red tape of the kind highlighted by Lord Haskins in the better regulation taskforce report, published yesterday? That report paints a nightmarish scenario of farmers struggling against some of the strictest animal health and welfare controls in Europe, with hordes of pestering inspectors descending on them daily. When will the Government get off farmers' backs?
    Mr. Brown: We have already had the red tape reviews, and the Government have accepted the overwhelming bulk of their recommendations, but we need to be careful because the culture of deregulation and the ferocious assault that was made on the Meat Hygiene Service in the late 1980s and early 1990s contributed to the SSE disaster that overwhelmed our country and had the most tragic implications for human health. So those who simply call for a bonfire of the regulations are wrong. Lord Haskins has adopted the right approach: he aims for better regulation, not no regulation.

    Milk Consumption
    Mr. David Kidney: What steps he is taking to encourage the consumption of milk.[137134]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We drafted, and Parliament approved, the necessary legislation to enable dairy producers to fund their own promotional activities via a statutory levy. They are now doing so via "The White Stuff' campaign, in conjunction with processors.
    I am also pleased to announce to the House today that we intend to make good the reduction in EU subsidy for the school milk scheme from 1 January. The Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment are joining MAFF in funding England's contribution to bridging the funding gap.
    Mr. Kidney: That is excellent news about the scheme for school milk, especially about the free school milk for those children who might otherwise not get that nutrition and energy in school. I am glad that the label "milk snatcher" stays firmly attached only to the Conservative party. Does my right hon. Friend accept that some schools are still reluctant to take part in the scheme to deliver milk to their schoolchildren? Will she do her part in encouraging a better take-up of that excellent scheme around the country?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I thank him for welcoming my announcement. It is important to work with local authorities and schools around the country. Obviously, the scheme is voluntary, in the sense that local authorities and schools can choose to take it up. However, I am keen that they should look at the scheme and the variety of products that can be given to schoolchildren, including lower-fat milk, yoghurts and so on. I am keen to ensure that the take-up of the scheme is as good as possible.
    Mr. David Heath: I agree with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and welcome the Minister's announcement. She knows that I have supported the generic marketing campaign. Does she agree that there is little point in increasing the volume of milk consumption unless we can also increase the profitability at the farm gate for dairy farmers? To that end, is she as disappointed as I am with the report on supermarkets by the Competition Commission, which, although it received evidence, seemingly had nothing to say? Will she institute a series of supply chain studies in the various sectors—starting with milk—publish those reports and allow us to see how we can maintain a sustainable increase in the price of milk to help dairy farmers?
    Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of interesting points. I welcome the support that was given by both sides of the House to the order that we proposed, which allowed the levy to be raised to promote milk consumption. I welcome the Competition Commission's commitment to developing a code of practice for the food supply industry, including the dairy sector. That built on the work that MAFF had undertaken in the food chain initiative. We are keen to take the work forward and we hope to make further announcements in due course.

    1057
    Obviously, there has been some increase in the price of milk, which helps producers, but we take seriously the importance of good communication across the food chain and of initiatives to add value to milk products.
    Mr. David Drew: One issue that will help consumption is the continuation of the doorstep delivery. We are used to seeing a decline in such deliveries, but it is important for older people. In my constituency, three dairy rounds in Dursley were told, at less than a week's notice, that they had to pick up their milk from Stroud, an additional 13-mile journey. Is it not fair that we allow older people in particular to have their milk made available to them by making sure that the doorstep delivery continues into the future?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes a good point: the doorstep delivery service has been much valued by consumers. We are keen that the dairy industry is able to supply consumer needs. Obviously, it has to evolve to changing consumer tastes, but the doorstep delivery system is a valued part of milk supply.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope that the Minister is able to support doorstep delivery. In certain villages where the local shop has closed, the delivery is the only regular supply of food. When I am in Ribble Valley, I get my pinta delivered to my home. It is a superb service. We are trying to encourage milk consumption, but I am concerned with the plight faced by dairy farmers. A farmer came to see me last week and said that the amounts he was getting for milk had halved in a couple of years, and he felt that he was unable to continue in the dairy industry. What encouragement can the Minister give to dairy farmers in Ribble Valley and throughout the country that they will have a future in dairy farming?
    Ms Quin: There has been a recent firming of prices of milk. We welcome that trend, and feel that the previous low prices were not sustainable. In addition, we have taken a number of measures to help the dairy industry—not only our efforts to boost consumption, but the agrimonetary payments for dairy producers and a number of specific measures regarding the removal of charges that dairy farmers would otherwise have had to face. On dairy farming, we have responded effectively to the concerns of producers over the past year.

    Flood Prevention Scheme
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on progress of the flood prevention scheme for Edgware and Burnt Oak.[137135]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I understand that the Environment Agency submitted a planning application for the Silk stream flood alleviation scheme at the end of October and that consideration is currently being given to when the work might commence.
    Mr. Dismore: My constituents very much welcome that scheme, but are concerned about the time that it is taking. After the floods in 1992, the previous Government did nothing about trying to sort out the flooding problems in my constituency. My constituents are concerned that
    1058
    after planning permission is given, it could take up to nine months for the scheme to be approved by the Ministry, and a further year before construction work can start, with a planned finish date of 2005. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will do all that he can to make sure that that time scale is shortened, if that is practical?
    Mr. Morley: The fact that the scheme has been submitted for planning permission is an important milestone in its development. In due course, it will come to the Ministry, where its environmental and technical merits will be evaluated, as I am sure my hon. Friend understands. Following the announcement of an extra £51 million for flood defence, it is possible for the Environment Agency to make decisions on prioritising schemes. Those decisions are made locally in relation to the agency's own programmes.
    Mr. John Bercow: May I, on this one occasion, endorse the call of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for the speediest and most efficacious action on that front? I am making that request and going across party lines to endorse the hon. Gentleman's call because my mother is a constituent of his. Although she lives in Mill Hill, not Edgware or Burnt Oak, she is extremely apprehensive about the matter, which is the one subject on which she is vociferous in her support for the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman's mother is fortunate in being so well represented. As we have heard, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is her Member of Parliament, is assiduous in making sure that the scheme is brought forward.

    CAP Dairy Regime
    Ms Dari Taylor: What his priorities are for the next reform of the common agricultural policy dairy regime.[137136]
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on his policy for the future of the dairy industry, with special reference to milk quotas.[137140]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): May I tell my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman that I regard this as a matter of fundamental importance for the dairy industry and the future of the common agricultural policy? My priority is to bring about an orderly phasing out of the European Union milk quota system on the basis that I and other like-minded EU Agriculture Ministers advanced in the recent Agenda 2000 negotiations. My aim is to ensure that UK milk production should not be unreasonably constrained by quotas, and that through liberalisation UK producers should have the opportunity to participate in high-value export markets.
    Ms Taylor: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I urge the Government to keep pressing for the orderly and speedy end of milk quotas, as lowering prices will have the most effective benefit for efficient

    1059
    dairy farmers. Does my right hon. Friend believe that phasing out those quotas relies heavily on building alliances with European partners?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right, as we will not be able to phase out quotas in the European Union by quarrelling incessantly with the other 14 member states. I am enormously encouraged by the fact that Ministers from other countries who take an interest in the reform proposals advanced by the UK Government and I met recently as guests of the Italian Minister to discuss further reform of the CAP. I set great store by the review clause scheduled for 2003 and the discussions in the EU on whether or not it is possible to pull that clause forward to 2002.
    Mr. Robathan: May I remind the Minister that last October he kindly agreed to come to my constituency to see dairy and beef farmers who are struggling? Those who have survived would still like to meet him and I very much hope that he will be able to visit them in the near future. While I agree with his policy, in the unlikely event that he is still Agriculture Minister at the time of the CAP reform—
    Mr. Steve McCabe: He will be there longer than you.
    Mr. Robathan: The Minister may have moved up or down, or even—we hope—across to the Opposition Benches. What will happen if he is still Agriculture Minister at the time of the review in 2003 and is unable to persuade his European partners of the need for the quota system to be withdrawn?
    Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind wishes for my personal future in this post. I would point out that I have outlasted most of my predecessors. I think that I am also the fourth longest-lasting Minister in the Council of Ministers. There seems to be a rapid cull of Agriculture Ministers, as well as some of the animals for which we are responsible.
    On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, the UK's views are clear and well known and, to be honest, they should not be a matter of party politics. We want to do the best thing for the dairy sector and for our own dairy farmers. The review proposals that we put forward in the Agenda 2000 round were right. I am convinced that the EU will have to return to our proposals or something similar in future. I argued the case vigorously with the other Ministers in the Council of Ministers and I am making progress.
    Finally, I welcome opportunities to discuss these matters directly with those in the dairy industry and, although I have not been able to do it yet, I would like to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency and meet the dairy farmers and, perhaps, those from neighbouring constituencies as well.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many dairy farmers have seen the price of raw milk fall considerably in recent years as the power of the supermarkets has increased? This matter was seriously looked at by the Competition Commission following the original recommendation of the Welsh Affairs Committee. Does he agree that, in order to
    1060
    re-establish their position in the market, dairy farmers should be encouraged to work in partnership with each other and form co-operatives?
    Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, I agree with that proposition. I think that vertical integration in the industry is part of the way forward. It also means that there has to be much more co-operation between retailers, processors and producers. As people have heard me say time and again, I believe that each sector of the highly integrated supply chain has a vested interest in the well-being—which means the profitability—of other parts of the chain. My hon. Friend is on to a strong point. There is a pressing need for a good study of how the supply chain works, where the strengths and weaknesses are and how power is apportioned. I am reflecting on that and hope to have something further to say soon.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister think it fair that British milk quotas will not go up until 2005, whereas four other EU countries have had their milk quotas increased? Is it fair to our milk producers that we have to rely on French imports into Britain until that time?
    Mr. Brown: I do not think that the quota system serves our country well, nor do I think it fair that during the Agenda 2000 negotiations I was saddled with commitments that had been entered into by the previous Government with regard to Ireland's quota dating right back to 1983–84. The solution is not to quarrel over the allocation of quota; it is to remove the instrument altogether. That should not come as a sudden shock to dairy farmers throughout the EU. There should be a progressive phasing out of the instrument. I still think that our proposals to depreciate it over six years are the right way forward.

    Organic Farming
    Angela Smith: What assistance is available to farmers wishing to diversify into organic production.[137137]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Under the England rural development programme, the organic farming scheme provides conversion aid under five-year agreements to farmers in England. The budget for the scheme over a seven-year period up to 2007 is £140 million. In addition, the organic conversion information service—OCIS—which is funded by MAFF, provides free advice to potential organic farmers.
    Angela Smith: I warmly thank my hon. Friend for that answer that shows a real commitment to organic fanning, that we have not had in this country for many years. One of the problems encountered by people interested in converting to organic farming is that of co-ordinating information, advice and technical assistance. Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is co-ordination of technical assistance and advice, as well as help with marketing?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Those who choose to convert to organic farming need technical and business support. We provide that through

    1061
    our research and development budget, which has been doubled to £2.2 million. There is also a range of R and D projects relating to soil, fertilisers and manure, worth about £8 million a year, which is beneficial to the organic sector. Through OCIS, people get help, support and backing, as they do through the Soil Association and other organisations that back farmers.
    Mr. James Paice: The Minister will know that a crucial part of organic farming is crop rotation, to keep the land clean, and that that always means the inclusion of root crops. What are the Government doing to prevent the British sugar industry from being destroyed by the proposals of Commissioner Lamy, which would not only damage our industry but destroy the cane industry in the Caribbean?
    Mr. Morley: That was an ingenious way of getting sugar beet into a question on organic farming. These are major issues for our sugar beet sector, which is important in my constituency. We are aware of the concerns and have received representations from sugar beet farmers. We are aware of the proposals and are giving careful thought to the issues.
    Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his great success in constantly getting more funding and resources for organic farming, and I apologise to him because I am constantly asking for more. Will he confirm that the United Kingdom is the only country in the European Union that does not give financial rewards for the environmental benefits of organic farming, and does he plan to do anything about that?
    Mr. Morley: Studies have shown that organic farming brings environmental benefits, and we recognise that as a Ministry and as a Government. We have a range of agri-environment schemes, such as countryside stewardship and environmentally sensitive areas, designed to meet different objectives. It may well be that organic farmers can choose to go into countryside stewardship schemes. We are to review our agri-environment programme in 2003. Given the substantial extra sums that will go into the schemes through the rural development programme, it may be opportune to consider organic stewardship schemes for the future, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will give that careful consideration.

    Bovine TB
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on tuberculosis in the bovine herd. [R][137138]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): Cattle TB is a complex and serious animal health problem that is on the increase in many areas of the country. Previous control policies have not worked, and the Government are committed to pressing ahead with extensive research and field trials to identify more effective control measures.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister will know that the latest figures for October, showing a 20 per cent. year on year increase in TB cases, show that this serious problem is getting worse. She will also know, from the new case
    1062
    in Shropshire, that the geographical area of TB is spreading. What action does she propose to take outside the Krebs trial areas to deal with the problem?
    Ms Quin: We recognise the increase in cases. My noble Friend Baroness Hayman gave evidence on this issue to the Select Committee yesterday. We have increased spending on the TB strategy to £45 million this year, and further increases have been announced in the spending review. As the hon. Gentleman may well know, we raised the compensation payments to farmers from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent., which he will presumably welcome. We have to proceed with the trials on the basis that has been recommended to us, and we have held firmly to that, even though, as he knows, there are criticisms of the trials from the opposite point of view to the one that he has expressed. We have to be guided by the trials in determining what action needs to be taken.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real solution to the problem of bovine TB lies not in the tests being held but in the development of a suitable vaccine? I asked in the House four years ago when such a vaccine would be ready and whether the necessary resources were being put in. Can my hon. Friend give the House a positive answer today?
    Ms Quin: We are putting the resources in, but developing a vaccine is a difficult task, and it is still not near completion. I would love to be able to promise my hon. Friend that it was on the verge of being introduced, but it is not, so we have to accept the recommendations of the Krebs report and proceed with the trials.
    Although the development of an effective vaccine would be tremendous news for all concerned, farmers are being encouraged to take other practical measures—such as adopting better husbandry techniques—to avoid some of the obvious risks of spreading TB. We are trying to make farmers aware of those other measures.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Cattle with TB have to be slaughtered, but slaughterhouse costs are high and getting higher. Will the Minister implement as a matter of urgency the recommendations of the Maclean report?
    Ms Quin: My right hon. Friend the Minister answered that point a little earlier, but perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear it. Clearly, we are considering the Maclean report recommendations, and hope to make an announcement very soon.

    Biofuels
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on research funded by his Department into biofuels. [137143]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Ministry spends around £0.6 million per annum on energy crops research, concentrating on the development of higher-yielding crops and of improved crop protection which avoids the need for the use of pesticides. Furthermore,

    1063
    under our rural development programme, £30 million will be available to support the planting of energy crops and to set up producer groups.
    Dr. Starkey: I welcome the Government's commitment to funding research on energy crops and biofuels. Does my hon. Friend agree that such crops have the potential to provide more environmentally friendly alternatives to fossil fuel, and that they can be a very useful diversification opportunity for farmers? Will she outline any measures that she is proposing to build on the pre-Budget report to look at ways of improving the economic competitiveness of biofuels?
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes some important points. This is an exciting area for agriculture and for the general economy. MAFF is very keen to play its part in the examination of new alternative energy sources. A number of Departments are interested. A fund exists in the Department of Trade and Industry for alternative energy sources, there is the new opportunities fund announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and there are also the resources announced in the pre-Budget report.
    I recently launched the second stage of the IENICA project in York, which is also looking at the development of these new opportunities across the European Union as a whole.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister agree that the most valuable innovation would be a serious tax incentive for biodiesel? Is the Ministry giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer the evidence that he needs to take a step that would be in the interests of the Government's environmental policy and their agricultural policy?
    Ms Quin: We have had discussions very recently with the Treasury on these matters. It is obviously important to look at the economics involved in biofuels, to determine the most viable prospects for such alternative crops. We are very keen to take the work forward. There are possibilities, and the new developments happening all the time alter the previous economic appraisals of viability. For that reason, it is important for Government Departments, including MAFF, to look at the issue very closely.

    BSE Inquiry
    Mr. Russell Brown: What steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the BSE inquiry report. [137144]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government are studying the report's findings with care, and looking closely at the lessons that flow from them. Some of the issues have already been addressed through the creation of the new Food Standards Agency, the appointment of consumer representatives to advisory committees, the placing of scientific advice in the public domain and the switch from deregulation to better regulation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I also announced on 26 October that there will be a new national fund for the care of variant CJD victims and financial arrangements to benefit sufferers and their families.
    1064
    The Government's substantive response to each of Lord Phillips' points will be published in the coming months and the House will have an opportunity to debate the report in Government time. I promise that I will provide the House with an update on progress before the end of the year.
    Mr. Russell Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, especially the reference to better regulation. Will he confirm that the very culture of deregulation under successive Tory Governments made it much more difficult to ensure that important protection measures were enforced? Is it not obvious from the recent comments of the Leader of the Opposition about bonfires of food safety regulations that these people have just not understood and learned the lessons of BSE?
    Mr. Brown: The whole culture of calling for bonfires of regulations rather than for better regulations is wrong. That is the view of the Government; it is also the view of Lord Phillips. In the report, Lord Phillips makes some very sharp points about those who harass public regulators when they are trying to do an important job to protect animal health, particularly—in the case of BSE—when there are important human health implications.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Financial Crime
    Mr. David Kidney: What progress he is making in the prosecution of financial crime. [137160]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Serious Fraud Office continues to deal successfully with an increasing case load. The Government have allocated increased funds of £3.6 million, £4.6 million and £5.6 million in the financial years 2001–03. In respect of those funds, the SFO has entered into a service delivery agreement published on 3 November, which sets challenging targets of increasing case load and reducing investigation and trial times.
    Mr. Kidney: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there appears to have been no conviction for insider dealing for the past three years and that statistics for other financial crimes such as fraud and money laundering are not even kept separately from all other fraud offences? Does that not convey the impression that officialdom is not serious about the fight against financial crime? Will my hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the prosecuting authorities for whom he is responsible are unbending in their determination to root out financial crime? Will he talk to his ministerial colleagues who also have responsibility for law enforcement to ensure that they share the same attitude?
    The Solicitor-General: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that there have been successful insider dealing prosecutions—perhaps my hon. Friend should talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend, who has been heavily involved with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, knows

    1065
    that the Financial Services Authority will have a responsibility in this area, so we are very much on the case. The Attorney-General and I see the prosecutors from the Department of Trade and Industry regularly, and I shall certainly refer them to the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that juries are more likely to convict if the trials can be kept simple? That suggests the absence of conspiracy charges but the presence only of substantive charges and few counts.
    The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the offences have to be put in a simple way to a jury. The SFO has had considerable success in doing that, demonstrated by the number of convictions that it has obtained in recent times. This involves introducing technology into the courts, and the Lord Chancellor has done a considerable amount in that regard as well. The director of the SFO has argued for a general offence of fraud on the basis that that would make prosecutions more efficient, and the matter is being considered.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the excellent work that north Yorkshire trading standards department is doing in that area of crime and of the successful prosecutions that have been brought? Is he content that a local authority organisation should have to take the risk of bringing these cases to court? If he is not aware of the matter, will he have urgent discussions with the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to review the position of authorities that have to proceed with such prosecutions?
    The Solicitor-General: Local authorities certainly play an important role in that area. They prosecute under a range of legislation, such as the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and so forth. I am not aware of the north Yorkshire department's success, but I know that trading standards officials throughout the country play an important part in rooting out fraud.

    Foreign Governments (Extradition Cases)
    Mr. Christopher Chope: In how many extradition cases his Department is acting on behalf of foreign Governments.[137162]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service acts for foreign Governments requesting the extradition of persons to their states. It ensures that formal extradition requests comply with any relevant treaties or conventions and with the Extradition Act 1989. It also advises requesting states on any further material required. In addition, it drafts proposed committal charges, liaises with all interested parties and appears on behalf of the requesting state at court. At the beginning of November 2000, the CPS was recorded as acting for foreign Governments in approximately 79 individual requests. It is advising foreign Governments in approximately 112 further cases where extradition has been requested.
    Mr. Chope: One of those cases involves the Portuguese Government and one of my constituents. Does
    1066
    the Solicitor-General accept that in such circumstances it is desirable to have communication between those acting for the individual and the Government of the foreign country? Will he do something about the fact that, for four and a half months, even the Portuguese ambassador—in response to my letters and those of my constituent's solicitor—has not been able to get a firm response from Lisbon after a change of circumstances that render continued prosecution, and extradition in this case, redundant?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman raised a specific case, in which, I understand, the divisional court will consider an application for habeas corpus soon. So I should not comment on that. As a result of his question, I have reconsidered the role of the CPS in carrying forward extradition requests. At present, under a decision called "Thom", it acts purely in a solicitor-client relationship. I have raised questions about that and I will pursue the matter further.
    Importantly, in recent times the CPS has dealt with requests by the United States Government for the extradition of the alleged bombers of its embassies in Africa and it has acted on a request for the extradition of a person alleged to have committed war crimes. It operates effectively in that area, although there is the problem that the hon. Gentleman raised and I will come back to him on that.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What new responsibilities does my hon. and learned Friend anticipate that his Department will have if and when we get around to enacting our obligations under the treaty of Rome to create the international criminal court? Clearly, we will have new duties relating to extradition—duties that we would wish to pursue with vigour.
    The Solicitor-General: I agree. As I said, we have already responded to a request by the war crimes tribunal for Rwanda and I anticipate that we would act in the same vigorous way when we receive requests from the new international criminal court.

    Human Rights Act 1998
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the conduct of prosecutions.[137163]
    The Solicitor-General: The significance of the Human Rights Act on the work of the Crown Prosecution Service was recognised at an early stage and a high priority was given to ensure that the CPS was well prepared for the implementation of the Act.
    In consultation with other prosecuting agencies and leading human rights experts outside the CPS, it developed a comprehensive training programme for prosecutors. That training programme and the continued guidance and advice that CPS staff receive has ensured that cases giving rise to human rights issues have been dealt with professionally and effectively. We had expected that human rights problems would be raised in ordinary cases and that they would be dealt with in the ordinary way. That has proved to be the case.

    1067
    The Human Rights Act has meant that the courts are considering many new arguments. A number of cases raising human rights points are already going to the appeal courts.
    Mr. Robathan: Is not the nub of the matter the fact that, due to the workings of the Human Rights Act 1998, some prosecutions are failing or are not being taken forward by the CPS, because evidence or the methods of gathering it are being ruled inadmissible? Is it not true that since the Government introduced the Act, guilty people will walk free because of its long-term and unforeseen consequences?
    The Solicitor-General: That is certainly not the case. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Act provides specifically that legislation continues in force. Courts must apply the legislation. It is the case that several human rights points have been raised, as I pointed out in my original answer, but the CPS is prepared with particular lines to take when such cases are raised. Defenders will raise all sorts of arguments on behalf of their clients—we can expect that. Occasionally, courts at the lower level may favour those arguments, but we have already implemented a fast-track procedure whereby such cases can be taken quickly to appeal. I can give the House an assurance that criminals will not be walking free as a result of the Act.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: What lessons has the Solicitor-General learned about the effect of the Human Rights Act on section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, following last week's Court of Appeal decision in the case of the Crown against Offen?
    The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the case; the judgment is being considered. That case simply involved an interpretation of "exceptional circumstances" in the Act. The Home Office is considering the implications of the Act, but the important point is that—as I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—he courts cannot disapply the Act; they must apply legislation. In some cases, of course, they can make declarations of incompatibility and in such cases we might decide, as a Parliament, that remedial action should be taken and that the legislation should be amended. However, the basic point remains that legislation cannot be disapplied; it must be applied by the courts.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What improvements he has made to the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service over the past three years; and if he will make a statement.[137164]
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service.[137166]
    The Solicitor-General: In May 1997, the Government announced that the CPS would be reorganised into 42 areas with the same boundaries as police forces; we also established the Glidewell review to recommend changes to make the CPS more effective against the background of that decision. The review reported a year
    1068
    later and its recommendations were almost wholly accepted. In implementing the recommendations, the CPS has undergone major organisational change affecting all staff, but has maintained its performance. Extra money was made available in the spending review, including money for a performance improvement programme. That will assist the CPS to become even more effective.
    Mr. O'Brien: What action is my hon. and learned Friend taking to improve the rate of successful prosecutions? Does he agree that in order to do so we need to improve the level of representation made in the courts by the CPS?
    The Solicitor-General: I agree with my hon. Friend. As a result of the Glidewell recommendations, one change is that the agencies are working together much more effectively. For example, in my hon. Friend's area, in Wakefield, the agencies—the CPS, the police and so on—recently agreed a protocol on racial crimes. As I have said to the House on previous occasions, information technology is much more effective in the agencies; the CPS has an extensive programme for implementing IT. I assure my hon. Friend that all steps are being taken to make the CPS more effective.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is little value in providing additional funds to police forces so that they can apprehend criminals if we are unable to follow that through with successful prosecutions? Is he convinced that the CPS is adequately funded? The representations that I have received—especially from magistrates—are that it is not; it is thus not capable of delivering that follow-through.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the announcements made about, for example, the extra £15 million next year for the CPS and the considerable increase in funding—about 8 to 10 per cent.—over the next three years under the comprehensive spending review. However, I take his point that if the police are to take forward charges effectively, they need effective prosecutors. We are taking steps to ensure that that need is met.
    Mr. John Burnett: During the progress of the Bill that became the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000, I emphasised to the Solicitor-General the importance of effective monitoring of other prosecution agencies. What is the hon. and learned Gentleman doing about that?
    The Solicitor-General: The different prosecutors fall under the auspices of other Ministers, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point that each prosecuting agency must work effectively, and an inspection service can ensure that. The point that the hon. Gentleman raised about the extension of the scope of the responsibilities of the CPS inspectorate is an interesting idea and may be taken forward at some stage, but that would require the House to change the 2000 Act.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the coming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Motions relating to Westminster Hall and Thursday sittings.
Motion on the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000.
TUESDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Supplemental allocation of time motion followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
Motion relating to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.
WEDNESDAY 22 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.
Motion relating to the coal operating aid scheme.
THURSDAY 23 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on European affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. That is the pre-Nice debate as you will recall, Mr. Speaker.
FRIDAY 24 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on the Sixth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on the Environment Agency on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Freedom of Information Bill.
I should also like to inform the House that the business for the remainder of November in Westminster Hall will be:
THURSDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Debate on the Ninth Report from the International Development Committee on the effectiveness of EU Development Assistance.
THURSDAY 30 NOVEMBER—Debate on "Opportunity For All: Tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion".
Mrs. Browning: I thank the right hon. Lady for the business for the coming week, but wish to express a little disappointment that she was not able today to announce the date for the rising of the House for the Christmas recess. I mention that for a particular reason—not because Opposition Members are anxious to leave our green Benches, but because we are extremely anxious to receive from the Leader of the House a reassurance that the Prime Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and report on the Nice summit to the House before we go home for Christmas.
This is the third time that I remind the right hon. Lady of the fact that, given the importance of the Biarritz summit which the Prime Minister attended—and where he approved, with other Heads of Government, the EU charter of fundamental rights—but has not yet come to the House to answer questions on, it would be unacceptable for him to dodge giving the House a full report on the Nice summit before the House rises. Given that the Queen's Speech is now the latest that it has been
1070
since the 1920s, I hope that the Leader of the House will reassure us that the Prime Minister will find time to come and report on the Nice summit before the rising of the House.
Will the right hon. Lady consider a debate on the NHS national plan? In his statement earlier in the week, the Secretary of State for Health made the most cursory reference to what is supposed to be a major plank of Government health policy, yet Members have yet to have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State in detail about the plan, which we would very much like to do. I hope that that, too, can be fitted in before the House rises for Christmas.
After 6 December, it is likely to be the last Session of this Parliament. There is much unfinished business, so I would be grateful if the Leader of the House would consult with her colleagues across Departments and consider the issues that have been the subject of a great deal of publicity. Sometimes, the Government have announced—with great flourish and not a little spin—from the Dispatch Box that they intend to embark on major consultation about various policies. When those great plans are then consulted on, many receive such a negative response from people who know something about the subject that the plans are kicked into the long grass and the House never hears about them.
Proposals for the reform of alcohol licensing laws were announced on 10 April. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has received several assurances that the responses to the consultation on those proposals would b' laid in the Library. They are not there yet, but we hear that the consultation could be reported on outside the House, in the next few days, by the Minister responsible. I hope that the right hon. Lady will use her good offices to ensure that such consultations are considered and reported back to the House.
At the Department of Trade and Industry, the consultation on the proposal for employment agencies is now 18 months old—and it has caused great uncertainty among employment agencies. However, the House has not yet had a chance to hear the responses from people in that sector.
We are coming to the end of this Parliament and I inform the Leader of the House that I am compiling a list of unfinished business. It covers the great changes that the Government have said, with great flourish, that they would make, but which they kicked into the long grass once they received responses from people outside. The Government hope that such issues will go away. We do not have short memories, and I am compiling a list for the Library. I hope that the Leader of the House will do the same, and that, at next week's business questions, she will tell us how the Government intend to deal with their unfinished business.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not yet able to give the hon. Lady the date for the Christmas recess, but I shall do so as soon as I can. I was a little surprised by her justification for asking about the date. Nothing is more far fetched than the notion that the Prime Minister would not report on the outcome of the Nice summit. He has reported faithfully on every official summit, and there has never been the slightest suggestion that he would do otherwise.

1071
The hon. Lady will recall that she raised the issue of the Biarritz summit, and I became confused between Biarritz and Nice. No Prime Minister has ever reported on the outcome of informal summits, and I see no reason for my right hon. Friend to begin to do so. However, he has always faithfully reported on the outcome of the proper summits. I take slight exception to the hon. Lady seeking to convey the impression that he might in some way try to avoid doing so.
As for the suggestion that there will be something to conceal from the House because of the major changes that the Prime Minister will make at the summit, I know that the hon. Lady heard him yesterday remind Conservative Members of the 30 occasions on which they gave away the rights to qualified majority voting in the Maastricht negotiations. She said that she has a list, but I have a little list of all the changes that the Conservative party has made to taxation and similar issues since it took us into the European Community. The Government are not attempting to evade their responsibility.
The hon. Lady asked for a debate on the NHS national plan. I am sorry that she did not welcome the outcome of the statement made the other day. Her health authority received an increase in funding of 8.3 per cent., but I understand why the Conservative party wants to draw a veil over such issues—it pretends that nothing is happening.
The hon. Lady referred to unfinished business and said that she was compiling a list. That is fine. She added that Conservative Members did not have short memories, but, I am sorry, I have to take issue with her on that. The Conservative party wants legislation on many issues, such as alcohol licensing, and complains that the Government have not introduced it. Her memory must be extremely short if she has forgotten that the Conservative party has not only complained about every piece of legislation that we have introduced, but said that the legislative programme was far too heavy. However, I should not be surprised by that—the Conservative party says that we are spending too much, but then demands spending increases. After complaining for months that we have introduced too much legislation, she wants us to introduce more.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an outstanding report on arms licensing, which was produced this Session by four Select Committees, and, in particular, to its chief recommendation that the four Committees be allowed to conduct prior scrutiny in the next Session? Given the timing of that recommendation, the weight that it carries—it has been unanimously approved by four Select Committees—and the importance of the issue, will she give a positive response to that recommendation and provide an opportunity to debate that important report?
Mrs. Beckett: I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the relevant Department. I must admit that I have slightly lost track of the timing on that matter. As for having a debate on the report, if the House agrees on Monday—it will, of course, be a free vote because it is a House matter—to the Modernisation Committee's unanimous recommendations on Westminster Hall sittings, there will be even more time to debate Select Committee reports. I think that two thirds, rather than half, of Westminster Hall's time will be available for such debates. That will obviously create more opportunities.
1072
On the issue of prior scrutiny, Departments will have to consider that carefully because of its implications and the time that it would take, but I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I strongly endorse the request of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent statement on the potential use of taxpayers' money for party political campaigning by Members of Parliament? There is a need for clarity. I draw her attention, as I did three weeks ago with her Government colleagues, to Fees Office operations directorate factsheet No. 1, which appears dramatically to extend the use of the office costs allowance for Members to the sending of
newsletters, factsheets, annual reports to their constituents.
The Senior Salaries Review Body, with which I had an interview this morning, is totally unaware of the change in the rules, even though it is undertaking an important re-examination of them. There has been no consultation, as far as I am aware, with any Opposition party. Several hon. Members of all parties have paid for such publications out of their own pockets during this Parliament.
In addition, it is totally inappropriate, at the presumed end of a Parliament, to change the rules in such a way. It looks as though some Labour Back Benchers, who have limited responsibilities in the House and limited staff to undertake those responsibilities, will suddenly receive a taxpayers windfall just before the general election that they can use to campaign. Will the Leader of the House urgently investigate how that rule came to be made and why there was no proper consultation on it? In the meantime, will she have it withdrawn until we have a statement?
Mrs. Beckett: I hope that I can satisfactorily answer the hon. Gentleman's main questions. I am a little surprised that the information has not been conveyed to him. No one consulted Opposition parties, no announcement was made and the SSRB could not be aware of a change in the rules because, as far as I know, there has not been one. If I identify correctly the guidance to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it is issued by the Fees Office, and it is not for me or any Leader of the House to instruct the Fees Office about the administration of expenditure and what is considered proper expenditure of public money. That is the last thing that I could do, and it is for the Fees Office to supervise that matter. My understanding is that it issued guidance to clarify the issue.
It has always been the case that Members have the right, should they wish, to provide information and to circulate newsletters that are paid for by the office costs allowance. I have always understood that some Members do that. Many others do not simply because there is not enough room in their allowance for that. As for the notion either that my hon. Friends are in some way seeking party political advantage or that there is a windfall, I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the Labour party—I do not know what the position is in his party—many people find themselves subsidising the office costs allowance out of their salaries.
Mr. Patrick Hall: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion No. 1103 on the future of community health councils?

1073
[That this House notes that the National Health Service Plan proposes the abolition of the community health councils and the redistribution of their functions between the Patient Advisory and Liaison Service, patients' forums, advisory citizens' panels, local council all-party scrutiny committees and the Commission for Health Improvement; and calls for the Government to engage in a robust national debate and consultation on how to deliver effective patient empowerment by adding to the best of community health councils and particularly by addressing the need for independence, integration locally and nationally, appropriate statutory powers and access to information and support mechanisms to identify and promote best practice.]
Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is considerable interest in these matters both within and outside the House, particularly with regard to independence, local co-ordination and integration? Will she seek to make time for a debate on these matters as soon as possible?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are strong views on the matter on both sides of the House—there is some concern and some support. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future, especially as, if I recall correctly, the paper is still out for consultation. My hon. Friend can, of course, seek the extra opportunities that will be provided should the House agree on Monday to the report on Westminster Hall for Back Benchers as well as for Select Committees.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Lady consider reorganising the business next week so that on Monday we can discuss the EU proposal that 48 countries under the EBA—everything but arms—initiative should be able to import into the EU sugar on a tariff-free, quota-free basis? Does she understand that that poses a grave threat to the UK sugar industry? Does she also understand that many feel that it would be entirely destructive? British agriculture is not in a position to withstand any further economic knocks.
I know that there is to be a debate on these matters in Westminster Hall—it is listed for Tuesday. However, there is a real risk that they will considered by the General Affairs Council on Monday or early on Tuesday. That being so, the House should debate the issue urgently.
Mrs. Beckett: If the GAC is discussing the matter on Monday, a debate in the House on Monday could have little influence on the GAC debate. A debate on European affairs is scheduled for Thursday, and I do not feel able to bring it forward.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the excellent GCSE results that were announced today? They are a great tribute to teachers throughout the country, including those in my constituency in Nottingham. Such a debate would enable us to highlight the achievements of pupils gaining five A to C higher grades, and to highlight the real achievements of many schools that are working in exceptionally difficult circumstances with pupils of
1074
low ability. They have been able to move such pupils from a G to an F grade, and have ensured that pupils take one or more GCSEs.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am only too happy to welcome the excellent results in his constituency, where I know he takes a great interest in education matters.
I entirely take my hon. Friend's point. I remember many years ago hearing William van Straubenzee, a Conservative Member, trying to educate some of his colleagues in the understanding that sometimes to raise the achievements of those whose abilities are somewhat limited is even more demanding, but equally worth while, than to raise the achievements of those who are of higher ability. I am conscious that a range of achievement is needed. My hon. Friend is right to identify that at least in part as a result of the Government putting money into education, and also as a result of our encouragement and desire to raise standards, achievements are higher across the board.
Sir Peter Emery: I know that the right hon. Lady takes seriously the historic responsibilities that she has as a defender of all Members, and particularly of the minority. Usually, a Minister who winds up a debate attempts to answer questions that have been raised in the debate. I ask her to refer to recent debates and, if I may be personal, speeches that I made in the defence debate and the procedure debate. By arrangement with the Front Benches, a Minister has only 15 minutes to answer questions, which means that he or she has an even greater excuse not to respond to them. Will the right hon. Lady use her influence—she has no control—through the usual channels to ensure that Ministers winding up a debate have long enough in which to answer the questions put during the debate?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important and interesting point, which illustrates the fact that we need to give more thorough and careful consideration to how we handle such issues. All too often, hon. Members make assertions—the press are sometimes even worse—that people should do this or they should do that. However, as I know the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciates, Front Benchers respond to requests that they curtail the time they take to allow more Back Benchers to contribute in the debate. None the less, I take the point that the greater the degree to which that is done, the greater the difficulty in responding to issues raised in the debate. The point is an important one; I cannot undertake to find an answer to it now, but it is a matter to which the House should give careful consideration.
Mr. Paul Marsden: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the health consequences for pensioners of scrapping the £200 winter fuel allowance, as advocated by the Tories, which would have a devastating effect on 18,000 pensioners in my constituency and on pensioners throughout the country?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will recall that the policy to which he refers is not unprecedented: when they were last in government, the Conservatives scrapped the heating allowance that then existed, so we have seen it all before. I share my

1075
hon. Friend's view that, in the light of long understanding of the incidence of hyperthermia and excess winter deaths in this country, one of the most important steps taken for many years was the introduction of the heating allowance. I am astonished that the Conservatives appear not to have realised in time that when pensioners, understandably, talked about wanting an increase as of right, they did not mean people taking away what had already been given by the Labour Government.
Dr. Evan Harris: I am sure that the Leader of the House shares the Liberal Democrats' disappointment at the actions of the House of Lords in making, in effect, a wrecking amendment to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. Will she make clear the Government's intentions in that respect? Report and Third Reading will take place in the Lords and the Bill, as amended, will return to the Commons, which is likely to insist on its way; if the Lords reject it again, the Parliament Acts will be used to make sure that the will of the elected House, expressed on a free vote, prevails. Will the right hon. Lady also make it clear that if the Lords make reasonable amendments with which the Commons might agree, they will be given fair wind in this House?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks, because the way in which the agenda in the other place will be settled is not clear—it never is. The agenda in the other place is matter for the Lords; the Government have no control over it and no majority through which to press their will. The Bill remains with the other place, and I cannot clarify its intentions or the likely consequences for this House. All I can tell him is that the Government intend to make progress, one way or another.
Mr. Denzil Davies: With regard to the pre-Nice debate next Thursday, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the draft treaty of Nice will be available in the Vote Office well in advance of the debate, so that it can be examined and considered? Will she also try to ensure that the draft treaty, which is, in effect, a legislative document—the Nice summit will be legislating—is available outside the House, so that our constituents and the public can see it?
Mrs. Beckett: I freely confess that I am not sure whether it is possible to do that, but I shall draw my right hon. Friend's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, I am sure, will take it extremely seriously.
Mr. David Maclean: Will the right hon. Lady schedule an urgent debate on the cover-up being conducted by Government in respect of the exorbitant cost of preparations to join the euro? She will be aware that those costs are now estimated to be heading towards £38 billion, and that Ministers and Departments, especially the Department of Health, have instructed national health trusts throughout the country to refuse to answer legitimate questions put by Members of Parliament about the disgraceful costs being incurred by
1076
the trusts, which are directing vital money away from patient care. Does the right hon. Lady agree that that is an urgent matter for an early debate?
Mrs. Beckett: No. It is absolute rubbish to suggest that money is being diverted away from patient care, just as it is rubbish to suggest that there are vast hidden costs.
Shona McIsaac: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to access www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk? [Interruption.] if hon. Members like it, they can try the sister site, www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk, the equally excellent site of my local newspapers. If my right hon. Friend has accessed the site, she will have noticed in Friday's edition that the first cheques for trawlermen's compensation have now gone out to those who fought for 25 years to win justice in that case.
In addition, my right hon. Friend will have noticed in Monday's edition pensioners warmly welcoming the winter fuel allowance and their free television licences; in Tuesday's edition that the Government have given consent for a new power station—that is 500 jobs; and in yesterday's edition £18.5 million extra for my local health authority. I leave the choice up to my right hon. Friend, but can she organise a debate on one of those issues, so that my residents know exactly what the Government have done for them and what the Tories would take away?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks, and I warmly congratulate her on the zeal with which she has pursued the issue of trawlermen's compensation ever since she has been in the House, not least at business questions. She makes a valid point, offers us a range of items from which to choose, and identifies the fact that it took the return of a Labour Government for the trawlermen to get the compensation for which they have been fighting for so many years. I add to that my own list, which includes the far east prisoners of war who suffered, sadly, at the hands of the Japanese; the families with vaccine damage—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members do not want to hear any of this. Those people asked them for money for 18 years and got no answer except no. Deeply though I am tempted by my hon. Friend's list of excellent items to debate, I fear that I cannot offer to find special time, unless she tries Westminster Hall.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I think and certainly hope that the Leader of the House knows how much I genuinely respect her leadership of the House. Last Thursday, at column 534 of Hansard, I sought to summarise her views on free votes on the Liaison Committee report, with which her Parliamentary Secretary, winding up 10 minutes later, did not choose to find fault. If, as the Prime Minister intimated yesterday, I did misrepresent the right hon. Lady's views, I apologise to her. In a constructive vein, can she say how the matter will be taken forward in future?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He is always courteous, not merely to me but to everybody in the House, and is recognised for that. I took no offence, and I do not immediately recall the precise words of his summary. I simply say to him that my view has always been that whenever a matter is put for decision

1077
before the House, it is always on a free vote if it is a House matter. That is a simple statement of the position as it has been and remains. As to the issue of how we will take forward the proposals of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government consider them to be of major importance and believe that they should be given more mature consideration. I cannot, I fear, tell him at present when we are likely to be able to take those proposals forward.
Mr. Steve McCabe: In view of the recent revelations that Ministers in the former Tory Government never had any intention of holding a proper competition for the site of the millennium exhibition, does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a little like buying a lottery ticket and discovering that the organisers did not hold a draw? That disgraceful behaviour cost the people of Birmingham £500,000, and has also cost money for people in Derby, Stratford and elsewhere. If a local council behaved in such a way, we would surcharge the guilty councillors. In my view, we should surcharge the guilty Conservative Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need an early opportunity to debate the matter and get to the bottom of what happened?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to suggest that Derby, as well as Birmingham, will respond somewhat sorely to the information that is currently being published. If what is reported is true, it unfortunately tends to confirm the anxieties of most people in this country who live outside the metropolis. They believe that too many events are London centred, which causes resentment and suspicion on all occasions when there are such competitions. It is usually unfair to assume that there is not a free competition and that London is bound to win, but such stories raise people's anxieties. I fear that I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking to find an opportunity for a debate on the matter in the near future. However, as I said to other hon. Members, there will be extra opportunities for debate in Westminster Hall, if the House decides that on Monday, and I have little doubt that the matter will be raised again there or elsewhere.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the situation of a constituent of mine, who has twice been called to have a flu vaccination, but twice had that appointment cancelled. Is the right hon. Lady aware of the grave shortage of flu vaccine in many parts of the country, including Stockport, and will she ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to make a statement on that severe crisis, which is hitting patients and costing lives?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that there have been problems with the availability of flu vaccine and that Ministers in the Department of Health have applied considerable pressure to ensure that those problems will be resolved. I was not aware that a particular difficulty had arisen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Ms Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent debate on the new Criminal
1078
Records Bureau? The Government rightly said that voluntary organisations that work with children and vulnerable adults should be able to check on volunteers. However, I am concerned about the proposal to charge voluntary organisations for such checks. I am not sure that that is consistent with the Government's effort to encourage volunteering, reduce bureaucracy and ensure consistency across Departments. Can we have an urgent debate on that issue before the bureau's details are finalised?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point about an issue on which she has been campaigning. I am also aware that many hon. Members across the House are anxious for the system to work effectively and efficiently for the public's protection. I fear that I cannot offer her special time for an urgent debate, but I recommend to her, too, the availability of debating time in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will the right hon. Lady be kind enough to explain to the House why she and the Government find it necessary to apply a timetable motion to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill? Many colleagues in the House want to express their grave dismay and concern at the effective destruction of one of the finest police forces that the United Kingdom has ever had. Will she explain why the Bill's title has not been altered more accurately to reflect its practical outcome? She might consider calling it "Betrayal of the RUC Bill".
Mrs. Beckett: First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that a supplemental allocation of time motion is involved—in other words, the House has already discussed and decided to have an allocation of time motion for that Bill. Secondly, he will be as aware as anyone that the Patten report is part of the peace process and part of the response to it. Everyone recognises what is in many ways the very fine record of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but most people, at least, believe that if the peace process is to continue, to be established and to succeed, we also need a new approach to the police force in Northern Ireland.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is as horrified as the rest of us at the situation in Palestine, where more than 200 Palestinians, including many children, have been killed by Israeli security forces. This is clearly the most unequal of struggles: there are stones and a few guns on one side and guns, helicopter gunships and an army on the other.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary for an urgent debate so that the House can express its concerns about events and we can hear the Government's position on a situation that some of us believe is escalating into a major tragedy? I say that as a friend and not an enemy of the state of Israel, which I have always supported.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes some very important and serious points, and she is right to remind the House that she does so as someone who has been a supporter of the state of Israel but is concerned at the deterioration of the position there. She will know that the Government have always played an active role in trying to promote the cause of peace in the middle east, and we tried to encourage the two sides to come together. She will

1079
know, too, that we voted in favour of Security Council resolution 1322, which condemned the excessive use of force against Palestinians.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do everything we can to continue to promote the cause of peace. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future. Perhaps I could recommend the opportunities in Westminster Hall to her, as well.
Mr. David Curry: Will the Leader of the House seek, wherever possible, to give the House an indication of the statements due in the subsequent fortnight? We are about to have an urban White Paper, and every quango dealing with regeneration and every non-governmental organisation has had this date in its diary for at least a fortnight. It is humiliating to be telephoned by people who are not hon. Members and told the business that will take place in my own House, not having been told of it myself in this Chamber.
Will the Leader of the House say when the statement on the rural White Paper will be made? It was due to be made consecutively with the urban White Paper, but that will not now happen. It was pulled last Tuesday, when the Government seemed to think that they would be besieged by lorry drivers. Furthermore, are we to have a statement on the climate change conference, which the Deputy Prime Minister will be attending next week in The Hague?
Of course, there are statements that cannot be foreseen, but there are many issues on which the Government have long intended to make statements and that flow from Green or White Papers. There is no reason at all why we cannot be given proper notice of those statements.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman was a senior Minister in the previous Government, and he will know as well as anyone else why Governments are always cautious about giving notice of particular statements. Events can change, and it can become necessary to delay some matters because it is necessary to deal with other matters earlier. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was always intended to take the rural and the urban White Papers together, but he is mistaken.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I said that they are separate.
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend assures both me and the House that it was always intended that they would be dealt with separately.
I fear that I cannot give an indication of what statements are likely to be taken in the next couple of weeks. Although the Government have some issues in mind that we may wish to report to the House, we always have to reflect on the ebb and flow of business and determine what business the House can take. The main consideration is that we ensure that matters are properly reported to the House, and we endeavour to do that. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have made substantially more statements to the House than our predecessors did.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the 18 years during which the Tories
1080
were in power, there was never a time when they gave advance notice of White Papers, statements or anything else? The answer to people like those toffee-nosed Tories is that they should come to work every day. If they would just come to work, they would find out.
Now that we have heard the welcome news about the trawlermen's compensation, the Japanese prisoners of war compensation and this month's winter heating payments—which the Tories would get rid of if they got half a chance—will my right hon. Friend tell the Department of Trade and Industry to get to grips with the compensation payments for miners who are suffering from chronic bronchitis, emphysema and vibration white finger? If my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe can deal with that and knock together the heads of those 230 solicitors who are holding up the money, she will not even have to make a statement.
Mrs. Beckett: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks. He will know that no one is more conscious of the urgency of the case that he makes, or more concerned about the delays that have been occurring, than Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry. He is right, too, to identify that there was no progress on any of those issues while the previous Government were in office. I can assure him that I shall again draw his remarks to the attention of my right. hon. and hon. Friends at the DTI. However, I know that they share his anxieties.
Mr. Simon Thomas: In the light of the decline in gross domestic product in the regions of England and its severe decline in Wales during the past three years under this Government, will the Leader of the House tell us when we might have an opportunity to debate the Government's regional policies and particularly the use of the regional fiscal instruments?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's premise stands. My understanding is that GDP has grown under this Government—it must have done so, otherwise we would have a recession. Although a recession was much predicted by the Opposition, who were definitely disappointed that it did not arrive, we have not had one. However, I certainly understand his wish to debate issues of concern to his constituents. I recommend to him, too, the opportunities that arise—and may be increased—in Westminster Hall.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the arrival of a unique, entirely unexpected phenomenon in Wales, which would not have happened under the previous Government? What has happened has no name as yet, but it could be described as nano-unemployment. An independent observer has said that we talked about full employment in the 1950s and 1960s, but now in Wales the level of employment is even higher because of the stable economy that the Government have created and the introduction of the minimum wage. Does not that provide a great opportunity for the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and all other Opposition Members to recover from the terrible affliction that they suffer from whenever they talk about Wales—repetitive whingeing syndrome?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case. I am tempted to grant his request, especially as he is

1081
right to say that not only in Wales, but across the United Kingdom we are seeing a return to levels of employment—and, indeed, to low levels of unemployment—of a kind that has not been seen in this country for 20 years or more. That is an achievement of which we can all be rightly proud. I fear, however, that he will not be surprised to learn that I cannot find time for an extra debate, but I know that he will take every opportunity to make his points in other ways.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Leader of the House will recall that at business questions on 21 March, I asked her about the cut-off time for tabling oral questions, as a result of which the Procedure Committee produced a report. Paragraph 17 of its summary states:
Taking these various factors into account, we have concluded that the deadline for tabling questions for oral answer should be moved from 5 pm to 6.30 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. We recommend that the Speaker should authorise such a change.
Will the right hon. Lady represent Back Benchers and find time for a debate, with a substantive vote, so that those changes can be put into effect? If she cannot find time for such a debate, will she have a private discussion with the Speaker, as I understand that implementation of the proposal requires no change to Standing Orders?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that that does not require a debate and vote. He will know how reluctant any Leader of the House is to try to find time for a debate that is unnecessary, given that we are unable to find time for so many necessary debates. Mr. Speaker will certainly have heard the hon. Gentleman's words, as I have, and I assure him that the matter will be considered.
Mr. John Cryer: Referring to a point raised earlier, we should have a full debate after the Nice summit because many of the proposals are causing widespread concern. Indeed, there should be a full debate on all the European treaties, as that would allow us to ask why the Tories gave up sovereignty in 1985, why they signed up to the single currency in 1992, and why, shortly afterwards, they followed that with the stability pact. I look forward to the contribution of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), because I am aching to know why he signed the Maastricht treaty in 1992.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We know that Conservative Members introduced VAT because they took us into the European Union, but such a debate would give us an opportunity to find out why they almost doubled VAT, why they increased it again to 17.5 per cent., and why they put VAT on fuel, although they now complain about the taxes on fuel. I share my hon. Friend's wish to air all those fascinating matters thoroughly in the Chamber, but I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate to do so.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House provide time to debate the implications for land use, planning and public services of the latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics,
1082
which show that, in the last three years, there was net inward migration of 451,000 people—equivalent to the size of Portsmouth and Southampton combined and to more than half the population of Dorset? Major implications flow from that. The rate is twice the rate that prevailed over the past six years. Does the right hon. Lady agree that this is a serious issue that demands the House's attention?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the period to which he refers, there have been, for example, substantial upheavals in eastern Europe, the Baltic states and elsewhere, which have led to pressure on migration across the world. I am not aware of the figures that he gives. It was my understanding that, until relatively recently, there had been a net outflow, so it may be simply that we are seeing something of a redress of the balance. Of course these issues are taken into account by Governments of every shade as we see the ebb and flow of travel to and from particular countries.
Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday the EU gave approval for the Government to go ahead with its aid package to the deep coal mining industry—an industry that was so disastrously treated by the Conservative Government. That aid package is welcome in mining communities, but there are concerns about the early lifting of the gas consents and the need for investment in new clean coal technology. Will she find time for a full debate so that those issues can be aired when the regulation is debated?
Mrs. Beckett: I join my hon. Friend in his welcome for the agreement for the package of support. I understand that there will be concerns about the lifting of the gas consents—although my hon. Friend will know that these have been maintained now for a considerable time—and I recognise his concerns about the development of clean coal technology. I fear that I cannot find time for an additional debate on these matters, but I am confident that if my hon. Friend is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to air some of the issues when we debate the scheme itself.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Leader of the House will recall that yesterday I asked the Prime Minister about community health councils. I am delighted to find that one of her colleagues has already asked a question about that matter. In contrast to yesterday, however, Members on this side of the House are not stumped for a further question.
I met the health trusts in my constituency, which led me to want to campaign for community health councils. There is bitter opposition to their scrapping. They said that the costs that they were incurring to change over to the euro—without any decision being made in this country—had already outstripped the amount stated to me in an answer during the previous Department of Trade and Industry questions, when four of my colleagues asked questions and received inadequate answers. Should not the Leader of the House make time in this House for a complete answer from the Government, taking into account all the various departmental budgets for the cost

1083
of the changeover to the euro? Would it not be appropriate for either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor to give answers to those questions?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not share the exaggerated claims for the costs of handling the euro which, after all, will be in circulation in this country—as it will be in the rest of Europe—whether Britain joins or not. In consequence, all sorts of organisations must prepare to deal with it. The notion that that will in some way impinge on health service provision in the hon. Gentleman's locality when his health authority received an increase of 8.4 per cent. in the announcements made the other day—I am surprised that he did not welcome that—cannot be borne out, even on the back of an argument about CHCs.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would ask his question even though somebody else has already asked it. I realise that I am risking the wrath of about 90 per cent. of the House in saying this, but women tend not to repeat something that has already been said; men never shirk from doing so.
Mr. Huw Edwards: In view of today's report from Professor Colin Talbot—which says that the Welsh economy is now better than it has been since the 1950s and 1960s, with zero unemployment in certain parts—could we have a debate on the Welsh economy? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would be of particular interest to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), Lord Hunt, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Walker, who could all hear just how much better the Welsh economy is doing now that none of them is Secretary of State for Wales?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I have seen reports of the work of Professor Talbot, and the picture is certainly encouraging. I share my hon. Friend's view that there are important lessons, not least for the right hon. Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to whom he referred. Great though the temptation is, I fear that I cannot find time for such a debate, especially at this time of year. However, may I warmly recommend Westminster Hall to my hon. Friend?

Urban White Paper
1.20 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The Government have today published a White Paper on the future of our towns and cities, which is accompanied by two documents, "The State of the English Cities" and "Living in Urban England: Attitudes and Aspirations". These set out the supporting analysis, copies of which have been placed in the Library. As we have said on several occasions, we will publish our rural White Paper later this month with the agreement of the business managers and yourself, Mr. Speaker. I always try to assist the House and the Opposition in giving what information I can, and I assume that, on this occasion, information might have been useful to help with the list of questions that was distributed by the Opposition Whip just before their spokesman came into the Chamber. We shall note with interest whether we get different questions at different times.
A common message runs through those documents, which are about people, places and prosperity. We want to create sustainable communities in which everyone, no matter where they live, can enjoy a good quality of life in communities in which economic prosperity and social justice go hand in hand. I am sure that the House will agree that we have some of the best towns and cities in the world. We have famous historical and cultural centres, dynamic commercial areas, pleasant suburbs and seats of learning that command respect the world over and of which we are justly proud.
The last urban White Paper was produced by the last Labour Government more than two decades ago and focused narrowly on inner-city areas. We now understand the need for a much broader approach that takes in all urban areas. Much has happened since that urban White Paper was published. Cities are powerful engines of growth, but in the early 1980s many of them were hit hard by economic changes. The approach then regarded economic behaviour as detached from its social context, and in the years that followed many areas suffered from neglect, poor management, inadequate public services, lack of investment and a culture of short-termism.
Our aim is to reverse that legacy of decline and bring about a lasting urban renaissance. There are signs of hope, as our attitudes and aspirations survey shows: 85 per cent. of people are satisfied with the areas where they live, the rate at which people are leaving our cities is slowing down and people are moving back into our city centres. We still face big challenges. People and jobs have been leaving our great cities, and people are increasingly living in smaller households or alone, with the result that many more households will need to be accommodated over the next 25 years, as the House has discussed.
Some neighbourhoods suffer from a poor quality of life and a lack of opportunity. Economic performance in some areas is weak, with a knock-on effect on the surrounding region. Over the past 20 years, out-of-town shopping centres have taken the heart out of some of our urban areas; 30,000 hectares of our green belt have been built over; and playing fields have been sold off for short-term profit without regard for the health of the communities they served.

1085
On coming to office, we took immediate action to alleviate the worst problems and began laying the foundations for the long-term strategy that we are now bringing together in the White Paper. We merged the Department of Environment and the Department of Transport to encourage a more joined-up approach to solving problems. We have got hundreds of thousands of young people back into work with the new deal—[Interruption.] It is all very well the Opposition mumbling, but we have provided an extra £5 billion to tackle the £19 billion housing repair backlog that we inherited.
We produced the integrated transport White Paper and the £180 billion 10-year plan to rectify decades of under-investment in our transport infrastructure under the previous Administration. We began tackling problems in our most deprived communities through the £800 million new deal for communities and the social exclusion unit. We have committed £350 million over three years to regenerate the coalfield communities that were decimated by the previous Government's policies.
Modernising local government has been a priority. We have legislated to make councils more efficient and more accountable to local people. We established the regional development agencies to drive forward economic growth and regeneration in the regions—[Interruption]—and they are working. Many years ago, the Opposition said that they would abolish the regional development agencies for Scotland and Wales. They failed to do so. Although it was a manifesto promise, they did not carry it out. Why would they keep regional development agencies for Scotland and Wales and not give them to the English regions? We shall be asking them that at the next election.
We are modernising the planning system and have set a new target of building 60 per cent. of new housing on developed land. We are on target for achieving that. The quality of construction is improving, following John Egan's report, "Rethinking Construction". In 1998 we set up the urban taskforce under Lord Rogers to look at the causes of decline in our urban areas and recommend practical ways of bringing people back into our towns and cities. I would like to express my personal appreciation to Lord Rogers and his team for the excellent report on which much of the White Paper is based.
The White Paper builds on that groundwork. It sets out a long-term strategy that will bring lasting benefits to all who live in our towns and cities—a strategy which recognises, in Lord Rogers' words, that
people make cities, but cities make citizens.
Mr. Eric Forth: What does that mean?
Mr. Prescott: Think about it. Evidently, the Opposition have a limited knowledge of these concepts.
There are four key components to our strategy: improving quality of life through partnership with local people; developing sustainable communities in attractive, well-kept towns and cities; achieving economic growth and shared prosperity in all urban areas, and providing good-quality services.
The first is improving quality of life. In the White Paper, we commit ourselves to working in partnership with all concerned to make all areas places for people. It
1086
is not just a matter of bricks and mortar. People need jobs, a decent home, good public services and an attractive and safe environment. To be successful, plans need to be shaped by local people for local people.
A clear message from regeneration projects over the past 20 years is that local people must be fully engaged from the outset. All too often, that has not happened—it certainly did not under the previous Administration.
Local authorities have a central role. A good council is one that listens to, leads and builds up local communities. We want councils to work through local strategic partnerships and to involve the community, service providers, business and voluntary organisations in producing community strategies. They should set out an action plan to improve their town or city as outlined in the White Paper.
Secondly, we want to develop sustainable communities living in attractive, well-kept towns and cities, which use space and buildings well and which are cleaner and less congested. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a £1 billion tax incentive package to promote urban renaissance. As a result, more investment will be attracted to disadvantaged areas by the removal of stamp duty from all property transactions in those areas. A block of flats costing £250,000 could qualify for an extra incentive of £6,000.
The re-use of brownfield land will be encouraged through the provision of accelerated tax credits for cleaning up contaminated land. A company spending £1 million on cleaning up contaminated land could receive £300,000 without having to wait until the property is sold.
More homes will be provided as a result of the 100 per cent. capital allowances for creating flats over shops and VAT reforms to encourage the conversion of properties for residential use. For example, someone spending £20,000 on a conversion could receive an incentive of £2,500. It is an important consideration in the development of single-person households.
The new urban regeneration companies that we set up last year are beginning the process of transforming parts of Liverpool, east Manchester and Sheffield. We plan 12 more to tackle the hardest hit local areas in every region. One can often tell the health of an area by the quality of its public realm, and in particular its parks, play areas and open spaces. They are indeed, as they are often described, the lungs of our towns and cities. We have set up a comprehensive programme, including demonstration projects and an extended green flag award scheme—like the blue flag scheme for beaches—to encourage and recognise excellence.
Planning has a fundamental role to play. I can announce today that, in response to Lord Rogers's report, we will conduct a fundamental review of planning policy guidance note 1, "General Policy and Principles", to put the urban renaissance at the heart of the planning system. Simplifying compulsory purchase will make it quicker and easier to unlock land and fairer to everyone involved. There will be new guidance and, ultimately, legislation.
There is a shortage of people with the necessary range of skills to drive forward the urban renaissance. We are therefore setting up regional centres of excellence to improve skills and training in each region. The first two will be in the north-west and in London. In addition, we will start a programme of international secondments so that we can learn from the best in the world.

1087
Our town centres will be stronger. We will protect them from new out-of-town schemes. We will improve them through the town improvement schemes, with local funding, as proposed in the local government finance Green Paper. The millennium communities at Greenwich and Allerton Bywater have shown what good design can achieve. The Greenwich millennium village will be an attractive, mixed tenure development, with homes within walking distance of shops, employment and services. It will have good open spaces and, above all, it will be environmentally sustainable, using 80 per cent. less energy and 30 per cent. less water than a similar conventional development. We will build five more millennium communities in different parts of the country.
Our new English cities fund is designed to encourage the maximum growth in private investment in priority areas, which is vital if we are to secure the widespread regeneration that we seek. The fund will bring up to £250 million into new mixed use projects.
The third component of our strategy is creating the conditions for economic growth and shared prosperity in all our towns and cities. We want to see the generation of more wealth and social justice side by side. Growing disparities and exclusion from our increasing national prosperity are simply unacceptable, and have dominated the past 10 years.
If towns and cities are to be successful economically, they need effective support and a clear regional lead. We have therefore given the regional development agencies more money and much more freedom to use those funds to best effect for the people of their region.
Access to investment capital is also vital to economic growth. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced last week that we will consult on a new community investment tax credit to encourage private enterprise in under-invested communities. We will also work closely with the venture capital industry to set up the first community development venture fund to support new businesses in disadvantaged areas.
Although under this Government there are 1 million more people in jobs, there is a mismatch between the jobs that are available and the skills of those seeking work. We need to ensure that local people have the skills that businesses are seeking. We are therefore setting up the new Learning and Skills Council announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, with a budget of £5.5 billion a year. That is an increase of £600 million. It will bring together funding for education and training to ensure a coherent approach that benefits both learners and employers. In this way, we hope to encourage lifelong learning and reduce the skills mismatch that exists in too many areas of our cities and towns.
Any efficient, modern city requires a good transport system. That is why the 10-year plan for transport emphasises improving bus services and commuter railways, and why it will fund up to 25 new light rail lines. There is a considerable amount of money for the local transport plans that we are to announce in December.
The fourth component of our strategy is good-quality services. By 2003–04 there will be £139 billion a year for key services: health, education, transport, housing and criminal justice, as well as culture, leisure and sport. That is £33 billion more than now. It amounts to an average
1088
real increase of nearly 7 per cent. a year for the next three years, which is a substantial increase however it is measured.
The extra money will be backed by tough targets to ensure that we get substantial improvements, with the greatest change in the most deprived areas. We have set ourselves the target of making sure that all social housing is of a decent standard within 10 years, and we are providing the resources needed to make that possible.
Providing homes for key workers is essential if we are to have good-quality services in our major conurbations. We have allocated £250 million over the next three years to help key workers to buy homes. We will shortly set out the details, following on from the housing Green Paper.
We are raising educational standards by expanding the excellence in cities and sure start programmes, by extending free education for three-year-olds and by attracting more people into higher education through the excellence challenge. Only today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced that performance in the first excellence in cities areas has improved much faster than anywhere else.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear earlier this week, people's health should not depend on where they live. We are improving health services and reducing inequalities through a major expansion of investment in the health service. We have set tough targets for reducing crime and are backing that with an enhanced crime reduction programme, additional funding for the police and a 10-year drugs strategy.
We recognise that the most deprived areas need extra help and we are determined to narrow the gap between them and the rest of the country. That is why we have set up a neighbourhood renewal fund of £800 million and will shortly be setting our action plan for neighbourhood renewal.
There have been many attempts to change our towns and cities. Too often they have been partial and limited, looking at buildings or the economy in isolation and forgetting the people who live there. This White Paper is broad in its scope and long term in its perspective. We deal with towns and cities struggling to recover from decline as well as those where the pressure of growth needs to be carefully managed. We have set out the way to achieve this and provided the money to back it up.
However, no Government can deliver on their own. We will lead and enable regional and local partners to transform our towns and cities. We will get decisions taken at the right level and transfer real power from Whitehall to Whitechapel. Lord Rogers called for an urban policy board to track progress in implementing our proposals. We will put urban issues at the heart of Government by setting up a new Cabinet Committee. That Committee will be advised by a new group bringing together community, academic, professional, private and business interests.
The Government will be accountable. The Cabinet Committee will prepare for an urban summit in 2002 that will take stock of progress. We will also publish a new "State of the Cities" report in 2005.
I recently visited a deprived pre-war estate in my constituency. Most constituencies contain estates like it. There was graffiti, litter, empty houses and a general air of decay, but a very strong sense of community too. I met

1089
a woman who had lived there all her life. She said, "I love living here, but I don't want to go on living like this, John." We must not fail people like her, her family or the community.
This White Paper sets out our long-term strategy. We cannot deliver on our own, so I am calling on local authorities, business planners and developers, voluntary and community groups and, above all, local people to work together to bring about an urban renaissance.
In short, this White Paper is about giving people more say over shaping their future, making sure that people can live in attractive and well-kept towns and cities, creating and sharing prosperity, and ensuring that we have places with good-quality services which meet people's needs.
I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. Archie Norman: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that statement, and for the advance copies of it that he supplied. I welcome him back to the Chamber after the recent important debates on the tube, the Transport Bill and other matters. Sometimes I think that we see him only when there is a glossy brochure to produce or a disaster to announce.
Mr. Phil Hope: Where were you?
Mr. Norman: I was here in the Chamber on Monday, as Labour Members well know.
The subject of the statement is a matter of commitment and passion that is shared by all parties. The failure of our inner cities over the past three decades or more has been the engine of poverty, deprivation and social failure. Inner cities account for 54 per cent. of crime in the country, and the figure is rising. They are the source of lost opportunity and are the root cause of children left behind by the prosperity enjoyed by the rest of the country.
I should like to join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lord Rogers, who has produced a formidable report on the subject. He has played a valiant role in the past year, lobbying and harassing the Government into producing the statement that we have heard today.
At last, three and a half years into a Labour Government, we have a White Paper. At first glance, we welcome the White Paper and many of its proposals. However, people will judge it not by its grandiose words, but by whether it accepts the hard recommendations made by Lord Rogers and addresses the fundamental criticisms that have been made of Government policy in the past.
The Financial Times said today that the Government were nervous about the reception of their White Paper. Is that surprising when, according to our first-cut tally of the White Paper, of the 105 recommendations made by the Rogers report only 14 have been met in full? Some 34 have been fudged or delayed and 57 are either not addressed in the White Paper or have been rejected outright. Many people living in our cities will think that a very disappointing tally—too little, too late. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister had a proper hearing, and so should the Opposition spokesman.
Mr. Norman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
1090
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to address four fundamental points. First, the Government have been criticised in the past for their failure to co-ordinate the various initiatives on urban regeneration. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs said:
There is a lack of co-ordination between local, regional and national Government…
The Committee also said that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions do not appear to have the same views about the role of the cities. According to yesterday's reports in The Times, neither do they have the same views on the north/south divide. The Deputy Prime Minister does not think that it exists, but the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry thinks that it is widening. The Government's response has been to set up a Committee. Does the Deputy Prime Minister seriously think that that will be enough? Will the DTI and DETR regeneration budgets be merged under that Committee? Will the right hon. Gentleman chair that Cabinet Committee, or will it be left to the Minister for the dome? Will it meet regularly, or will it be like the Rural Affairs Committee, which has met only once this year?
The Government have been criticised for dissipating resources and applying Elastoplast solutions—for doing the easy things but neglecting the tough actions. What has happened to the primary legislation that Lord Rogers called for to strengthen the powers of regeneration companies? What has happened to the much vaunted urban priority areas which would have enabled more far-reaching and rapid delivery of change? Has the Deputy Prime Minister rejected these recommendations, which were fundamental to the Rogers report, or has he just been thwarted by the Treasury?
In the past three years, the Deputy Prime Minister has cut the amount of money spent on regeneration. Will he now clarify what—if anything—in today's announcement represents new money or new tax incentives? Or does it consist entirely of reheated announcements from the past? Has he been comprehensively pre-empted by the pre-Budget announcement?
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a £1 billion tax package, already mentioned by the Chancellor last week. Is that not to be spread over five years, with only £163 million of it for next year?
More specifically, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us definitively his attitude to the zero VAT rating on new houses built on green fields? Has he rejected Lord Rogers' recommendation of levelling the playing field between urban regeneration and greenfield development, because the statement appears to be silent on that subject?
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise the growing concern, expressed by Lord Rogers, the Rowntree Foundation and many others, about the continuing exodus from our cities and about his commitment to accelerate that exodus by building 900,000 unwanted new homes in the south-east and 500,000 in the south-west? Does he not recognise that that is a plan that flies in the face of all that the statement is designed to achieve? It will accelerate the migration of the better-off and able from the inner cities to the countryside, and from the north to the south.
Finally, does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that summits in 2002 and Cabinet Committees are all very well, but in six months' time when he retires from office

1091
he will be judged not by his promises but by his record? By the time he retires, the hard facts will be that he will have spent less on regeneration in our inner cities than did the previous Conservative Government; and there will be 3,000 more homeless people than he inherited, 51 per cent. more people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, 3,000 more empty council houses, and rising crime in almost every major city. Of all the new jobs that the Government claim to have created, only 10 per cent. will be in the inner cities. According to the Government's statistics, 300,000 more people are living below the poverty line and the exodus from our cities has accelerated, not declined—all that at a time of unprecedented prosperity.
Is not the real record one of rising poverty, a widening north/south divide and the neglect of our inner cities? Is not the real truth that this is a Government who have flunked the big decisions and masqueraded as the party of the inner cities, but have betrayed their own heartlands?
Mr. Prescott: That was a bantam weight contribution by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). As for appearances in the House, I have an interesting note from the Library: I have appeared at oral questions four or five times more often than the hon. Gentleman since he has been on the Conservative Front Bench, and I have been here more—or at least an equal amount of time—for statements. So I am before the House more often than the hon. Gentleman. I have embarked on a secret strategy to improve the relationship between us, however: absence makes the heart grow fonder.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the report and congratulations to Lord Rogers and his urban team, who have produced an important piece of work. I also welcome the noble Lord's support for the report, which he made clear on the "Today" programme, and for the new financial measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It was inevitable that I should have to wait for the Chancellor's announcement before the measures could be included in the White Paper—that is normal practice. The fact that I repeated the announcement does not make the measures irrelevant, as they are part of the package.
The big decision is that £180 billion will be going into the transport industry. We are often asked in the House, "Where are the resources?" I have catalogued all the billions of pounds that will be available to improve investment in the social structure in our cities and towns, which the previous Administration failed to provide. Admittedly, the hon. Gentleman was not responsible for the decisions of the previous Administration, but he was certainly a member of the Conservative party at the time, so I am surprised to hear any complaint from him. The Conservatives doubled homelessness, put an awful lot of people out of their homes because of negative equity, and at the same time held back £5 billion from the sale of council houses, refusing to invest it in new housing. We have released resources that the previous Administration deliberately kept in accounts while the quality of homes in our inner cities declined year on year—they simply would not put the money back in to improve houses. That was one of our first decisions. Our housing programme of the past three years compares favourably with any record of the previous Administration.
As to how many of Lord Rogers' recommendations have been accepted, a number have been implemented in part or fully and we disagreed with only six—I mentioned
1092
one, which was the urban policy board. I shall take the evidence of Lord Rogers himself; on the "Today" programme, he made it clear that the White Paper is a powerful tool for the regeneration of our cities—
Mr. Tim Loughton: He has not seen it.
Mr. Prescott: No, he has not seen the White Paper—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) is not allowed to do that.
Mr. Prescott: I have catalogued all the matters covered by statements made in the House because we need a comprehensive approach. The White Paper aims to find a framework. Lord Rogers knows about the transport and housing plans; he knows what we intend to do about brownfield sites. Those matters are part and parcel of our approach to the regeneration of our cities, so it is right for him to say—he is also well aware of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said—that the White Paper is a powerful tool for the development and regeneration of our cities.
As for differences between the DETR and the DTI in the development of our policies, clearly there are none. Press reports are not necessarily to be taken as they are presented. I have read the speech given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It makes no statement whatever about differences between the north and south. My right hon. Friend referred to the economic differences in our cities; after 18 years under the previous Conservative Administration, that is hardly surprising. We are united. The White Paper is about uniting Departments to ensure that our towns and cities meet the requirements and make improvements.
As for the Tory record on regeneration, during their last year in office, the Tory Government cut back spending on regeneration to £1.3 billion. This year, we are spending £1.5 billion; we are increasing that by 15 per cent. a year for the next three years. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells wants to make a comparison, but he does not take into account the amount that we put into new deal programmes and the extra resources allocated for the inner cities. Those amounts need to be added in order to make comparisons about regeneration. When the hon. Gentleman makes that comparison, he will find that the resources that we are giving our towns and cities are substantially higher.
The White Paper brings together thinking across Government; it provides a framework for our towns and cities, and is what we intend to do to provide better opportunities.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the White Paper. Will he pay tribute from the Dispatch Box to all those—local authorities, private companies and individuals—who have already demonstrated in many of our big cities such as Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol that urban regeneration can be made a reality, that we can bring people back to the cities and that that movement has already started? Will he tell us, in setting out the signposts

1093
for achieving the aims of the document, how soon we shall receive the new planning guidance that he mentioned?
Mr. Prescott: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, especially as he is the Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee. I appreciate the help that the Committee has given us on this matter, particularly the recommendations in its reports; they were most useful when we were considering the White Paper.
I support his comments on urban regeneration; it is an important development. In fairness to the Opposition, some of the urban regeneration schemes started by the previous Administration have been of much benefit to our cities—but the programme is not limited to that. There are distinctive differences between us, but the regeneration programmes have been of considerable benefit; we want to build on the successes and deal with the weaknesses. The White Paper addresses that.
Mr. Don Foster: Like the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), I congratulate Lord Rogers. I welcome many of the initiatives in the White Paper, including, for example, improved support for home zones and measures to help walkers and cyclists.
However, my overall impression of the White Paper is that it has sound and fury but signifies not a lot. There seem to be many missed opportunities. For example, why is there no proposal for a greenfield development tax to boost developments on brownfield sites? Help with contaminated land is welcome, but does not go far enough.
Why is there no proposal to reduce VAT on work to bring back into use the scandalously large number—750,000—of empty homes? Why are there no real measures to simplify the plethora of regeneration schemes and budgets—so bewildering that much of the budgeted money does not even get spent?
Finally, I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will at least agree that, without the full involvement of local people in urban renaissance, the White Paper will simply be a waste of paper.
Mr. Prescott: I am sorry, I did not hear the last part—I was too busy. Did I hear someone say waste of space? I heard the other soundbite, which was that the White Paper gave the overall impression of sound and fury and did not signify a lot; I always thought that that was a description of the Liberal party. There seems to be common accord between the two Front Benches on that point.
I believe that the VAT proposals are a step in the right direction, and that they are the direction in which most people want us to go. The Conservative spokesman also asked why we were not introducing VAT on greenfield sites. The Chancellor has made it clear, and we have made it clear, that these matters are under active consideration. We started with stamp duty. We are now into zero VAT and 5 per cent. VAT. These are justified incentives for people to begin to develop empty properties—and properties of the type in which many single-person households might wish to live. I think that we are taking a step in the right direction. I recognise that Lord Rogers
1094
wanted more, and I recognise what the Liberal spokesman is saying, but the direction is right, the strategy is right and it is part of our development.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I welcome all aspects of my right hon. Friend's excellent statement. I especially welcome his repeated commitment to ensure that 60 per cent. of new housing is built on developed land. Will it now be possible for local authorities radically to change existing UDPs? For example, could Bradford council—now Conservative controlled—if it so wished, restore the great swathe of land near Silsden in my constituency to green belt, instead of pushing for hundreds of houses on that site?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for that expression of support. We are committed to ensuring that 60 per cent. of new housing is built on brownfield land. We are now in the range of about 53 per cent., getting on for 54 per cent., and moving in the right direction. In addition, the planning changes that we have made will help us to move in the same direction. When I made the new announcement on PPG1, I had that very much in mind.
am never sure what figure the Opposition propose for new housing built on brownfield land. It was 50 per cent. at one stage, and they only achieved an average 45 per cent. over their time in government. Then it went from 60 per cent. to 70 per cent., and down to two thirds—and I am still not quite sure what it is.
Our policy is absolutely clear. We have said that our figure is 60 per cent. We are on target for it. We are changing the planning regulations to achieve that. That can play a major part in the south as well as the north, by recognising the density of buildings and houses per hectare; we are going to achieve that.
The UDPs can be, and are being, reviewed—PPG3, which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned, provides one way in which we are asking local authorities to review those plans.
Mr. Graham Brady: Some of the comments that the Deputy Prime Minister made at the opening of his statement are particularly welcome, drawing attention to the importance of playing fields, the importance of encouraging homes in cities and towns rather than outside them—in the countryside in particular—and the importance of keeping the green belt intact.
Trafford borough council is reviewing its unitary development plan and is contemplating development in the green belt and the building of 2,400 houses on farm land outside the Greater Manchester conurbation. It is also contemplating destroying playing fields in Bowdon in my constituency. While councils are reviewing their unitary development plans, as they are currently, will the Deputy Prime Minister inform them of the Government's view that that type of development in green spaces outside towns and cities should be stopped, that the green belt should be protected and that playing fields should not be built on?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about the importance of play areas or green spaces—or public realms, as they are often called. They are important, and we should all—local authorities and

1095
national Government—give great importance to them. I am bound to say that the previous Administration's record is none too good. They got rid of 5,000 play spaces. Since we have restricted such development, we have received 856 applications to build on playing fields, and only six have been implemented against the agreement of Sport England. So we have considerably reduced such development and we have retained the playing fields and green spaces that the hon. Gentleman wants.
We have recommended in PPG3 that unitary development plans make it clear that building on such greenfield sites is not acceptable. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we make recommendations, and if a case comes to me for a planning decision, I have to take such advice into account.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, but will he help the House by providing a simple definition of a town, as opposed to a city? Will he pay regard to the evidence that will appear in the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's response to the White Paper following a visit by its members to Thirsk and Boroughbridge? When will PPG25 be adopted and come into effect?
The White Paper refers to the learning and skills councils, so will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us who will be responsible for implementing the Investors in People programme locally?
I very much welcome the target for reducing accidents on our roads. Will the right hon. Gentleman increase the number of bypasses that will be built?
Mr. Prescott: One of the advantages of the list of questions that is distributed to Conservative Members is that it gives them the opportunity to repeat many questions—but I am sure that I will be in trouble with you, Mr. Speaker, if I give crib answers to crib questions. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady knows exactly what I mean.
As for the hon. Lady's first question, a city is a town that has been incorporated. There will be an announcement on that subject shortly, as many towns have applied to become cities. York is already a city, and, in my area, Hull is a city. There is a serious distinction between cities and towns and we are dealing with the definition. The rural White Paper will contain a definition of market towns, and we shall say something about that when it is eventually published.
We have provided for an increased number of bypasses. It is interesting that when I announced £180 billion for transport programmes, many Tory Members queued up to tell me about the need for bypasses. However, as they want cuts in public expenditure, I thought that they might want to forgo the building of bypasses in their areas. That would certainly happen if the £16 billion of cuts in the Conservative party's public expenditure programme were ever implemented.
PPG25 deals with flood plains, which are a matter of serious consideration. The hon. Lady will know that the previous Administration had a code of practice that did not mean a great deal. Many houses were planned on flood plains, and those plans were endorsed by both central and local government. We thought that that was wrong, and after the floods in 1998, I ordered a review.
1096
We had hoped to publish PPG25 in December, but the House will accept that I want to learn from some of the problems that have occurred recently, and to take them into account. That should not delay things a great deal, so I hope that PPG25 will be published either at the end of this year or at the beginning of next year.
Mr. Bruce George: Did my right hon. Friend hear what I heard a few minutes ago when the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) talked about a period of unprecedented prosperity? Would my right hon. Friend be gracious and thank the hon. Gentleman for his sophisticated analysis of what has happened in the past three years? Perhaps my right hon. Friend can also persuade him to use what influence he has to reopen the Asda store in Darlaston, which was closed in the week of the general election. That was a malevolent decision.
Many people will welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Will he kindly arrange for a courier to be sent to Bovis forthwith with a copy of the report and all the planning guidance, and ask it not to build 700 homes on a greenbelt site in my constituency? Perhaps he will arrange to look in his pigeonhole, where a letter may arrive from me asking for that application to be called in by his Department when it is submitted.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome words, which were no doubt addressed to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who was simply recognising the fact, which everyone else in the country knows, that in the past three years we have had unprecedented prosperity and economic growth. I am sure that we will have a chance to argue that in the coming months.
I cannot comment on Asda; that is a matter for the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells. I assume that he no longer has anything to do with Asda—or, indeed, Railtrack—but no doubt he can bring considerable experience of those companies to his present job.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the new Walsall art gallery, which is a good-quality and well-designed building in the public realm.
As for whether I should send a copy of the report to Bovis, a copy will be sent to anyone who wishes to have one and to make a contribution. As for building 700 homes in the green belt, my hon. Friend knows that I have a planning function and role, and it would be more than my life is worth to comment on that now.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend set a target for all social housing to be brought up to a decent standard within 10 years. That is excellent, but what about the private sector? One in five houses in east Lancashire is deemed to be unfit for living in, and 99 per cent. of those are in the private sector. More of our housing stock was built before 1919 than in any other area, and that housing is in a dreadful, deplorable condition. Is any special help being targeted on east Lancashire, because its unique housing problems can be addressed only with additional central Government cash?
Mr. Prescott: I am aware—I have just received advice to confirm this—of the difficulties in my hon. Friend's constituency, and the rest of east Lancashire, with regard to home renewal programmes. The housing finance Green

1097
Paper attempted to introduce more flexible financial arrangements, which we hope will offer an opportunity for action. Of course, the taxation arrangements announced by the Chancellor will help with some private accommodation, but not necessarily in east Lancashire. I shall consider the matter and, if there is anything to add, write to my hon. Friend.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that there has been great concern about the length of time between the publication of the urban taskforce report by Lord Rogers and the White Paper. Some of us will look carefully at how the White Paper responds to the report. In view of the importance of regeneration, do the Government intend to appoint a sole Minister to oversee regeneration in its entirety, and if necessary to take decisions when there are—albeit understandable—differences between one Department and another?
Mr. Prescott: It is a bit rich for the Opposition to ask why it has taken so long to produce the report by Lord Rogers and the urban development taskforce. During the past 20 years, when many of our cities were in considerable decline, there was no report, no statement and no commissioning of anyone to do anything. I think that the hon. Gentleman was a Whip in the Conservative Government, and perhaps that meant being quiet. I accept that he might not have been able to say much from the Back Benches, but he could have said something to the Government. That would have added some credit to his criticism.
Nevertheless, we established Lord Rogers' taskforce in 1998 and he produced an excellent report. We have responded to that and to the Select Committee on such matters. We have made a comprehensive statement on urban regeneration in the next decade or so. When the rural White Paper is published, another statement will be made. The previous Government made no statement on either of those issues.
Mr. George Mudie: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the compliments that the White Paper pays to Leeds, and congratulate him on the pledge to improve all social housing within 10 years, and on the provision of resources to carry out that pledge. However, may I draw his attention to the fear prevalent among local government colleagues, that that pledge is aimed only at local authorities that get rid of their stock? Will he assure our local government colleagues that it applies to all local government, regardless of the ownership of the housing stock?
Mr. Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's point about social housing. We have given a commitment that will apply for 10 years. The specific circumstances to which he refers relate to local authorities and conditions concerning the transfer of properties. I made it clear in a previous statement that arm's-length companies could be established so that local authorities could retain ownership and have access to private capital. That means public-private partnerships, which I have been advocating in other less controversial areas.
Mr. Tom King: May I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that, contrary to the answer he gave my
1098
hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), he paid tribute earlier to some of the initiatives that were launched by the Conservative Government, in which I had a modest involvement, nearly 20 years ago? As my hon. Friend said, the need for urban policy initiatives should be supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I was impressed both by the quality of Lord Rogers' report and the speed with which he produced it. I believe that I am right in saying that it has taken the Government considerably longer to respond with a White Paper than it took Lord Rogers to produce his recommendations. I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman's statement seems to include many announcements that various matters will be reviewed. That does not reflect the urgency that some might think is needed.
The right hon. Gentleman talks continually of towns and cities. I welcome that, but one change has taken place since I had some responsibilities for these matters. Many of the problems of major cities now also face market towns and other towns throughout the country, and they, too, need attention.
Mr. Prescott: I think that I am right to say, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that I wanted to give credit to the regeneration projects that were implemented in a number of cities, even when the previous Administration were in power. I have said that those were improving city centres. The right hon. Gentleman was much involved in that policy. My disagreement with him was that much of the previous Government's policy related to economic circumstances and did not take account of social investment. I am trying to say in the White Paper that there is a need to do more than focus on economic circumstances. A study that we put in the Library makes the point that what characterised the 1960s and 1970s, and went on into the 1980s, was the idea that we should deal only with the economic problems. However, the investment that we put into education, housing and communities is connected. In many instances, cities were denied the possibility of jobs. The regeneration process was good, but they did not benefit from it.
We are taking the arguments forward from the Labour party's inner-city policies, and beyond what the right hon. Gentleman developed under the previous Administration. The Conservative Government did not produce a document or an analysis to which to work. [Interruption.] There was no White Paper; we have produced the first one on these matters for the past 20-odd years. We are saying that all the parts should be put together.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Lord Rogers and his recommendations. We could not simply accept the report and write it into a White Paper; there has to be consultation. We have received good advice from Lord Rogers, but if the Government are to adopt it we must start a process of consultation. It would be nice to say, "I don't need to consult because I've put the report into the White Paper", but the House would not be very happy with that sort of approach, and rightly so. There will be a time difference.
The White Paper is more comprehensive than Lord Rogers' approach. If a Government receive a recommendation from an outside body that something should be done about tax, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there will be lengthy discussions and

1099
negotiations. I think that we can agree that the White Paper is more comprehensive than Lord Rogers' report, and that it is a move in the right direction. It builds on some of the successes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but takes things much further.
Maria Eagle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement as a representation of an on-going commitment to improving inner city areas such as the one that I represent in Liverpool. I advise him not to listen too much to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who on a recent visit to Liverpool indicated the extent of his knowledge of inner-city regeneration when he said that as he drove through Toxteth he had wound up his car windows. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the regional development agencies are key institutions for ensuring that the regeneration that is taking place is sustained? Will he say something about the hon. Gentleman's policy, which is to abolish them?
Mr. Prescott: I shall leave interpretation of the Opposition spokesman's visit to Liverpool, and what he said there, to others. Presumably, he noticed that the tower blocks have been knocked down there. I think that that is the one initiative that he advocates for regeneration—to knock down 10 tower blocks in five years. As there are 1,600 of them, I assume that he has an 80-year programme. It is an exciting initiative, but it will take a little longer to implement than some others.
The Opposition's policy on the regional development agencies is inadequate to meet the need. I believe that the agencies are a powerful force for development in the regions. They have been effective in Scotland and in Wales, and they have many supporters, including the CBI and many Tory councils, that want to see the agencies remain so that they can help to develop their regional economies. I think that as before, we shall see the Tories change their minds. It will be another bandwagon the Tories will jump on.
Mr. David Curry: Has the Deputy Prime Minister lost his battle with the Treasury to impose VAT, albeit at a low rate, on greenfield development, as well as giving concessions on VAT in city centres? Will he revisit the proposal of the Minister for Housing and Planning in the housing Green Paper to limit rent increases to RPI plus zero, which threatens to dislocate the development programmes of housing associations, which are so important in inner cities? Does he still accept the words of the Minister for Trade when he took the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 through the House—that the Government would be judged on their success in narrowing the GDP gap between the regions? Is that still valid?
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in a Government who implemented many of the proposals that he wants to see changed. It was a Conservative Government who introduced VAT to the UK and created the problems to which he is referring. He had no success in his attempts to secure a reduction in VAT, and failed totally with the Treasury.
As for VAT payments and tax changes, an exemption will be introduced so that no stamp duty will be paid on property transactions in disadvantaged communities. There is the 100 per cent. capital allowance for flats over
1100
shops, which had been called for for a long time, even during the term of office of the previous Administration. There is a package of VAT reforms to encourage additional conversions of properties for residential use. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed favourable views on those initiatives.
Mr. Curry indicated assent.
Mr. Prescott: But he failed to convince the Treasury that VAT should be reduced, and it seems that I have been more successful. I am glad about that. Properties will be improved, and where he failed, I have succeeded.
Mr. Clive Efford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being a member of a Government who have, in the words of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), brought about "unprecedented prosperity". I also congratulate him on the White Paper, especially with regard to the improvement of social housing. However, I shall express one concern. Some of the financial packages that have been put together to bring about improvements in social housing have led to stock transfer or to new build with registered social landlords. I am concerned about the long-term impact on the level of rents, especially re-let rents, for people who are transferred with some rights of tenure. Rents may no longer be affordable. We should pay some attention to that in the context of the White Paper and the future housing Green Paper.
Mr. Prescott: Whether social housing is in the public or the private sector, people want decent housing. We are working in both areas. As for stock transfers, my hon. Friend knows that we are trying to give local authorities more choice. I announced that in the Green Paper. My hon. Friend raises a legitimate concern, which most of us are aware of, about the level of rents. That will arise especially in the London area, given its special difficulties and the social transfer arguments.
The Green Paper makes it clear—consultation is taking place—that we must have an affordable rent structure. My hon. Friend will know that housing finance is an important factor, along with the benefits and supports that are provided. We are taking those matters into account in our comprehensive review.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given that the Government's rough sleeper targets are proving far harder to achieve in London than elsewhere, may we have an assurance that London's complex and intractable problems will receive special attention, especially as London's wealth-producing engine does so much for the rest of the nation's economy? Finally, on a narrow but important point, will key workers in London include postmen?
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman takes an interest in rough sleepers and often asks questions about them, so I think that he knows that we have reduced rough sleeping by 30 per cent. We still have more to do, but we have had some success.
As for categories of key workers, we have already had bids from teachers and postal workers, but it is for local authorities to judge those matters, as the key sectors in which there are shortages vary from area to area. However, we are providing resources and advice. I am

1101
sure that the House welcomes the £250 million that we are providing as a step in the right direction in dealing with the problem.
Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his pledge to put urban renaissance at the heart of planning. Will he meet the needs of my constituents by ensuring that the green spaces and play areas he mentioned are integrated into new housing developments on brownfield sites, not placed at a distance where security is a problem? Notwithstanding his comments about small households being the norm nationally, will he bear in mind that in constituencies such as mine, where there is a young multi-ethnic community, there is still a need for larger units to accommodate larger households and alleviate overcrowding?
Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. She reminds me of my recent visit to Peckham, where a big building had been knocked down and the resulting space integrated into a new community. I was delighted to read in The Guardian the other day that Peckham library, with its wonderful design and architecture, had received an international award. I am pleased to see the local community and individuals beginning to rule their own lives and make decisions about their community. That is exactly what I want to see developing in other inner-city areas, and the White Paper will ensure that the powers and resources needed are available. In addition, PPG1 will make it clear that the public realm is an essential part of the urban renaissance. The White Paper will assist local authorities to achieve that.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I can find no mention in the White Paper and the Deputy Prime Minister's statement of the greatest disaster to overcome urban regeneration—the European Union ruling that gap funding was illegal. Is it not the case that the £250 million a year over five years announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the additional funding previously given to regional development agencies, will not nearly make up for the sums that would otherwise have gone into urban regeneration?
Mr. Prescott: I do not agree. However, any state aid or assistance as defined by the European Community is a serious matter. We have compensated regional development agencies and English Partnerships to deal with the difficulty. Ultimately, we are confident that the resources that we have announced will be able to go into all our proposals.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the White Paper. Will he take care to ensure that the urban renaissance takes in the entire urban area? My constituency, which falls outside the city council boundary, often misses out on urban regeneration grants. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that urban renaissance applies to the whole of the urban area and not only to the areas defined by city council boundaries?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point about boundaries, and about where urban areas, inner cities and suburbs begin and end. That is a real
1102
problem and one that is different in every area. We face the problem everywhere, in towns, cities, suburbs, market towns, rural areas and villages. In the main, economic regeneration tends to take place in the centre—usually, the city—but there is an obligation under planning requirements to ensure that all areas share in the prosperity. In PPG1, we shall emphasise that the overall, comprehensive approach is needed in respect of planning and development.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I, too, welcome much of the White Paper, the intentions behind it and its recommendations in respect of inner-city housing. However, how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his fine words about the availability of inner-city housing with his continuing and unnecessary beneficial tenancy of an inner-city flat provided by a transport union, which is clearly contrary to paragraph 113 of the ministerial code of conduct?
Mr. Prescott: That is clearly not comparable.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Listening to some of the questions put by Opposition Members, one might have thought that nothing had happened in the past three years, even though paragraph 7.6 of the White Paper lists a dozen major initiatives that have an impact on urban areas. The Government should be congratulated on delivering those programmes. However, paragraph 7.3 states that
One of the strongest lessons from the past is that policies and programmes need to be comprehensive and tailored to the circumstance.
The initiatives listed demonstrate that the Government have delivered on a cross-departmental, comprehensive basis. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that no rules or regulations stand in the way of local communities acting on an equally cross-departmental basis?
Mr. Prescott: That is an important point. One of the purposes of the White Paper is to bring together all the different initiatives. I could have waited three years, carried out an analysis and then produced the White Paper, but the problems were so clear that we developed different policies relevant to the framework set out in the White Paper. It is fair to say that many of the things mentioned in the White Paper are policies that have already been announced in the House by the Secretaries of State for other Departments. What I have done is ensure that they come together within the White Paper framework. I shall certainly try to ensure that the policy we want to prevail in Government also applies in local authority areas. We want decision making on community and local strategies to involve not only local authorities but all community bodies, including those involved in housing, education, health and so on.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I, too, welcome the White Paper, which represents a considered, rounded approach, in stark contrast to the solutions for simpletons that we have recently been hearing from Opposition Members. Does my right hon. Friend consider that the transport requirements for effective urban regeneration can properly be applied within the

1103
requirements of transport policy in an urban area generally, as opposed to within a specific local authority area?
Mr. Prescott: That is a detailed and important point. Local transport plans should be relevant to the development of the urban area. However, the essential point, which will also have to be addressed in the rural White Paper, is that people should be able to move between the areas in which they live and work, inside and outside city boundaries. Those whose task it is to follow the advice set out in the White Paper face the important challenge to adopt a comprehensive approach, and we have provided the resources for them to do so. People in Southampton have been considering a solution using light railways, which would not be limited to Southampton's immediate area. Local authorities and local people make their decisions through the local transport plan, but such plans should not be confined to inner-city areas.
Mr. David Lepper: As Member of Parliament for one of the areas that have applied for city status, may I tell my right hon. Friend with what eager anticipation we in Brighton and Hove await the announcement to which he referred? Brighton town centre has benefited from having a town centre manager, and I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that the all-party group on town centre management issues, which I have the pleasure to chair, commands considerable cross-party support. What role does he envisage for town centre management schemes in realising the aims of the White Paper? What proposals does the White Paper contain on sustainable funding for town centre management schemes?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend will realise that which areas will be granted city status is a great secret. It is a matter for the Home Office. I do not know what the
1104
outcome will be and I am not involved in the decision, although I do, of course, read the bids and hear from Members of Parliament who lobby me on the subject. We must wait for the announcement.
With regard to the Association of Town Centre Management, many of its proposals are for the sort of schemes that we endorse in the White Paper. Much can be done in the public realm—for example, by improving transport—to develop our town centres. We have set out such plans, and the various funds available are sustainable. We plan funds for local authorities over a three-year period to enable them to plan ahead. It should be possible to provide the resources to improve our town centres, and I welcome the work done by the association.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I accept the White Paper, but does my right hon. Friend agree that further thought should be given to ways of helping councils such as Burnley, which has 3,500 empty houses in the private sector? Demolition is extremely expensive, and there is little site value once those properties are demolished.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). The renewal of private properties is a particularly difficult problem, which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has raised with me three or four times. I give him the same response as I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle: I will write to him and consider how we can assist further in dealing with that problem.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am sure that we shall return to these matters in the future, but now we must move on.

Orders of the Day
  Insolvency Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Insolvency Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      PROHIBITION DURING PERIOD OF DISQUALIFICATION
      '. A person subject to a disqualification order or undertaking under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 shall not act as the principal of any trade or business providing services to consumers during the period of disqualification unless so authorised by the Director General of Fair Trading.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      2.31 pm
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Disqualification orders: unfitness of director—
      '. After section 3 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 there is inserted the following new section—

    Disqualification orders: unfitness of director
    .—(1) The court may make a disqualification order against a person where it appears to it—

    (a) that he has been a director of a company which was struck off the register of companies by reason of its failure to deliver company accounts, and

    (b) that his conduct as a director of that company makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.

    (2) The maximum period of disqualification under this section is five years.".'.
    Amendment No. 14, in clause 6, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
    '(5) Before accepting a disqualification undertaking under this Act the Secretary of State shall prepare a summary statement of the outcome of the relevant investigation.
    (6) The summary statement prepared under subsection (5) above shall be a matter of public record.'.
    Amendment No. 22, in page 5, line 5, at end insert—
    '(1A) The Court shall only grant an application under subsection (1) above if it is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since the giving of the disqualification undertaking on the part of the person who is subject to the disqualification undertaking.'.
    Mr. Chope: New clause 1 would prevent disqualified company directors from setting up and running unincorporated businesses during the period of their disqualification, unless they had obtained the authority of the Director General of Fair Trading.
    The new clause evolved from a useful debate that we had in Committee during the fourth sitting on 7 November, when I moved what was originally amendment No. 1 to clause 5.
    There was universal sympathy and support for my amendment in Committee. The Minister said:
    I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Christchurch, as the problem of rogue traders is serious.
    1106
    He said that he would be disappointed if, as pundits predict, there was no Department of Trade and Industry Bill in the Queen's Speech, and he said that he and the Government wanted to clamp down on rogue traders, but that my proposal was "not the appropriate vehicle".
    In my experience, that form of words is the last desperate line of defence of a Minister who concedes the argument, but has been told by his officials that he cannot agree to the change.
    Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend must be aware that there may well be a general election in the first half of next year. Were that to be so, even if there were a Bill in the Queen's Speech, does my hon. Friend agree that it is most unlikely that it would reach the statute book? If something is not done now—today—we may face a period of two years before it is possible to deal with the matter.
    Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend is right. Throughout their term of office, the Government have said that they would legislate on rogue traders and introduce legislation to protect consumers. There is every prospect that this Parliament will be concluded before they have done anything effective on that front. The modest measure contained in new clause 1 would enable the Minister to go to the people at the next general election and say, "I delivered in part. I was not able to deliver the whole, but I delivered in part."
    To develop the Minister's metaphor in Committee that my amendment was not the appropriate vehicle, if Parliament misses this bus, when will the next one come along? That is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
    The Minister told the Committee:
    Legislation will be properly framed to undertake the tasks that the hon. Gentleman has identified, one of which will be enacted in the new year—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 7 November 2000; c. 105.]
    He then referred to the injunctions directive. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is familiar with that, but if not, he soon will be. The Minister undertook, among other matters, to send all members of the Committee a note about that directive.
    In accordance with that undertaking, the Minister duly sent us such a note. As a result of reading it, I have modified the argument that I advanced in Committee. The new clause would make the Director General of Fair Trading the key person who could allow a disqualified rogue director to set up as the principal of an unincorporated business. It also makes the measure less absolute than that proposed in Committee and integrates it into the injunctions directive.
    The injunctions directive is to be implemented in the United Kingdom by regulations. It is clear from the Minister's note that the European Union expects us to introduce that directive so that it has effect before 1 January 2001. That target will be missed by the Government, but in paragraph 6 of the note that the Minister kindly provided, he stated:
    The implementation regulations will designate the Director General of Fair Trading as the lead independent public body who will he empowered to obtain cease and desist orders in respect of all the legislation covered.

    1107
    It is worth noting that the injunctions directive will be far more limited in application than the issue of rogue traders. The Minister gave us a list of other European directives and areas where the injunctions directive would apply, but from my reading of that list, I do not believe that it would deal with the situation that I recounted to the Committee, involving a person in my constituency, Mr. Gary Turley, who runs a business called Be-Secure Windows. He has been going round to various of my constituents, offering to carry out works on their house and demanding large cash sums up front so that he can buy the windows and other goods and materials. The House will not be surprised to hear that having done that, he never provides the windows or does the work. As a result, he is a good example of a rogue trader. He is ripping off people in my constituency and the surrounding area.
    I do not know whether Mr. Turley was ever the director of a company, but if he behaved in such a way as a director of a company and he was disqualified as a director of that company, under my new clause he would automatically not be able to carry on business as an unincorporated trader. If the new clause were implemented, it would catch quite a large number, although not all, of rogue traders.
    The last desperate argument that the Minister may deploy, as he did in Committee, is that new clause 1 would be piecemeal legislation. In that case, as I said in Committee, the new clause should fit in well with the Bill, which is made up of piecemeal legislation.
    New clause 2 is even more important than new clause 1. It would fill a serious loophole in the current law as it affects the accountability of company directors. It builds on a full debate that we had in Committee. The best way of explaining the matter to the House is to give an example of how the gap in the law came to my notice, and the gravity of what was exposed by that experience.
    A limited company can be established, it can trade and solicit subscriptions and donations, but after it has achieved its objectives, it can disappear without ever having to file accounts and without the public ever acquiring information about the remuneration of its directors or the value of their shareholdings.
    Provided that no creditor is dissatisfied, the authorities in general and Companies House in particular have no penalty or sanction to use against the directors. Such sanctions as are available apply to persistent failure to file accounts. A company may be set up in the knowledge that it will trade and remunerate directors with large sums of money. If it dissolves as a result of a failure to produce accounts, the people who are eager to find out what those accounts might reveal—including the remuneration of directors—will be unable to gain access to that information.
    That serious loophole in company law came to my attention two years ago when I inquired about a company called People's Trust Ltd. Some hon. Members may recall that that company was set up in January 1997 with the avowed aim of championing higher standards in public life. However, the records show that it failed to fulfil its obligations under the Companies Acts at the first hurdle: it failed to file its accounts. Two reminders were sent in 1998 and a notice was then placed in the London Gazette—all with no response. People's Trust Ltd. was then struck off the register for failing to file its accounts.
    1108
    It was thereby dissolved and unable to trade legally as a company with effect from the beginning of September 1998.
    The founding chairman and main source of funds of that company—to the extent of at least £1 million—is well known to officials at the Department of Trade and Industry and to hon. Members: it is none other than Mr. Fayed. When challenged by The Independent about the failure to file accounts, a spokesman for Mr. Fayed said:
    It appears that there has been an administrative oversight on the part of our legal representatives. That being the case, we will look to rectify this on Monday morning.
    It will not surprise hon. Members to hear that nothing at all was rectified. Indeed, that was the last we heard of the company.
    I complained to Companies House and suggested that some sanction should be introduced to gain access to the accounts. That was when I was told about the gap in the law, which means that the accounts, which must have existed, continue to remain hidden from the public gaze because when a company is dissolved it no longer has an obligation to provide information. I submit that the failure to file accounts, far being an administrative oversight, was a deliberate and calculated exploitation of the loophole in the Companies Acts, which the new clause would close.
    In an article published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 March 1997, Mr. Fayed commented on the DTI report into Harrods:
    Ten years ago, just before the 1987 election, the Thatcher Government commissioned a report that called me a liar…The British Government took away my reputation and good family name after 40 years' hard work. I will not go to my pyramid leaving my children under the shadow of a report that is unfair and untrue. I have seen the arrogance of power at very close quarters. I did not like what I saw. I will campaign for root and branch reform. That is why I gave away £1 million last week to the People's Trust, an independent pressure group dedicated to cleaning up politics.
    What happened to that £1 million? How much was used to pay the company directors for past services rendered? How much was left when the company was dissolved by default of filing its accounts and what happened to the donations that the company solicited from possibly naive members of the public?
    A report in The Guardian of March 20 1997 stated that the trust intended to send out 2 million letters to members of the public asking for £5 subscriptions to support its cause.
    Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend know whether that company, or another in a similar position, could make political donations before it was dissolved, which also could not be tracked? Does he not think that that is also an important consideration?
    Mr. Chope: That is an incredibly important consideration. That abuse—I submit that that is what it was—having been uncovered, it is incumbent on the Government to take immediate action to prevent it from happening again. As my right hon. Friend implied, the more we are concerned with transparency in politics and donations to political parties, the more important it is to prevent people from setting up such a company and using it as a means to change public opinion with the support of large sums of money. As I said, £1 million was involved, although some press reports suggest that the sum was larger.

    1109
    2.45 pm
    We do not know how many donations were given or what was received, if anything, for the £5 subscriptions. All that we know is that no creditor complained, which meant that the company was able to disappear in the circumstances that I described.
    It is worth reminding ourselves that People's Trust Ltd. was not a small, insignificant company. It must have had a turnover of more than £1 million, because it had a starting donation of £1 million from Mr. Fayed. It also had prominent public figures on its board. Apart from Mr. Fayed, the board contained Mr. Michael Cole, Mr. Fayed' s then press officer; Mr. Andrew Neil, a former editor of The Sunday Times and still a distinguished journalist; and Mr. Robert Fallowfield, one of Mr. Fayed' s accountants. Lord Alton of Liverpool was also on the board, as was Mr. Alex Carlile, a former hon. and learned Member of the House. Hon. Members will recall that none other than Mr. Carlile was the first to raise in the House the story in The Guardian involving the then hon. Member for Tatton. He did so on a point of order at about 10 pm when he had already been tipped off that The Guardian would run the story the next day, thereby enabling all the other newspapers to carry the story. He provided a service for—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the mark. He has given details, at some length, about one company and its director, which is reasonable, but I hope that he will relate his remarks rather more precisely to the new clause.
    Mr. Chope: I certainly will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To conclude the point, the company secretary was a Mr. Christopher Graffius, a former researcher for Lord Alton.
    Although I have not given examples of other companies, I submit that the case that I have described is sufficient to warrant Government intervention and the incorporation of the new clause in the Bill. One of the main responsibilities of directors, along with the privilege of incorporation, is the duty of full disclosure. Failure to deliver company accounts is a grave breach of directors' duty to make a full disclosure.
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs responded to my argument in Standing Committee. He said that section 5 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
    provides that a director who is prosecuted for not filing accounts can be disqualified on the basis of that single offence.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 7 November 2000; c. 124.]
    In fairness to him, it then became apparent that the advice given to him by his officials, which led him to make that statement, was incorrect. He admitted that he was wrong and that, under the present company law, it is not possible to prosecute a director for a single failure to file accounts, however grave or mischievous that failure might be. He agreed that it might be better to table an amendment to section 3 of the 1986 Act. That is what the new clause represents. I hope that the Minister will agree to the new clause in its revised form, because it meets his concerns. There was general concern in Committee that the loophole needs to be closed.
    Mr. John Burnett: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Chope: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. I formulated the new clause in such a precise way largely because of suggestions that he made in Committee. I am grateful for his advice and assistance.
    Amendment No. 14 arises from debate in Committee—at column 120, on 7 November 2000—on amendments Nos. 5, 7 and 52, which would have made an agreed statement of facts a precondition of acceptance by the Secretary of State of a disqualification undertaking.
    The Minister, in reply to that debate, said that it was for the Secretary of State to decide to accept the undertaking, and that it would be unduly restrictive and might lead to delay and increased costs if the Secretary of State could accept an undertaking only when there was an agreed statement of facts.
    Amendment No. 14 deals with all the Minister's concerns, and thereby confines and limits the requirement to the production of a summary statement that will be a matter of public record. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is one way of partly satisfying concerns that have been expressed by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and many other people. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the basis on which a disqualification order is made—or an undertaking for disqualification is accepted—should be set out in reasonably full terms, so that it is available to the public and on the public record should a director subsequently seek a variation in his disqualification undertaking or face disciplinary proceedings in any professional body. I hope that he will accept amendment No. 14, too.
    Both new clauses and amendment No. 14 are developments from the very useful debate that we had in Committee. I hope that they will find favour with the Government.
    Mr. Burnett: Liberal Democrat Members give qualified support to new clause 1 and complete support to new clause 2.
    The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was right to ask why a person who is unfit to run a limited company should be able, either alone or in partnership, to run a business. There is much force in that argument. I have examined in some detail the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and my view is that, in most cases of disqualification under that Act—especially when they relate to criminal offences and the test of beyond all reasonable doubt has been met—the hon. Gentleman is correct in that assertion. Why should such individuals be able to run a service business either on their own account or in partnership with others?
    I have nevertheless re-examined in detail section 3 of the 1986 Act. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, in Committee, we discussed at length section 3, which could be said to be fairly draconian in its treatment of directors. It deals with persistent defaults, which it states can be
    conclusively proved by showing that in the five years ending with the date of the application he—
    the director—
    has been adjudged guilty (whether or not on the same occasion) of three or more defaults in relation to those provisions.

    1111
    I know that there are other tests, but that one is pretty tough on directors—albeit rightly. Nevertheless, I do not think that, as a result of disqualification under section 3 of the 1986 Act, a person should be disabled from, for example, starting his own small business perhaps as a shopkeeper or a window cleaner.
    As I said, Liberal Democrat Members give qualified support to new clause 1. Although I believe—for the reasons that I have given—that its terms are draconian and go a little too far, the new clause certainly has merit in dealing with those who have been found guilty of a criminal offence. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
    New clause 2 has been tabled to overcome the problem with the word "persistent" in section 3 of the 1986 Act. I believe that, in some cases, the failure to deliver to the Registrar of Companies just one set of accounts can be extremely important and have far-reaching consequences. I therefore support the new clause, which is drawn wisely and subtly.
    New clause 2 contains two tests, whereas initially, in Committee, we had only one—which was, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, draconian. The first of the tests is that a person
    has been a director of a company which was struck off the register of companies by reason of its failure to deliver company accounts.
    The second important test which we are now able to debate is whether the person's
    conduct as a director of that company makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
    There are now, correctly, two hurdles. New clause 2 is sensible, and Liberal Democrat Members strongly support it.
    Mr. John Butterfill: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on both new clauses. I accept and very much agree with what he said about the spatchcock nature of particular proposals in the Bill.
    My hon. Friend has been a distinguished member of the Trade and Industry Committee, on which I serve, and which considered the draft Bill in some detail towards the end of last year. In our report issued in December 1999 we broadly welcomed the general thrust of the draft Bill's proposals, but we felt very much that, on some matters, it was somewhat premature to legislate. We particularly felt that, as a general review of insolvency procedures was in progress, it might have been better to leave everything until we could have a more comprehensive Bill.
    Nevertheless, the Committee felt that the draft Bill raised some important issues and that, on balance, it was probably right to go ahead with some restricted amendments, subject to various safeguards that we suggested. Although I regret to say that some of those safeguards have not appeared in the Bill, if I am able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair, I shall deal specifically with some of them in a later debate. Overall, however, it is right to introduce—as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is seeking to do—the new clauses and amendments. It is very important that the public should be protected.
    I must declare a personal position. I was a director of Maples Group Ltd, which went into liquidation a few years ago. Perhaps my experience as a non-executive
    1112
    director of that company will be helpful to the House. I was invited to join the board of Maples Group Ltd—the parent company of Maples Stores plc, the furniture retailer—by CinVen, which is the venture capital arm of the coal industry nominees who administer the coal industry pension fund.
    At the time, the directors of CinVen said to me, "We have a company that we backed in a management buy-out and is well-advanced. Although it is not yet profitable, it is very much nearing profit, and it will be near market levels. We want to strengthen the board before the company is floated. Would you join the board, with your experience of general corporate governance and your particular experience of property matters?" I am a chartered surveyor, and the company's main assets were probably the shops that it owned or on which it had leases.
    On that basis, I agreed to join the board of the company. Within a few months of doing so, I became very concerned about the figures that the executive directors were giving the board, because the cashflow figures did not match the trading figures that they were reporting to us.
    3 pm
    Shortly after I joined the board, Mr. Tom Vyner, the then deputy chairman of Sainsbury's, was also invited to join as chairman, to strengthen the board and to consider its trading activities in greater detail. After four or five months, Tom Vyner and I became increasingly concerned that the company's cashflow did not reflect the sales and turnover figures that the executive team were giving us. After four and a half months, we took the most unusual and rather hostile step, as non-executive directors, of calling in investigating accountants. We did so through a little bit of subterfuge: we said that we wanted the investigating accountants to look at a few individual branches to find out why figures were not entirely matching up and to report to the whole board.
    As soon as we received the first verbal report of the investigating accountants, we put all the executive directors on gardening leave. When we received the subsequent report, we summarily dismissed them. I have to be careful about what I say, because the executive directors may be subject to legal prosecution and it is important that I do not prejudice that case. Suffice it to say that the duties of directors are paramount and their obligation to protect the public, customers, suppliers and everyone else is their first duty.
    It is right that the law should be draconian in such matters and that if directors have misbehaved in any way—whether criminally or simply negligently—the protection of the public should come before the possibility of their continuing to trade in another venture and possibly putting the public at risk. The duty of the law must be, first, to protect the public and, secondly, to consider whether those people should be allowed to trade in another venture. For that reason, I strongly support the new clauses proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
    Mr. Richard Page: I very much support what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has said. He has introduced the real world into our debates by speaking about rogue traders and the impact that they can have on the public.

    1113
    He asked why the Bill does not contain measures to deal adequately with those people—why they are being missed out and allowed to continue their activities.
    As my hon. Friend said, the measure that he proposed in Committee was a little short on certain legal requirements but its thrust and direction were right none the less. We hoped that the Minister would introduce a measure of his own, drafted by the skilled officials who ensure that legislation contains no loophole that can be challenged in the courts. I regret that no such proposal has appeared, but the Minister now has his chance to accept my hon. Friend's proposal, which has been so ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). In my own humble and stuttering fashion, I shall return to that a little later if I may.
    Before the Minister responds, I should like him to consider an article that I read recently in the New Statesman, which has recently run a profile of him. May I say that it is completely relevant to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I can see that you are on the edge of the Chair, waiting to leap in if I go out of order for 30 seconds? This engaging little piece states:
    It may have escaped many people's notice that we have a Minister for corporate social responsibility—
    the Minister who will soon be standing at the Dispatch Box. I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that he has that corporate social responsibility, and consider how he can apply it to stop rogue traders regularly ripping off the public. I regret that the Minister has not introduced such a measure in response to the clear and positive suggestion in Committee.
    I want to speak to amendment No. 22, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and I tabled. The proposals for expediting and simplifying processes by which directors can be disqualified must be welcome. I accept the figures produced by the DTI and offered by Ministers in relation to the proportion of disqualification orders that do not proceed to court, and their argument about the advantages of arrangements that permit the Secretary of State to accept undertakings from people whose conduct—let us be delicate—has been faulty.
    Of course it is important to safeguard the interests of those who fall within the ambit of the new procedure. On the other side of the coin, it is equally important that the interests of the public should be protected against the premature lifting or termination of disqualification undertakings. I always listen carefully to the Minister, but I did so with special care when he argued in Committee that the court should have a discretion as to whether to reduce a period for which an undertaking should be in force or to provide for it to cease to be in force. The hon. Gentleman tantalised me and, I suspect, mystified the rest of the Committee—perhaps that should be the other way round—with his immortal words:
    a factor other than a material change in circumstance since the person gave the undertaking may be of sufficient importance to persuade the court to make an order …—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee B, 7 November 2000; c. 122.]
    The hon. Gentleman never explained what he had in mind. He gave no example to support his argument. I am a great believer in the notion that real-life examples make the
    1114
    case and put flesh on the legal bones. I can think of several facetious arguments about those who have given such undertakings being disappointed or even bursting into tears if their disqualification undertakings are not lifted or shortened, but I can think of no serious ones. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming.
    If the Secretary of State has good grounds to seek and accept a disqualification undertaking from an individual, there should be significant material grounds for any application to the courts requesting that undertaking to be shortened or terminated. It is no good simply announcing that the courts will have the power to take into account any relevant factors in determining such an application under new section 8A(2). The Bill should include a clear direction to the courts that they must have material justification to alter or end the period of the disqualification undertaking.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that the prosecution case may take some years to come before the courts? Although the Secretary of State and the Department may be convinced that wrongdoing has occurred, it may not be possible to rely on a conviction in the courts until quite a lot of damage is done in other companies.
    Mr. Page: My hon. Friend is correct, but the purpose behind the Bill is to bring about such disqualifications more quickly. That is one of the reasons why we have given it qualified support. The difficulty is that we see written into it the means whereby disqualification could become quicker, which can be to the advantage of a director, obviating the need for huge legal costs. Written into the Bill is a way for the director to get out of the disqualification period under the standard time and for no material reason. I am trying to persuade the Minister to come up with reasons.
    I do not share the Minister's rose-tinted view of life; he thinks that the courts will see through all the old lags who are trying to put one over on them. Anyone with business experience, or even experience of dealing with politicians, will know how persuasive and plausible such people can be. It is better that we take specific precautions now than that we find ourselves obliged to take them later.
    It is proposed to give the director a second bite of the cherry. Under the new procedures envisaged in the clause, the Secretary of State may accept a disqualification undertaking, which has the same effect as a disqualification order. So far, so good. There is a new procedure for compromising disqualification proceedings without their even being commenced. The present way of compromising such proceedings is by way of a carecraft order. If such an order were made, the director would be bound by it. If he wants to be a director of another company, he has the right, under section 17, to apply for leave to do so.
    Under the new procedure, the director would still be able to apply for leave to be a director of another company. However, he is given an additional right by the proposed new section, under which he can apply to the court for the disqualification undertaking to cease to be in force or for the period of disqualification to be reduced. Does this give the director the right to backtrack or to welsh on the bargain previously made by the Secretary of State? [Interruption.] I am sorry to use the word "welsh" like that; I saw the Minister shudder and I wish to withdraw that word.

    1115
    Any director with any sense will agree to a disqualification undertaking. Having fixed the maximum period for disqualification, he can then can apply, under the new section, to see whether he can reduce the period or get out of it altogether. We know that the period cannot be increased, so he has nothing to lose except the cost of court proceedings. New section 8 is a difficult luxury to justify.
    I am realistic and I know that if we tabled an amendment to remove the section, the Minister would more than likely reject it. I have tabled an amendment which could be regarded as a compromise and which may be acceptable to the Minister and the Government. I propose to limit the second bite of the cherry to where there is a material change of circumstances only. The proposal does not go as far as I would like it to but, at the very least, it means that the director will not be able to give a disqualification undertaking and then apply immediately to have it cease or have it reduced. That would prevent a fairly obvious abuse and it would be difficult for the House to object.
    To those who are unconvinced, I would say this: why should a director who has freely given a disqualification undertaking have the right to apply to the court to get out of it without there having been a change of circumstance—particularly when he has the right to apply for leave to act as a director of a specific company? If it remains unamended, that is the way in which the measure will operate in more cases than I would care to imagine. From my business experience, I have seen company directors reappear like phoenixes, using the same modus operandi. They have appeared to be almost untouchable. The new clause would give a specific protection to the public which does not exist at the moment.
    3.15 pm
    Perhaps I would be less sympathetic towards the new clause if I knew that there was to be a consumers Bill in the Queen's Speech. However, the word on the street is that there is to be no such Bill. The Minister can look me in the eye and tell me if I am wrong and, if so, I will withdraw these remarks. A specific promise was given that, in the lifetime of the Parliament, there would be a consumers Bill. One of the areas that such a Bill would tackle is the problem of rogue traders.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is being far too charitable. Even if the Minister felt able today to anticipate the Queen's Speech and assure my hon. Friend that there would be a consumers Bill in the Government's programme, the Minister could not guarantee that that Bill would reach the statute book because the Prime Minister might intervene and call the election ahead of the time at which he needed to. My hon. Friend would be left in a position where an undertaking would have been given—perhaps in good faith by the Minister—which could not be fulfilled. I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel obliged to back off even if the Minister gives an undertaking about the Bill today.
    Mr. Page: I am frequently accused of being too charitable but that's the way it is: I am one of those creatures who go through life being charitable.
    Mr. Forth: Well, I am not.
    Mr. Page: I well know that my right hon. Friend is not charitable. He is a very hard man. I realise that any
    1116
    political party needs a balance of the soft and the hard. The soft version is at the Dispatch Box; the hard version is one or two rows behind.
    The matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is serious. If the Minister can assure us that there will be a consumer Bill, we will look at it and give it whatever support we can to ensure that the public are protected from rogue directors. We will see what we can do to get the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible—subject to a reading of the small print. I would hate to give a carte blanche undertaking here without seeing the specifics of the Bill. I am given to understand that a section in a consumers Bill could deal with these matters.
    I draw my remarks to a close by thanking the Minister for sending to every member of the Committee the injunction directive and the directives that will be covered by the measure. According to his letter, there are 11, although I have not counted them to see whether that is so. The notice sent with the letter states:
    Further directives, including the proposed directive on distance selling of financial services will be added in due course.
    That may prevent a certain amount of distress to members of the public caused by directors not acting correctly in that area. However, measures are already in place that make it difficult for rogue traders to operate in limbo in that area. I thank the Minister for his letter and look forward very much to what he has to say, bearing in mind the fact that, according to the article in the New Statesman he is in a position of "corporate social responsibility". I hope that he can find it in his heart to accept amendment No. 22 and give serious consideration to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): By my standards, we have had a lengthy debate on this group of amendments. May I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) on the superb intelligence that he gets from my Department or wherever the Queen's Speech is being drafted? He knows what is in the Queen's Speech, although I do not. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) will be delighted to know that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has helped to boost the circulation of the New Statesman by purchasing a copy of that estimable organ. I have seen my portrait in the magazine and, if the hon. Gentleman was using a Library copy, I shall report him.
    At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said that I am in danger of missing the bus in relation to implementing enforcement measures against rogue traders. However, I fear that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the legislation. For the benefit of those who were not present in Committee when amendments similar to the hon. Gentleman's were debated, I shall reiterate that the main purpose of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is to provide the public with protection against those who abuse the privilege of limited liability. Sections 6 and 7 of the Act allow the Secretary of State to apply to court for a disqualification order against a director of an

    1117
    insolvent company whose conduct in relation to the company is such as to make him unfit to be involved in the management of a limited company.
    In response to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), I was glad to press ahead with the provisions in the Bill—limited though they are, according to him—and am pleased that he gave us the benefit of his experience of a company that found itself slipping into insolvency and receivership. The hon. Gentleman illustrated clearly why the relevant laws should be tough in relation to the honesty and probity of company directors. Section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act enables the Secretary of State to apply for a disqualification order against a person who has been the subject of a statutory investigation, as provided for in that section, and in the case of whom it appears to be expedient in the public interest that the person should be disqualified. Similarly, clause 6 of the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to accept a disqualification undertaking in such circumstances under sections 7 and 8 of the 1986 Act.
    I repeat that I have some sympathy with the concerns of the hon. Member for Christchurch, but the 1986 Act is not the appropriate measure with which to try and address the issue of rogue traders. Those concerns need to be dealt with in other ways, and we are doing that through, for example, the useful directive that the hon. Gentleman told us about; better enforcement of consumer legislation, including measures on e-commerce; pursuing issues that cause particular concern, such as the servicing and repairs of cars; as well as the scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in which someone purporting to sell windows in his constituency is just operating a scam. We shall also deal with rogue traders through an important series of measures to modernise consumer advice networks. As I indicated in Committee, the impending EC injunctions directive should be of some help in that area too.
    Whatever the hon. Member for Christchurch thinks about disqualified directors being able to trade as sole traders, it would be inappropriate for the 1986 Act to go any further by restricting a person's right to do so. Such restrictions need to be dealt with in other ways. New clause 2 deals with issues relating to that and, as the hon. Gentleman said, is similar to the amendment that he tabled in Committee, although he revised the amendment's drafting in the light of our debate there. New clause 2 would introduce a new clause into the 1986 Act and would allow the court to make a disqualification order against someone when the court considers that he or she has been a director of a company which was struck off the register of companies because it failed to deliver company accounts, and it considers that the person's conduct as a director of that company makes him or her unfit to be involved in the management of a company.
    As I explained in Committee, directors can be disqualified for failure to file their company's accounts under sections 3 and 5 of the 1986 Act for defaults in relation to various provisions of company legislation, including failure to file accounts at Companies House.
    Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way?
    Dr. Howells: In a moment. I accept that neither provision would allow for disqualification following only one default, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said.
    Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way?
    Dr. Howells: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I will give way in a second.
    It is not clear how the amendment would allow for a disqualification after one default, either. Nevertheless, disqualification on default would be going too far in any event.
    Mr. Burnett: Does the Minister agree that, in some cases, the failure to deliver just one set of accounts can be of the greatest importance? Surely, a person who fails to do so on being given notice or who is judged guilty of conduct that makes him unfit should be disqualified.
    Dr. Howells: I shall try to deal with that in a moment. The two matters are not directly related and I shall try to make it clear why that is so in relation to the legislation.
    It is not our intention to revisit in the Bill what constitutes unfit conduct for the purposes of achieving a disqualification. Where there are concerns about the failure of a company to file accounts, another remedy exists. A complaint made to the Registrar of Companies, who has enforcement responsibility in this area, will result in him taking appropriate action against the company. If the company is carrying on business or is in operation, the registrar will take enforcement action to secure delivery of the documents, up to and including prosecuting the directors in the magistrates court or, in Scotland, referring the matter to the prosecuting authorities.
    In addition, the late filing of accounts attracts an automatic civil penalty. If, in the registrar's opinion, the company is not carrying on business or is not in operation and is defunct, he can initiate statutory action to dissolve it and strike it off the register.
    In Committee, the hon. Gentleman raised the fascinating case of the People's Trust, and he may wish to know that it is currently up to date with all its filing requirements at Companies House. Indeed, I started to dig around a bit on the hon. Gentleman's behalf, given his fascination with that company. The trust was incorporated on 22 November 1996, but failed to file accounts or annual returns as required by the Companies Act 1985. It failed to respond to statutory letters inquiring whether it was still in operation or carrying on business under section 652 of the 1985 Act. It was struck off and dissolved on 8 September 1998 and was restored to the register after a relatively short period, on 5 November 1998. All outstanding documents filed at the time of restoration are up to date with all current filing requirements. I would be the last person in the world to defend Mr. Fayed, but that should be on record as it is perhaps an additional piece of information that I am sure would interest the hon. Member for Christchurch.
    3.30 pm
    Mr. Forth: Perhaps the Minister could clarify something. He seems to be saying that all the required information is available from 1998 onwards since the company was restored to the register. Is he also telling us that we now know everything that we need to know and

    1119
    should know about the company between 1996 and 1998, as that is the period of the most interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch?
    Dr. Howells: I understand that the relevant information is there, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch could find out very quickly by accessing the terrific new computerised filing system in Companies House. He need merely get on to his PC—
    Mr. Chope: I do not have a PC.
    Dr. Howells: That has certainly thrown me. It would be good if the hon. Gentleman had a PC, but if he does not have one he cannot access the files online. I suggest that he travels to Cardiff, which is an excellent city, goes to Companies House and talks to the estimable staff there, who will do the job for him. By the way, I understand that there are even short courses to help people access files via their PCs, if the hon. Gentleman is interested, but clearly he is not.
    Amendment No. 14 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a summary statement of the outcome of the relevant investigation before accepting a disqualification undertaking from a director, and to make that summary a matter of public record. I am not at all sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch would like the effect of the amendment, were it accepted. It would seem to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to make public a summary of the unfit conduct he alleges against a director following the completion of his investigation.
    Although I would ask which investigation the hon. Gentleman needs to refer to, that is not at all clear and only section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act expressly refers to investigations. That summary would include any allegations that the Secretary of State was prepared subsequently to withdraw before accepting a disqualification undertaking.
    Let me remind the House of how we envisage the process working. When inviting a director to offer an undertaking, as a matter of practice, the Secretary of State will put the unfit conduct that he alleges to the director concerned so as to give the director the opportunity to respond to it. It might be that the director is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that one or more of the allegations made no longer stands up—in other words, that the case that the Secretary of State is putting to him is not accurate in one or more respects. A director may be able to introduce new evidence which puts an entirely different complexion on the conduct concerned. Where that occurs, the Secretary of State may withdraw that allegation and consequently be prepared to accept an undertaking for a lesser period. In those circumstances, if the amendment were agreed to, the public record would disclose an allegation of unfit conduct that had subsequently been withdrawn. I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch would agree that it would be unjust to place a director in that position. It does not seem right to us and we do not consider that the amendment should become part of the Bill. We remain of the view that the public record at Companies House should only show particulars of disqualification undertakings accepted by the Secretary of State.
    I now turn briefly to amendment No. 22, which was addressed by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire. It is the same as amendment No. 71, which
    1120
    we debated in Committee. For those who have not had the opportunity to read Hansard, I shall repeat the point that I made. We do not consider that the court should be restrained in the way that is proposed under the amendment. It would be far more appropriate for the court to have a discretion on whether to reduce the period for which an undertaking is to be in force or provide for it to cease to be in force. It could be that some factor other than a material change in circumstances since the person gave the undertaking—a change in law, for example—would be of sufficient importance to persuade the court to make an order under new section 8A. According to the text of the new section, the court will be able to take into account any factors that it considers relevant when making such an order. The court will be helped in reaching a view by any matters that the Secretary of State calls to its attention under subsection (2) of the new section. With that, I urge the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendment.
    Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, although I find it disappointing in some respects. He argued that my amendment No. 14 could cause injustice to directors because the statement of facts might subsequently be proved to be inaccurate. That is why, when we made the original proposal in Committee, we said that we wanted an agreed statement of facts. The Minister raised all sorts of objections to that. He said that it might cause delay or that it might be difficult to get an agreement. We then moved an amendment to overcome those obstacles and now, in typical civil service fashion, the Minister raises objections to the idea that there should be a non-agreed statement of fact. It is desirable to have more facts available on the public record than there will be under the Government's proposals. That is my concern.
    As for the Minister's arguments in relation to new clauses 1 and 2, first, I am grateful to him for letting us know that the People's Trust has become a phoenix rising from the ashes. Back in 1997 there was an enormous amount of press comment saying that the People's Trust was no longer trading, had gone out of business and had vacated its luxurious Knightsbridge offices. It was reported that the disappearance of the People's Trust
    marks the end of Mr. Fayed's third foray into public morals.
    That is how the Evening Standard described the situation on 8 August 1997.
    Perhaps the resurrection of the People's Trust suggests that there is yet another foray on the way. I shall look with interest at the contents of the documents to which the Minister has drawn our attention, but I do not think that the fact that they have now been filed alters the burden of my argument. I illustrated my contention that there was a gap in the law and the Minister agreed. However, he then recited a series of sanctions which, although they might apply to different cases do not apply to a case in which somebody makes only one serious breach of his duty to file accounts.
    Mr. Page: If my hon. Friend is in the slightest bit worried about finding examples to prove his point, I can spend an hour or two with him after the debate giving him the necessary names.
    Mr. Chope: I do not think we need any more examples. The examples that I quoted are sufficient. The fact that

    1121
    the Minister has not been able to show us what remedies are available demonstrates that there is a gap in the law that needs to be filled.
    Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Not only should there be a duty to file accounts, but there should be a duty to file one set of accounts in good time. In the case of the additional clause which is qualified, as new clause 2 is, there should be a draconian sanction for failure, and there is not one now.
    Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am very grateful to him for his involvement in the promotion of new clause 2. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke earlier about the implications for limits on party political funding. It is no good if people say that they will not file the accounts, and the company is then dissolved and struck off, and, at some stage in the future, when the time for investigating the funding of parties in a general election campaign is over, the company is resurrected.
    I was caught out because I had assumed that, once a company's accounts were no longer available because it had been struck off and dissolved, that was the end of the matter. Now the Minister says that, in this specific case, the company came back later. That is no good. The people responsible for that appalling default of their obligations under company law have carried on with impunity. New clause 2 would put an end to that loophole.
    The Minister made a rather feeble response to new clause 1. We are talking about serious issues of rogue traders. The Government purport to be on the same side as us in campaigning against rogue traders and the injustice that they cause to the hapless individual. An early-day motion has been tabled on the subject and the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) promoted a ten-minute Bill supporting action against rogue traders.
    I tabled the new clause to take action on the matter, and the Minister's response is that it is not appropriate. That is not good enough. The people will decide on this. The Government have been going on about how they will do something against rogue traders, but they are merely paying lip service to people's concerns. They are not legislating to close the loopholes.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) for introducing into the debate a pertinent example drawn from his own experience as a non-executive director and as a member of the Trade and Industry Committee; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) for his support for my new clauses and amendments; and I thank the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) for his help and advice.
    It would be a gross indulgence to divide the House on more than one of the new clauses. As new clause 2 would remedy the greatest mischief straight away, and there is no complaint about its drafting, that will be the right one on which to have a vote. I hope that hon. Members will support it when I give them the opportunity to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 2
      DISQUALIFICATION ORDERS: UNFITNESS OF DIRECTOR
      '. After section 3 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 there is inserted the following new section—

      Disqualification orders: unfitness of director
      .—(1) The court may make a disqualification order against a person where it appears to it—

      (a) that he has been a director of a company which was struck off the register of companies by reason of its failure to deliver company accounts, and

      (b) that his conduct as a director of that company makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.

      (2) The maximum period of disqualification under this section is five years.".'.—[Mr. Chope.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 221.

      Division No. 337]

      [3.44 pm

      AYES

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Loughton, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Beggs, Roy

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Boswell, Tim

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Moore, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Burnett, John

      Page, Richard

      Burstow, Paul

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Randall, John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Rendel, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Clappison, James

      Spring, Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Cotter, Brian

      Steen, Anthony

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Syms, Robert

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Tyler, Paul

      Gray, James

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Mr. Eric Forth and

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. Christopher Chope.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ainger, Nick

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Austin, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Banks, Tony

      Burden, Richard

      Barnes, Harry

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Battle, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bayley, Hugh

      Casale, Roger

      Beard, Nigel

      Caton, Martin

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cawsey, Ian

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clapham, Michael

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clelland, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Coaker, Vernon

      Berry, Roger

      Coleman, Iain

      Blackman, Liz

      Colman, Tony

      1123

      Connarty, Michael

      Leslie, Christopher

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Linton, Martin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Corston, Jean

      Lock, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Love, Andrew

      Cox, Tom

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      McCabe, Steve

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Macdonald, Calum

      Darvill, Keith

      McDonnell, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Davidson, Ian

      McIsaac, Shona

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

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

      McNulty, Tony

      MacShane, Denis

      Dawson, Hilton

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Dismore, Andrew

      McWalter, Tony

      Dowd, Jim

      McWilliam, John

      Drew, David

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Mallaber, Judy

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Martlew, Eric

      Ennis, Jeff

      Maxton, John

      Etherington, Bill

      Merron, Gillian

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Flint, Caroline

      Miller, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Galloway, George

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Gapes, Mike

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

      Gardiner, Barry

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mountford, Kali

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Grogan, John

      Olner, Bill

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hanson, David

      Pearson, Ian

      Healey, John

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pike, Peter L

      Heppell, John

      Plaskitt, James

      Hesford, Stephen

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hill, Keith

      Pond, Chris

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pope, Greg

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Pound, Stephen

      Hope, Phil

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hurst, Alan

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Hutton, John

      Rammell, Bill

      Illsley, Eric

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Rowlands, Ted

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Roy, Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ruane, Chris

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ruddock, Joan

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Salter, Martin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Kemp, Fraser

      Sawford, Phil

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Laxton, Bob

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      1124

      Soley, Clive

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Spellar, John

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wareing, Robert N

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      White, Brian

      Stevenson, George

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wood, Mike

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Woodward, Shaun

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wyatt, Derek

      Touhig, Don

      Trickett, Jon

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. Graham Allen and

      Tynan, Bill

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 3

      SECTION 309(1) OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 TO APPLY TO NOMINEES
      '. The duty imposed on directors by Section 309(1) of the Companies Act 1985 to have regard to the interests of the company's employees shall apply to the nominee during his administration of the company.'.—[Mr. Mitchell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 46, in schedule 1, page 15, line 6, at end insert—
      'and notify the registrar of companies, the company and any petitioning creditor of the company of the actual fees charged, the basis of the charges, the outcome of the moratorium and whether during the term of the moratorium he has been the subject of any adverse court judgment or disciplinary findings by any of the Recognised Supervisory Bodies.'.
      No. 33, in page 20, line 20, at end insert—
      '(5) The nominee shall have the power to apply to the court for directions to enable him to perform his duties under this paragraph.'.
      No. 47, in page 21, line 45, at end insert—
      '(c) on an application by any creditor, any member of the company or any other person affected by the moratorium.'.
      No. 3, in schedule 2, page 35, line 47, at end insert—
      '(ba) After subsection (4), there is inserted—
      "(4A) The supervisor shall owe a duty of care to the employees of the company and consult regularly with their representatives.".'.
      Mr. Mitchell: The purpose of the new clause and associated amendments is to swing the balance in favour of workers and trade unions. The new clause would involve them more in the process of a company's 28-day moratorium, and outline their role in that process.
      So far the debate has been like a class reunion of Standing Committee B. It is a shame that more Labour Members are not present, as by amending in little ways little measures such as this Bill we can swing the balance in

      1125
      favour of the workers, the less well-off and the people who form the section of society that we represent. The vested interests always have people such as the Conservative Members present this afternoon who will speak for them and push their views and interests. It is important that we Labour Members use our influence to push the balance the other way when the opportunity arises.
      It is as important for us to do that as it is for the Government to introduce major legislation. The Government tackle the big picture, and we Back Benchers tackle the small picture. That is what I want to try and do with these amendments. New clause 3 would impose on the nominee duties at present incumbent on the directors, to ensure that he attends to the same interest.
      The Bill is right and worth pursuing. It is a minor measure, but it will be useful and will help to save companies. If we can get this measure in the interstices of the Government's legislative programme—as we can now, because the House is effectively ticking over, waiting for more messages to come from the Lords so we can get our teeth into the bigger issues—we should do so, and that is what we are doing. The Conservative party's critique that this is an unnecessary measure has no standing. However, if it is necessary, it is necessary to use it for the purposes of the people.
      4 pm
      The measure gives a new role to a vested interest—it creates a new role for insolvency practitioners. They have already been consulted on it extensively and they say that they want to be consulted more and to exert more influence on the processes and regulations when they are introduced. This is a Labour Government, however—it is not a Conservative Government, pandering to the vested interests. So when we have the legislative opportunity, we should use our role as a Labour Government to tilt the balance in the right direction. After all, for 18 years, it has been substantially tilted the other way. It is time to swing the balance back a little.
      New clause 3 would impose responsibilities that are in the Companies Act 1985. Indeed, I was surprised to find them there. They were introduced to the Companies Act 1967. The surprising thing is that after the long years of Conservative Government, in which numerous Companies Acts were passed, almost year after year, as the previous Government changed their mind on these issues, these provisions were never removed. This is an important and potentially influential measure. The 1985 Act says:
      The matters to which the directors of a company are to have regard in the performance of their functions include the interests of the company's employees in general…
      That is a point of leverage which has been too little noticed and used. If the responsibility is incumbent on directors under the 1985 Act, it should also be incumbent on the nominee in the period when the nominee's decisions will effectively change the shape of the company. For example, decisions will be taken about shedding staff. Attempts to save a company, given present priorities, always seem to involve firing people and reducing the number of employees to save money. Decisions made by the nominee will thus affect the employees. In that case, why should they not have the same responsibilities as the directors who continue to run
      1126
      the company and who should continue to exercise those responsibilities, but who are temporarily less powerful than the nominee?
      A company is a team—it depends on its employees. It is a collective effort. We have to take a collective, communal view of a company. It does not consist simply of the directors and those in charge—everyone has an interest. The interests of the workers clearly lie in the company's survival. However, those interests get neglected in the vulture culture of insolvency and administration.
      The whole process is a grab for money—the banks are the most powerful grabbers and play the most powerful role. They make so many loans, mortgages and floating charges, they have the necessary personnel and experience, so they will be the dominant influence. The workers are in a very weak position. They have a role as creditors; my hon. Friend the Minister will doubtless emphasise that as he did in Committee, because the workers may be owed wages.
      I want to give the workers a role beyond that, as an integral part of the company, with an interest in its survival. They are stakeholders. I know that we do not talk so much about stakeholders now. Having discovered stakeholderism in the mid-1990s, we moved rapidly on to the third way. I am not sure what happened to the third way, but it has gone the way of all bright ideas. However, I think that the stakeholder philosophy is correct. Employees are stakeholders in the company; they have an interest in the company, and that should be taken into account.
      The new clause is a comparatively diluted expression of that view, which amendment No. 3 develops more fully. It was well supported in Committee by both Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. I am not gifted with the killer instinct—something I have in common with the Prime Minister. I am too nice a guy and tend to think that one simply has to put the argument and the truth will prevail, a failing that spreads right across to Downing street. But had I the killer instinct, the Minister could have been beaten on this issue. I did not want to do that. The Minister undertook to look at the issue and see what he could do to incline the balance my way. I am sure that he has done that, and I am grateful to him.
      I see from the posters going up around the country that it is now party policy to say "Thank you, thank you, thank you." As one of my constituents said, "What the hell for?" So I thank the Minister, but I was disappointed by the reply that he sent me when he exercised that function. He more or less advised me to go away in a fashion advised by French Connection UK. He said that it could not be done in the way that I wanted. I know what is happening here. The vested interests say, "We can't do that". The officials say, "Play it safe, Minister, there's no point in extending the role of the Bill. It will be a nuisance, it's another imponderable, it's not within the scope of the Bill which is simply concerned with matters of company administration and insolvency, so let us keep the focus on the main issue. Don't buy into emotive concepts like the workers or the stakeholders. Best say no—that's the easiest course."
      I hope that, now I have approached the issue in a moderate form by proposing new clause 3, the Minister might look again at what he said in his letter. The nominee

      1127
      is effectively making a life or death decision on the company and should have the same responsibilities as directors.
      Mr. Butterfill: I have the disadvantage of not having served on the Standing Committee although, together with my hon. Friends on the Select Committee, I considered a number of these issues. The effect of the amendment is not entirely clear, and perhaps when the Minister replies it will become a little clearer. At present, the directors and, indeed, the officers of the company have personal liability under certain circumstances for malfeasance and can be sued individually. Is the hon. Gentleman intending to pass on to the nominee a similar liability vis-à-vis his duties in the particular connection that he proposes? If so, does he think that it will be easy to find a nominee under those circumstances?
      Mr. Mitchell: It is good to hear the voice of the vested interests again expressed here, even if it did not get on to the Committee. The answer is that the directors have that responsibility, but they are also responsible for having regard to the interests of the company's employees in general. They have both responsibilities. They continue to be in charge of the company during this period. I want the nominee to be impressed with the same responsibility. It is fairly simple. It does not detract from the directors—they have the responsibility too. The new clause would spread the responsibility to the nominee.
      Mr. Butterfill rose—
      Mr. Mitchell: No, I do not want to give way again, because the tear-jerking picture of directors at risk will be paraded before us. I simply want the responsibility that directors have to employees to be shared. I am not going to get bogged down in that argument.
      Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mitchell: No. I am sorry, but I am moving on.
      Mr. Butterfill rose—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has said that he will not give way.
      Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has publicly accused me of representing a vested interest in the Bill. I want him to tell the House what vested interest he thinks I represent.
      Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman may be somewhat sympathetic to the interests of directors. He paints that picture of directors at risk, giving the impression that the risk would be increased if the nominee shared the same responsibilities and had to pay attention to the workers' interests. That is why I accused him of pushing a vested or a sectional interest—that of the directors. I am speaking for the interests of the employees. I do not want to go further down that road—I did not want to give way in the first place, but I did so out of courtesy. The point was largely irrelevant, but it has been answered.
      1128
      Amendment No. 46 is designed to ensure that the nominee is accountable to directors and the public. At present, the Bill only requires the nominee to inform the court when the moratorium has been brought to an end. It does not require the public filing of information on matters that have to be disclosed.
      The Bill would extend what amounts to a state-guaranteed market for insolvency and business restructuring, to the benefit of insolvency practitioners. They have that privilege and it should be accompanied by an accountability requirement. That is what I am trying to impose in amendment No. 46.
      Amendment No. 47 would bring paragraphs 26 and 28 of schedule 1 into alignment with each other. The Bill does not recognise that creditors, members of companies and other stakeholders have the right to ask the courts to seek a replacement of the nominee. Under paragraph 26, they can apply to the court if they are dissatisfied with what is going on, but they do not have the power that is given to the directors in paragraph 28 to have the nominee replaced. Those powers should be equal. The amendment would bring paragraphs 28 and 26 into line by extending the power to any creditor, member of the company or other person affected by the moratorium. That seems to be a balanced requirement.
      Amendment No. 3 is the nub of my argument on Report, as it was in Committee. We should impose on the nominee a duty of care to the employees of the company. Why does the Bill not impose that duty—to have regard to the interests of employees when making decisions? As the Bill stands, only the interests of creditors are promoted and protected. We are a Parliament that is elected by the people for all the people. We should enact legislation that benefits as many people as possible—not merely the minority covered by these procedures.
      I proposed a similar amendment in Committee. The Minister's response was that he was not keen to change the legislation and to recognise the rights of employees, which I regret. Where we have the power to do so, we should. My hon. Friend also stated that an employee's position is no different from that of any other creditor. Most employees will be creditors and, in that capacity, they can make representations to the nominee and even go to court. The response that they are merely creditors is flawed. Creditors' committee meetings are dominated by the major creditors, which usually means the bank and the insolvency practitioner. Working together, they dominate the proceedings and other people do not get a look-in. A nominee needs to be expressly instructed in legislation to ensure that employee interests are not overlooked. That is the duty of care imposed in the amendment.
      4.15 pm
      I recall in Committee the touching picture painted of workers at Sturmey Archer by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) who has put his name to amendment No. 3. He talked of their difficulties in understanding what was going on and getting representation. Let us give the nominee a duty of care.
      The Minister has replied that employees are creditors and, as such, have rights. I am seeking recognition of their rights as employees, not as creditors. After all, it is the blood, sweat, muscles and brawn of workers that keep the company going. Without that human capital, no business

      1129
      will survive. At the restructuring of the company, matters that are crucial to all have to be decided—pension rights, jobs, wage levels, security and all the things that go with a job. Those matters cannot be discussed without the employees or their representatives being involved—if they have a trade union to do it, I am happy with that because a trade union will always represent the interests of the employees.
      Directors have a responsibility to attend to the interests of employees and that should be the nominee's responsibility too. All those rights should be respected in business. In this legislation, we have the opportunity to ensure that those rights are protected and to incline the balance to the workers. It is not an onerous imposition or a radical restructuring of the Bill. It is merely saying that in the vulture culture, when all the creditors move in and everyone is grabbing, either to keep the company going or to close it down—grabbing for the assets and getting the best deal for themselves—someone should pay attention to the interests of the workers and have a duty of care to them. Someone should involve their representatives in the discussions.
      We are in power and we are a Labour party. This is the party of the workers and the trade unions. We should incline the balance to them by the simple procedure of a duty of care. In the new clause, I have modified the provision and toned it down so as not to frighten the Minister or his advisers. The full-blooded statement is in amendment No. 3, and either would be suitable—obviously, I prefer the amendment. I cannot see why the Minister cannot leap to his feet and say, "Yes. I've seen the light. This is the responsibility of a Labour Minister. Let us have new clause 3."
      Mr. Page: I will speak to amendment No. 33, but before I do so, I will deal briefly with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). His new clause has merit and I hope that the Minister will not be as hard-hearted and dismissive as he was in Committee. I hope that he will try to understand that the workers in a company have rights and responsibilities, and that a Labour Government should be looking after them, not casting them to one side.
      The hon. Member for Great Grimsby accused Conservative Members of blowing hot and cold. If we agree with the hon. Gentleman, we are right, but if we introduce the slightest balance, we are wrong and we are promoting vested interests. The attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) was unjustified, unwarranted and without any evidence. That is typical of the way in which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—with great humour, and most amusingly—shoots from the hip.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: In fairness to the House, if an hon. Member states that another hon. Member has a vested interest, it is incumbent on the hon. Member making that assertion to say exactly what those vested interests are. It is not necessarily wrong to have a vested interest—it all depends on the import one gives to the word "vested". Does my hon. Friend agree that our
      1130
      principal duty is not to support one sectional or vested interest against another, but to ensure that our legislation is fair?
      Mr. Page: My hon. Friend makes the point that I was trying to make: we should introduce balance in whatever we say. I certainly would never accuse a Labour Member of representing the vested interests of a trade union. Why should a Member not represent such interests? That is part of the great spread of diverse interests represented in the House; we hear a variety of views and can form a judgment. From such a balance, we can come to the best decision for the people of this country. That is why we are sent to this place.
      I resent being lumped in under the term "vested interest". I remind the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that I introduced a ten-minute Bill that proposed splitting responsibilities: someone involved in the valuation of a company should not be allowed to carry out the liquidation. I think that the hon. Gentleman agreed with me—he praised me for that proposal—but now he lines me up with the vested interests against which he obviously has a vendetta. He would do more for everybody and do it better if he balanced his words more carefully, and thought before shooting from the hip.
      When one disagrees with the legislation under discussion, it is a standing temptation to regard it as coming from cloud cuckoo land. That seems odd to me, as according to the Greek play by Aristophanes, the laws of logic applied more rigorously in cloud cuckoo land than they did on earth, but I use the term in its currently accepted sense when I apply it to this aspect of the Bill.
      Dr. Howells: I am slightly confused as to whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill or the amendment comes from cloud cuckoo land.
      Mr. Page: The Minister will have the opportunity later to tell me that my amendment comes from cloud cuckoo land; I was saying that the balance in this part of the Bill comes from there.
      I should like to be able to say that the Bill's provisions for applying to the courts were entirely logical and straightforward. Creditors can apply, as can directors and anyone affected by the moratorium—including the company; so can liquidators, administrators, shareholders and the supervisors of voluntary agreements, but not the nominee.
      Nominees will have responsibility for assessing whether voluntary arrangements proposed by a company's directors are likely to be approved and implemented—the kernel of the Bill. Such nominees will also have to come to a view on whether the voluntary arrangements are likely to be improved without modification, or whether they might fail. Those are huge and important responsibilities.
      With great respect to the Minister, it is for this House and the other place to decide whether a nominee should have the right to apply to the courts when he or she may need guidance on the performance of his or her duties. If his or her decisions can be challenged in the courts by the parties I mentioned, surely it is fair and equitable to afford the nominee an equal opportunity to exercise that right.
      The purpose of the amendment is not to give nominees an escape clause so that they can evade their responsibilities and under which courts would take over

      1131
      those administrative and commercial decisions. I suspect that the Minister's opposition to the amendment is based on Mr. Justice Neuberger's decision—as though he and not Parliament ran the country. Although I have enormous respect for Mr. Justice Neuberger, it is not for him to decide whether nominees, or any insolvency holder, should have the right to apply to the court when in doubt about the decision that should be made; it is for Parliament to decide whether nominees should have that right. If we decide that they should have such a right, judges should respect that—unless, of course, the matter involves human rights issues.
      At present, everyone involved in the whole chain of events—except the nominee—can apply to the court. Yet the nominee has to make that crucial decision that will bring the moratorium into effect, or will continue it. At times such a decision can be extremely difficult, especially if the nominee forms the view that the original voluntary arrangement will not be approved, but is likely to be approved with modifications proposed by a creditor.
      The proposed procedure is novel—it does not take a tried and trusted path; the company could obtain a moratorium by applying to an authorised person rather than to a judge. The difficult decisions that were made by judges will be made by authorised persons. In Committee, we were all fully aware of how many times the Minister was asked to explain by which route the nominees might appear. In a rare show of comradeship with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I acknowledge his excellent and valid point about the number of organisations that could license practitioners. The measure would add yet another one, but in a rather vague and nebulous form—appearing from the ether or through some osmotic process, an organisation would be approved by the Secretary of State and could then approve a nominee.
      We should proceed along that route with caution. I must not say that the Minister has been sloppy, but he has only made vague and conciliatory noises about what a future nominee might be like—hard facts and detail are lacking.
      Those authorised persons do not have to hold the same qualifications as a licensed insolvency practitioner. We are well aware of the views of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on those gentlemen. It is important that the Secretary of State should ensure that if he creates even more bodies that can grant approval to carry out such work, they should be of a standard and quality that will be a help rather than a hindrance.
      During proceedings on the measure, we frequently made the critical comment that it is half a Bill, or even less than half a Bill. It would have been an ideal measure under which to introduce monitoring or quality control of the operations of insolvency practitioners. But no such provisions were included. The issue certainly occupied the time of one member of the Committee. He made his argument forcibly and we were all made aware of what he was trying to achieve. The House will have gathered that I refer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
      4.30 pm
      Just as there are rogue directors—although the vast majority of directors are decent people who work hard to the best of their ability—so too there are licensed practitioners who do not behave appropriately, but the majority do a good job.
      1132
      I was pleased to hear from the new named body of licensed practitioners—the Association of British Recovery Professionals—that its title includes the word "recovery". I recently received, as did every member of the Committee, a letter from that body, saying that the word "recovery" is now very much in the forefront of its thinking. That is a change of emphasis and direction, which I am sure we all welcomed.
      If the Bill does nothing more than to introduce the culture of rescue and recovery earlier in the process, it will have achieved something. Too many businesses run right to the wire, when they could have been saved if they had taken decisions earlier. In the United States an eminent gentleman—so eminent that his name escapes me—conducted research and discovered that if a company had taken slightly earlier the measures that it took in the last six months of its existence, it would have been rescued. Too many directors do nothing until the cliff edge is crumbling beneath their feet, and by then it is far too late—too late for moratoriums or any form of rescue. If any message is to be conveyed from this place to company directors, I hope that it will be my strong encouragement to seek advice and help earlier, instead of bottling things up and thinking that they can work their way out of their difficulties. In so many cases, neither success nor rescue comes, and the inevitable pain of bankruptcy follows.
      I return to my comments about the fear that the authorised person will not be of sufficient quality. I do worry that a number of authorised persons will be out of their depth, so to my mind it would be bizarre and pointless to deny them the right to appeal to the court. What conceivable advantage can there be in denying the nominee such an opportunity? If he applies to the court unnecessarily, wasting the court's time, the court's displeasure will no doubt be exhibited and reflected in an appropriate order for costs, but it cannot be right to deny the nominee the right to apply to a court when he has a real need for guidance.
      I urge the Government to reconsider the amendment.
      Mr. Burnett: I shall speak to new clause 3 and amendment No. 46.
      I was delighted to hear the speech by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) because I believe that there is very significant support in all parts of the House for new clause 3. It is not draconian. We are talking about duties that are already imposed on directors. They are not onerous.
      Let us read what the new clause says. It imposes the burden of section 309(1) of the Companies Act 1985 on nominees—and why should nominees not have regard to the interests of the company's employees? The new clause is pretty tame, and not onerous. It merely provides that the nominee should at least consider the interests of the company's employees.
      Dr. Howells rose—
      Mr. Burnett: I am happy to give way to the Minister.
      Dr. Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the intent of the Bill is to offer some companies the opportunity

      1133
      to survive and to continue trading, and therefore to help employment? The whole point of the Bill is to offer support for employees, because without it, they will not have jobs.
      Mr. Burnett: I entirely agree that the object of the exercise is to promote the rescue culture. We have in this country a particularly creditor-friendly business culture. I believe that all hon. Members who served on the Committee, from whatever party they came, recognised that. If the moratorium has the effect of keeping a company in existence, that is marvellous, but in taking his or her decisions, the nominee should at least have regard to the interests of the company's employees. That is not an onerous provision. Nominees must consider such matters. They may disregard them, but they must at least consider the number of employees in the company, whether the company should contract and whether people should be sacked. They should at least give those matters some weight. That is all that the new clause would provide. In my view, it is entirely correct. The employees have invested their time and efforts in the company and been loyal to it, and their interests should at least be considered.
      Amendment No. 46 is not draconian or onerous in the slightest. At present, insolvency practitioners have almost carte blanche to charge what they like. There is little scope for those fees to be taxed or challenged, and that is deeply unfair to directors, employees and creditors—particularly unsecured creditors.
      The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is not the only hon. Member who has highlighted that unfairness. Two or three years ago, no less a Member than the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject. The amendment is a small step in the right direction. Fees and other matters should be reported to the Registrar of Companies. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will tell us what he hopes to do and what provision his Department proposes to make to remedy this and other defects in the legislation, which were highlighted from both sides of the Committee.
      Mr. Brian White: I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I suspect that I could have a long discussion with him about the things for which his constituents should be thankful to the Government—not least the national minimum wage—but I shall leave that for now.
      In Committee an awful lot of examples were cited of the type of problems that the amendments would address and the Minister expressed some sympathy for the points that were raised. We should remember that the Bill deals with small companies, and that the period when discussions are held about whether to impose a moratorium is often traumatic for employees—it is probably the most stressful time of their lives. As the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) put it, a decision taken early can save jobs.
      I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply, because one thing that concerns me about the Government's unwillingness to accept the amendments is that, as I
      1134
      understand it, the Minister's argument in Committee was that employees are creditors and so are protected because they are part of the creditors' meeting. He argued that if they are not creditors, they are just normal employees and are protected by the directors. My worry is that the influence of the nominee in overriding the directors' wishes or suggesting to directors that they should go in a slightly different direction will be at variance with the interests of employees and key personnel. It is not unknown for key personnel, especially of small IT companies, to be poached and to move to other companies. There are several such key issues that the creditors' meeting would not address which would be crucial to the nominee's administration and the way in which the directors operate the company during the moratorium.
      If the nominee does not have a duty of care to employees, I fear that the directors will say, "Of course, we would like to look after you, but this nasty nominee is telling us to do something different." Because of the relationship between the nominee and the directors, the terms and conditions of employees could be directly affected by decisions that they cannot influence.
      My hon. Friend the Minister seems to rely greatly on the fact that employees will receive protection as creditors, but there are other concerns that he did not address in Committee.
      Mr. Burnett: We considered two particular points in Committee. The first was the duty of nominees to creditors and the second was whether an employee was likely to be a creditor. In fact, he or she will almost certainly be a creditor. Therefore, does the hon. Gentleman agree that new clause 3 at least provides for the interests of a company's employees to be regarded by the nominee during the moratorium?
      Mr. White: That is why I have some sympathy for the new clause and shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments. The emphasis in the Committee was on the employees' role as creditors, but the issue goes beyond that. If we do not consider the problem fully, the Bill may not achieve its aims of saving people's jobs and giving them hope by providing a breathing space. If there is a simple duty of care on the nominee, different decisions may be taken and that may secure the employment of the people in the company concerned.
      Mr. Butterfill: The House owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for bringing this matter to its attention. New clause 3 and amendment No. 46 deserve serious consideration. Like the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), I am minded to support amendment No. 46, but I am not entirely clear about how the new clause will function. I shall listen to the Minister's considered reply before I make up my mind. In principle, the idea that there should be a duty to look after the interests of employees should be accepted by all reasonable people.
      Mr. Burnett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the provision in new clause 3 is not as strong as that—it is a pretty tame proposal. It would be a requirement not to look after the interests of employees but to have regard to them.
      Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me on this, because he is a qualified lawyer with experience of the legal niceties. However, I shall listen to the Minister before I finally make up my mind.
      Mr. Page: My hon. Friend, who was savaged earlier by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), is showing his true colours by considering the matter dispassionately. Does he not agree that employees would be best served by amendment No. 46? If the Registrar of Companies is notified of the fees charged, the basis of the charge and the terms and outcome of the moratorium, there is more chance—if things go wrong—of money being recovered to pay creditors and employees. Will that not give those in the company a better chance of receiving something if, sadly, the moratorium does not work?
      Mr. Butterfill: I have already said that I support amendment No. 46. It is admirable and will go a long way to dealing with some of the rare but considerable abuses that take place from time to time when companies go into liquidation.
      4.45 pm
      I have been nice about the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, but I was a little disappointed when he did not follow the best traditions of the House and did not allow me to intervene when he was rather rude and accused me of defending vested interests. My interests are fully declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I have two small directorships of family companies that do not have any employees other than the directors themselves. Therefore, I have no interest to defend in that respect. I have already talked about my experience as a non-executive director of Maples.
      The hon. Gentleman seeks to include in the Bill provisions from the Companies Act 1985, which was passed by a Conservative Administration. If this Bill is passed, in the event of a liquidation, the nominee will have a duty to consider the interests of all those concerned. That is important. The hon. Gentleman referred to vultures, but they may be defending the interests of customers. For example in the case of Maples, our constituents—many of them pensioners—might have put down a £1,000 deposit on a three-piece suite, which would represent a huge purchase for them. Suddenly, the company went bust and they wanted their money back. Customers are also entitled to consideration, and it is always extremely difficult to balance the different interests and to treat everyone even-handedly and fairly, particularly if one knows that not everyone will be paid in full. On reflection, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
      I have just voted for a new clause that would have helped to prevent the abuses that have occurred in some companies. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not support it, and he may recall that the Insolvency Act 1993 started as a private Member's Bill that I promoted. It protected the innocent purchasers of property that could be seized by a receiver or a liquidator. I changed the law to defend innocent purchasers from those that the hon. Gentleman describes as vultures. I do not apologise for my record on this issue.
      1136
      The general theme of this group of amendments is the nominee's supervisory activity in relation to the moratorium. Unfortunately, I am the only contributor to the debate who did not serve on the Standing Committee, but I served on the Select Committee that considered the draft Bill. Therefore, I wish to point out the respects in which the Government have failed to meet the concerns that the Select Committee expressed.
      One of the dangers is that nominees could face a conflict of interest. They will be invited by the directors to take up a paid position and a few in the profession—I hope not many—might think that it is worth taking such a rewarded post even if they think that a company does not have much chance of surviving. That would be regrettable, but the Government have failed to include in the Bill one of the defences that the Select Committee drew to its attention. If the directors of a company fail to attract the person that they want as nominee because he does not think that the company will survive, they may go to as many as 20 people to trawl for a nominee. Eventually, they may find a person who is sufficiently self-motivated to do the job.
      The Select Committee suggested that the Government should include a defence against trawling, but they signally failed to do so. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why. Equally, the Government are changing the requirement for qualifications of nominees. That again exacerbates the danger. Up to now, only qualified insolvency practitioners have been able to fulfil that role, but the Bill will allow anyone with an appropriate qualification or who is a member of a recognised professional body to fulfil the task.
      Plenty of people, such as certified accountants and chartered accountants, are members of appropriate professional bodies. Although they might be good accountants and produce good audits, they might have no experience of the specialised subject of insolvency. Again, the Select Committee made it clear that it was concerned that the Government were considering involving such people. A broad spectrum of people made representations to the Committee, and many of them expressed the same concerns. The Select Committee concluded that it might have been better if the Government had left this particular change to the wider review of the whole issue of insolvency.
      We are all—I hope—interested in protecting every section of the public, including, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, employees, but that must be even-handed, transparent and above all fair.
      Dr. Howells: I shall deal first with amendment No. 3 and new clause 3 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
      The amendment seeks to place on a nominee and a supervisor a duty of care to employees. However, I am not sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that it would place a duty of care on a supervisor only under the existing voluntary arrangement procedure—that is, without the moratorium. It is also not at all clear whether the proposed duty on a nominee is to apply in both moratorium and non-moratorium cases. Either way, I believe that neither the new clause nor the amendment is necessary.

      1137
      The first part of the amendment would provide for the supervisor to owe employees a duty of care in the existing voluntary arrangement procedure but, as I have said, that is not necessary. Section 7(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 provides:
      If any of the company's creditors or any other person is dissatisfied by any act, omission or decision of the supervisor, he may apply to the court.
      Therefore, if employees have concerns about the way in which the supervisor is acting, the 1986 Act already provides them with the ability to challenge the actions of the supervisor by seeking an appropriate order.
      New clause 3 is not necessary either. Paragraph 26 of proposed new schedule Al similarly allows
      any other person affected by a moratorium
      to apply to the court if he is dissatisfied by any act, omission or decision of the nominee.
      Mr. Burnett: Why should employees have to bother to apply to the court? Will the Minister concede that we are not proposing an onerous duty?
      Dr. Howells: A proper procedure must be followed. I shall expand on this matter when I address the important issues raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who spoke about redressing the balance in the way in which the case is presented. That is an important issue. I know from the many cases that arrive on my desk from the companies investigation team at the Department of Trade and Industry that we cannot blind ourselves to the truth that there are many sharp directors who are prepared to fleece creditors, some of whom are pensioners who might have used their savings to put down a deposit on a three-piece suite, as the hon. Gentleman said. We must take into account all stakeholders, not just employees.
      I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby might have misunderstood the function of the supervisor and the nominees in a moratorium case. Neither will assume control of the company. I have said that a number of times, but hon. Members have not taken it on board. The purpose of the supervisor will be to perform the duties as set out for him in the voluntary arrangement. The nominee's role during the moratorium is set out clearly in proposed new schedule 1A.
      The directors will remain in charge of the company both during and after the moratorium. We therefore do not consider it appropriate to include a provision in the Bill that imposes such an undefined duty of care on a supervisor. Nor do we think it right that he should have to consult employees' representatives or that nominees should be subject to the duty imposed in section 309 of the Companies Act 1985. That section, which is headed
      Directors to have regard to interests of employees,
      states:
      Accordingly, the duty imposed by this section on the directors is owed by them to the company (and the company alone) and is enforceable in the same way as any other fiduciary duty owed to a company by its directors.
      1138
      We must remember that the directors are still in charge of a company in a moratorium, and section 309 continues to apply. Therefore, they should have regard to that duty when framing a rescue plan. That is my point which, for whatever reason, my hon. Friends do not want to accept.
      Mr. White: Many examples were given in Committee of employees whose directors did not act in the way outlined by the Minister. Will he undertake to ensure that, for the purposes of this Bill, that duty will be publicised clearly so that people who go into voluntary arrangements understand it?
      Dr. Howells: I readily concede that successive Governments have done a bad job in making employees aware of their rights in such circumstances, but it is clear from section 309 that those rights are already enshrined in law. Far too often, trade unions do not take sufficient notice of them and employees do not know about them. I am not so worried about employees who are represented by trade unions, but about non-union, low-paid shop workers because those people do not have the confidence or the knowledge to use what is available. That is the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) is right to say that we have a real job to do to educate people.
      Mr. Burnett: We are not talking about directors—we know that they must comply with section 309(1). I hope that the Minister will direct his attention to the fact that new clause 3 would impose on a nominee the very small burden of having to have regard to the interests of the company's employees.
      Dr. Howells: I have tried already to respond to that point. I have said that it is an unnecessary burden, and I believe just that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said in Committee that he was looking for a way of ensuring that employees' interests were included in the equation. He will understand that supervisors and nominees will be aware that employees are able to make application under section 7(3) or paragraph 24, and should take that right into account when performing their duties. Additionally, supervisors and nominees will be aware that if they act in such a way as to give rise to a course of action—such as in tort—they will be vulnerable to legal action, and they would have to take that into account too.
      On amendment No. 3, given the supervisor's function, it would be inappropriate for him to have regularly to consult employees' representatives. However, if an employee happened also to be a creditor, the supervisor would keep him informed of progress in the same way as he would other creditors.
      I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby referred to amendment No. 47 after dealing with new clause 3 and amendment No. 3. It is a similar amendment to one that he tabled in Committee. Like that one, I believe that amendment No. 47 is unnecessary. First, it is not necessary for any creditor or any member of the company to be able to make such an application. If he or she is not happy with the existing nominee, they can vote to change the nominee at the meeting summoned under paragraph 29 of schedule A1. That can be achieved by proposing that it be a condition of any extension of the

      1139
      moratorium that the nominee be replaced. I hope that the House accepts that. Alternatively, it can be proposed that the nominee be changed by amending the voluntary arrangement proposal considered by the meeting. It would be up to the meeting to pass such a proposal. We do not consider it appropriate that anyone should be able to apply to the court to change the nominee. The right contained in paragraph 28 to make application to the court to replace the nominee is designed to deal with specific circumstances.
      5 pm
      The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West raised an extremely important point. I have said that I see far too many cases of shysters fleecing those whom we refer to as creditors. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby knows about those cases. I had one recently that received much publicity. It involved the World of Leather, where extremely dubious practices were carried on in the last few weeks of trading.
      Constituents were affected throughout the country and there were some sad results. Many people did not get their money back and they did not get their three-piece suites. They are creditors—it is not only the big banks that are creditors, along with the circulating vultures, as my hon. Friend referred to them. I know of elderly and poor people who saved up for three-piece suites and did not get them. We must remember that the process is designed to protect those people, as much as it is designed to ensure fair play in every other respect. We are offering a period of respite for companies when they feel that they are in trouble. Perhaps the Bill will significantly add to that rescue culture.
      The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West asked whether directors will be encouraged to shop around for a nominee until they find one who is prepared to sign the necessary statement. His intervention was tantamount to that. The likelihood is that in practice they will not have time to do that. We should bear that in mind. However, there seems no good reason why directors should not be able to test the market.
      In the early days of consideration of the Bill in Committee, there was much discussion about the enormous fees that are charged by insolvency practitioners. Many allegations were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and others about dubious practices concerning fee setting and levels of fees. Perhaps the Bill will go some way towards breaking that monopoly.
      Mr. Butterfill: It is not that I have any concern about people shopping around to get the best fee. That is entirely admirable. I am worried that if they shop around and are repeatedly turned down because experienced professionals say that there is no hope of their acting as nominees, they will eventually find someone who for self-interest—that of earning a few quid—will say, "Yes, I'll do it." That point, which the Government have not addressed, was addressed by the Select Committee.
      Dr. Howells: I shall try to convince the hon. Gentleman that we have addressed it and that we are concerned.
      As the hon. Gentleman says, some nominees might be more rescue-oriented than others for many reasons, good as well as bad. We know that there is a flip side to
      1140
      the coin. There are some professionals who are notoriously not interested in rescues, whereas there are others who generally are. It could work both ways. Any prospective nominee should be up to the standard expected of him. There is no question about that. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). I believe that they will be up to the proper standard because they will be authorised and regulated by a body recognised by the Secretary of State for that purpose. However, if needed, in the unlikely event of a director being able to pull the wool over a nominee's eyes, various remedies are available in schedule A1 to address the abuse. Not the least of those is the offence contained in paragraph 40, which provides for the punishment of those who make false representations and the like to obtain a moratorium.
      Those of us who have previously been involved with the Bill are accustomed to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talk about the importance of public accountability of insolvency practitioners, and he is right to highlight that. However, in amendment No. 46, he is again talking about fees. I am glad that he wants to discuss fees, which are an important subject and one that is obviously dear to his heart—but the fact is that the Bill is not about the regulation of practitioners' fees.
      At issue is the requirement on the nominee to give notice of the end of a moratorium. That requirement can arise for two reasons, among others: first, because the moratorium has come to an end without a voluntary arrangement being agreed; and, secondly, when an arrangement has taken effect following the meetings of a company and its creditors. In the first instance, the question of payment of the nominee's fees will be a matter for the company and its directors, not anyone else, to deal with. In the second instance, the nominee's fees will be a matter for the meetings to consider when voting on whether or not to accept the voluntary arrangement. What the nominee is to be paid is a matter that must be included in a voluntary arrangement, under rule 1.3 of the existing company voluntary arrangement procedure, and we intend that a similar provision should apply to the new moratorium procedure.
      My hon. Friend should also take comfort from paragraph 32 of the new schedule, which sets out that, if a meeting proposes to extend the moratorium, the nominee has to inform the meeting of the costs of his monitoring activity up to that point and what he intends to do in that respect during the proposed extension. Therefore, anticipated costs will have to be approved if the moratorium is not to end. In those circumstances, I consider it to be neither necessary nor appropriate for the nominee to have to give the notice set out in amendment No. 46 regarding his fees.
      My hon. Friend also desires the nominee to have to notify various individuals of
      any adverse court judgment or disciplinary findings by any of the Recognised Supervisory Bodies.
      I do not consider that to be appropriate to the Bill, which my hon. Friend described in Committee as a very modest measure. Such issues have nothing to do with a moratorium and, as I have said before, practitioner regulation is not a matter for the Bill.
      The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire spoke to amendment No. 33, which is identical to one that he tabled in Committee. For the benefit of those who have

      1141
      not had a chance to read Hansard, I repeat that we do not consider it necessary to provide the nominee with the power to apply to the court for directions. The nature of the nominee's role is such that he should not be in a position in which such an application would be appropriate. Commercial and administrative decisions are for the nominee, not for the court. We do not consider that the court should be used to provide the nominee with a way in which to avoid taking decisions that are, rightly, for him, or to enable him to obtain the court's endorsement of his intended course of action.
      I look to Mr. Justice Neuberger for neither direction nor support, but the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire is correct to say that I take a great deal of comfort from Mr. Justice Neuberger' s ruling in the case of T and D Industries plc and another, relating to a company that was the subject of an administration order.
      Having made those points, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby will withdraw his amendment and that the others will not be pressed.
      Mr. Mitchell: I should make a couple of points before coming to my agonising decision about whether to keep the House on tenterhooks by pressing the matter to a Division.
      In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), may I say that I was not neglecting the big things that the Labour Government are doing: they are important and the Government are successful. What I said was that, as Back-Benchers, we have a little influence on legislation affecting the way in which companies are run, insolvencies administered and companies rescued, and we should use that opportunity to tilt the balance towards our section of society and the workers. We have only a little influence but we can do much to improve society through little changes to legislation. That seems to me to be the responsibility of the Back Bencher. We do not get much responsibility, for heaven's sake; we should use what we have.
      I did not want to take the question from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) because I did not want to go down that legalistic path. If the hon. Gentleman understood me to say that he represented vested interests or, worse still, that he was one of the vultures I was criticising, I correct that impression and apologise. I was not saying that.
      The hon. Gentleman was asserting the primacy of company directors by pointing out their legal responsibilities—to the detriment of the workers, I thought. My sole point was about the need to swing the balance towards the workers.
      Mr. Butterfill rose—
      Mr. Mitchell: No, I will not give way.
      I make no correction on the vulture culture. In too many cases the interests of the banks is predominant, and in the scrabble over the money, the banks have enormous power. I know that there are tear-jerking pictures of people all over the country who are owed small sums by fraudulent companies, but that is not what we are discussing.
      Through the Bill, we are trying to instil the rescue culture, to keep companies going. The power of the vultures to close companies down and to call in debt,
      1142
      in the unpredictable, lurching way in which banks do that, needs to be checked. All that I am trying to do is to tilt the balance towards the workers. After all, we are the Labour party still, I think. We are a party of stakeholders, and voice the interests of stakeholders. We work in a European context, and workers' rights are properly advanced by all the proposals coming out of Europe—something that I strongly support. We have an opportunity, so why are we not doing what we can and should do?
      The trade unionists to whom I have spoken and with whom I formulated the amendments think that we will do so, but I am disappointed to find that my hon. Friend the Minister does not consider that necessary. I do not accept the argument that workers can apply to the courts. That is not part of their repertoire or expertise, and it should not be necessary if we write their primacy into legislation. I am not asking for the interests of the employees alone to be taken into consideration. I am asking for them to be taken into consideration, but not as the predominant influence.
      Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that he did not mean that it is not for workers or trade unions to take these matters to court. Many of the great advances that have been made by trade unions and workers have been made in court, as a result of brilliant advocacy. Even I am old enough to remember some of it, and I have witnessed it first-hand. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not mean what he just said.
      Mr. Mitchell: I wish that I could speak Welsh, rather than the simple verities of Yorkshire—pure language of the people of the north. I was not saying that at all. I said that applying to the courts was not part of workers' expertise. Certainly, they need backing and support from the trade unions, and the trade unions provide it. We can encourage them to provide more of it. If the rights of workers have been trampled on, it is the responsibility of the trade unions to help them to go to court, but in some cases workers are not members of trade unions. The courts are an uncertain way of making progress, and we could make progress in the matter by simply writing into the Bill the requirement of a duty of care to the workers. That is all I ask.
      I do not see why my hon. Friend is so adamant. I know that he has received advice to the effect that that would be a nuisance, would complicate matters and might lead to unforeseen consequences. I believe that it would set the tone for the entire procedure. My hon. Friend has turned down the idea and I am disappointed by his reply. It seems to me that as he is the Minister of social and corporate responsibility and as such issues are raised in that context, appropriate provisions should be included in the Bill.
      5.15 pm
      I was excited by the tumultuous support that I received from the other side of the House—Conservative Members are clamouring to support my proposal—but it puts me in an embarrassing situation. I would like to lead the Liberals and the Conservatives to the barricades and shout, "What about the workers?"
      Mr. Page: After the hon. Gentleman's dramatic words at the start of our debate, is he now saying that he will not press the new clause to a vote and will back off? Surely not!
      Mr. Mitchell: When I used the word "tumultuous" I was referring not to the hon. Gentleman's speech, but

      1143
      to the widespread support I received from Opposition Members. I was delighted by their support—that shows that they have learned something after failing the workers for 18 years. I am disappointed by the lack of support among Labour Members, especially from the Minister, and I am now in an embarrassing position. Neither of my two co-authors of the new clause could be present for the debate. In light of that, I give up. I did not push the matter in Committee because of a lack of killer instinct. With a feeling of sad impotence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 280.

      Division No. 338]

      [5.16 pm

      AYES

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

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

      Beggs, Roy

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Boswell, Tim

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Loughton, Tim

      Burnett, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burstow, Paul

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Page, Richard

      Pickles, Eric

      Chope, Christopher

      Rendel, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Collins, Tim

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Spring, Richard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Syms, Robert

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Welsh, Andrew

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Gray, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Harvey, Nick

      Mr. John Butterfill and

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mr. Brian Cotter.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ainger, Nick

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Allen, Graham

      Casale, Roger

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Caton, Martin

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cawsey, Ian

      Austin, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Banks, Tony

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Battle, John

      Clelland, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coaker, Vernon

      Beard, Nigel

      Coleman, Iain

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Connarty, Michael

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corston, Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cox, Tom

      Blackman, Liz

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Davidson, Ian

      Browne, Desmond

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Buck, Ms Karen

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

      Burden, Richard

      1144

      Dawson, Hilton

      MacShane, Denis

      Dismore, Andrew

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      McWalter, Tony

      Dowd, Jim

      McWilliam, John

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Etherington, Bill

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Martlew, Eric

      Flint, Caroline

      Maxton, John

      Flynn, Paul

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Meale, Alan

      Galloway, George

      Merron, Gillian

      Gapes, Mike

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Gardiner, Barry

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Miller, Andrew

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Moffatt, Laura

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mountford, Kali

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Grogan, John

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Olner, Bill

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hanson, David

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Healey, John

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pearson, Ian

      Heppell, John

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hesford, Stephen

      Pike, Peter L

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Plaskitt, James

      Hill, Keith

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pope, Greg

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Pound, Stephen

      Hope, Phil

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hurst, Alan

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Hutton, John

      Rammell, Bill

      Illsley, Eric

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Rogers, Allan

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Roy, Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ruane, Chris

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ruddock, Joan

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Salter, Martin

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Kemp, Fraser

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Khabra, Piara S

      Skinner, Dennis

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Soley, Clive

      Laxton, Bob

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Leslie, Christopher

      Spellar, John

      Levitt, Tom

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Linton, Martin

      Stevenson, George

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Lock, David

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Love, Andrew

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCabe, Steve

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      McDonnell, John

      Timms, Stephen

      McIsaac, Shona

      Touhig, Don

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Trickett, Jon

      McNulty, Tony

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      1145

      Tynan, Bill

      Winnick, David

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wood, Mike

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      White, Brian

      Wyatt, Derek

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Wills, Michael

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 9

      ADMINISTRATION ORDERS
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Page: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 6, line 7, at end insert "and occupied by".
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in page 6, line 14, at end insert "and occupied by".
      No. 23, in schedule 1, page 15, line 25, at end insert "and occupied by".
      No. 25, in schedule 3, page 38, line 19, after second "to", insert "and occupied by".
      No. 24, in page 38, line 37, after second "to", insert "and occupied by".
      Mr. Page: Unusually, I start by paying a small tribute to the Government and the Minister for at long last recognising the current legal difficulties affecting landlords and companies. The position was anomalous; it was and is quite illogical for a landlord to be prevented from taking proceedings against a company in possession of premises rented from that landlord when, at the same time, the landlord is allowed to re-enter such premises peaceably. Unfortunately, the Department's proposal is still confusing.
      It appears on the basis of the legal advice I have received—not from the good justice Neuberger, but from another source—that under the amendment tabled by the Minister in Committee, it would be possible for a landlord to be forbidden from peaceably re-entering premises that are not occupied by the company that has sought and obtained a moratorium. I find the reasoning behind that rather difficult to detect.
      The amendments are of a probing nature; I am a seeker after truth. Looking the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in the eye, I say that this is a query from a vested interest. It is important that this matter is clarified. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was in the Lobby, voting for the new clause. I commend him on his courage at this particular moment in his political career.
      The purpose of the new moratorium procedure is to protect companies that have a reasonable prospect of becoming viable during a limited period. We all say amen to that and we all hope that they will be viable not only for that limited period, but will successfully trade out of their difficulties. I agree with the Minister that it would be quite perverse for such companies to be deprived by a landlord of the premises that they legitimately occupy:
      1146
      however peaceably that landlord regained possession, the business would collapse and the purpose of the moratorium would be negated.
      Surely there should be no bar on a landlord reoccupying premises that the company in question is not using. It cannot be carrying on businesses vital to the success of the moratorium in premises that are unoccupied. I believe that the amendments would deal with the odd situation that the Bill will create. They will ensure that the landlord's legitimate interests in unoccupied premises are protected, while ensuring that companies under the protection of the new moratorium procedures do not suffer.
      As long ago as 15 June my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe pointed out in another place the problems that arose from the Bill in its previous form. I will not go through all the difficulties and problems that would emerge, but I can understand that it is a natural instinct for a company in difficulty to keep as many options open as possible.
      Would a fairer balance be struck if, as part of that application for a statutory moratorium, the tenant was required to specify those tenancies which were essential to the rescue effort? These would be protected by the moratorium, while the landlord's rights in relation to the remainder would be unaffected. This exception to the general rule could be achieved as part of the revision of the insolvency rules.
      Nothing brings home the value of an amendment more than examples from the real world, and I have one. Three months after an administrator was appointed, a debtor who had leased three properties from a large landlord produced a list of properties that the debtor wished to retain and take forward to see his company survive. One month's rent had been paid on one property, but nothing had been paid on the others. One unit had been sold with full payment of arrears, although it took some time for the landlord to receive confirmation that the arrears would be made good. The second unit had been closed, and the administrator wished to retain the third. As matters stand, the landlord would be forbidden from doing anything with the premises that were not required.
      As I said, my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe spoke about the matter some time ago, but it has taken six months for Government amendments to be introduced. Why on earth did it take so long to introduce those relatively simple amendments? That sort of delay is unacceptable. Furthermore, the lateness of the arrival of the Government amendments means that it has been difficult for the Opposition to consult all the interested parties, take advice and reach a satisfactory overall position. My amendments would address the problem, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the points that I have made.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). As the Minister will know, I generally support the Bill, although, in Committee, I argued for ways in which it could be improved. However, at the basis of the Bill is the fact that it is fair legislation. The Government's intention in establishing moratorium arrangements in insolvency legislation is to enable businesses to trade out of their difficulties if possible. I fully support the Minister in trying to achieve that.

      1147
      The British Property Federation has brought a certain matter to my attention. It states that the issue in question is the Government's
      proposal to reverse the Razzaq vs Pala court decision so that a landlord may not exercise the right of peaceable re-entry of a property while a voluntary moratorium agreement is in place without the permission of a court.
      I agree with the general principle of that proposal, as does the British Property Federation. However, the federation is concerned to ensure that the fair balance between the interests of landlords and tenants is not disturbed, and that both should feel that their interests are properly safeguarded under the legislation. I should tell the House, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in particular, that I am not a landlord or a tenant, so I do not have a vested interest in advancing that case. However, the British Property Federation makes a fair point.
      Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that property might be empty at the time of a moratorium because there is no stock and no money to pay for it? However, the moratorium would result in restructuring of finances and there could be cash and stock, and the property might have to be used again.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I think that I am at one with the hon. Gentleman. However I shall choose my words carefully and say that the balance of fairness would be preserved if, as an exception to the general rule, a tenant applying for a statutory moratorium was required to specify those tenancies that were essential to the rescue effort. Those would be protected by the moratorium, while landlords' rights in relation to the remainder would be unaffected. Our amendments would achieve that and ensure fairness. Will the Minister look at them sympathetically, as they would make the Bill fairer?
      Dr. Howells: I have a great deal of sympathy with the approach of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). It is an issue that we have to look at carefully. We undertook a short consultation and, not surprisingly, views were polarised. It could prove to be a bone of contention.
      The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) would permit a landlord to exercise the right of forfeiture by means of peaceful re-entry where the premises concerned were unoccupied without first having to go to court. As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) said, just because premises are unoccupied does not necessarily mean that they are essential to the rescue attempt, and that is why we do not consider the amendments to be appropriate.
      After consulting and listening to the arguments, we concluded that the best way to approach the issue was to give the landlord the right to apply to the court for leave to re-enter any premises leased by the company or debtor to see whether or not they were necessary to the rescue attempt. The court can decide whether it is appropriate for the landlord to exercise the right of forfeiture.
      The amendments could possibly mean that in order to ensure that a landlord could not exercise a right peaceably to re-enter premises, the company would have to ensure that the premises in question were physically occupied at all times. That seems unnecessary.
      1148
      There is also the point that the company may have sub-let its premises. In those circumstances, the premises clearly would not be occupied by the company, hence the landlord would presumably be free to exercise any right to peaceably re-enter despite the fact that the premises might be essential to the rescue attempt.
      If premises are no longer needed by a tenant, he is unlikely to defend any application by a landlord to forfeit the lease permitted by the court. Further, peaceable re-entry is not a frequently used right and also applies almost exclusively to business premises. In addition, the moratorium is very short, so the impact of the provision on a landlord would be limited in terms of time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation of where we stand and why we think that the amendments are not entirely appropriate.
      Mr. Page: In view of the Minister's explanation and the point that I had not fully considered regarding premises being sub-let, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 12

      INSOLVENT ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSONS
      Mr. Page: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 7, line 32, at end insert—
      'who has died after the commencement of this section'.
      The amendment appears to be relatively simple and straightforward and I hope that the Minister sees it that way as well. It is highly important as it deals with a problem on which Ministers here and in another place have failed to satisfy right hon. and hon. Members and experts in insolvency law outside the House.
      It is clear that the provision will have serious consequences for debtors who die before it comes into operation. I am advised that if the provision is enacted in its present form it will have retrospective effects. I am always reminded of a story about Winston Churchill. Someone told him that the first day of a child's life is one of the most dangerous, and Winston Churchill replied that the last is not without its hazards as well. Leaving that aside, I dread to think of the position of people who have arranged their affairs on the basis of what they understood the law to be.
      Widows who may be living on restricted means in modest accommodation may find themselves faced with debts equal to the value of the interest in their homes held by their dead husbands. It is obvious that they will not be able to pay, or if they do they will be eligible for a much greater degree of support from the social security system. I believe many things about the Government, but I do not believe that they intend or want such an effect, since ruining widows or families through retrospective changes in insolvency law would not win the votes or the popularity that all Governments seek.
      5.45 pm
      Far be it from me to try to help the Government to avoid the pitfalls of unpopularity, but the safeguard in the amendment would help them to avoid an unnecessary trap. I hope that that is a compelling argument for the

      1149
      Minister to accept it, especially bearing in mind the fact that he is one of the self-confessed architects of new Labour.
      Mr. Butterfill: I strongly support the amendment. It is a general principle of English law that legislation should not act retrospectively. It is not unknown for the House to pass retrospective legislation, but in general all Governments—and all hon. Members—have sought not to enact it, because it makes it difficult for people to plan their lives, creating unnecessary uncertainty and possibly affecting existing contractual arrangements.
      There has long been a principle in English law that joint tenants own both absolutely and jointly, and that when one dies, the whole reverts to the other—or others, as there may be more than one. If the Government feel that that is no longer a form of ownership that should be protected, the answer is surely to amend the law on joint tenancies rather than to single out that area in the Bill.
      Anomalies will be created. Building societies and others who have charges over property, in the expectation that they will achieve a charge over the whole in the case of a joint tenant, could have difficulties. The Bill is profoundly flawed on this matter, and that is compounded by the retrospective nature of clause 12.
      This is not a new issue. It was considered by the Trade and Industry Committee, which said:
      There is a genuine policy question as to whether the interests of a deceased debtor in property held jointly should be treated as forming part of his estate for the purpose of its administration in bankruptcy. This deserves to be addressed explicitly rather than by merely referring back to…the 1986 Act; it remains for Ministers to make a positive case
      for any such change.
      Clause 12 does precisely what the Trade and Industry Committee said that we should not do: it refers back to the 1986 Act. Frankly, that will not do. It is an abuse of the House and an affront to the Committee's recommendations. Another of its specific recommendations was:
      It would be useful if the explanatory notes could confirm that no retrospective effect is intended…
      The Bill does precisely the opposite. Neither the clause nor the retrospective effect should be allowed to survive.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) makes a powerful point that I wish to build on. When the Select Committee made the recommendation to which he referred, the Government responded in paragraph 20 of the fourth special report of the Trade and Industry Committee, issued on 8 February. They said that the Committee's comments had been noted, and that it would be made clear that the provisions would not have retrospective effect. Therefore the Government have already committed themselves to ensuring that the provision does not have retrospective effect, yet unless the amendment is accepted, clause 12 will have retrospective effect.
      In a short debate on my amendment (a) in Standing Committee, I found it hard to follow the Minister's argument as to why the provision would not be retrospective. Having looked at his argument again, I am convinced that the Bill is retrospective, and that if the Government stick to it they will be contradicting their undertaking to the Select Committee.
      1150
      The Minister told the Standing Committee:
      Hon. Members will appreciate that we must strike a balance between the interests of creditors who have not been paid by a deceased insolvent and a survivor who has become sole owner of what he or she formerly owned jointly with a deceased insolvent.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, Tuesday 7 November; c. 130.]
      That would be fine if the Bill applies only to people who die after it attains Royal Assent. However, what happens to such a survivor who finds, after the Bill is enacted, that the provision is used to alter the position that he or she was in before the legislation was implemented?
      Mr. Butterfill: I have an example in which my hon. Friend may be interested. In it, a woman who knows that her husband is terminally ill goes to a building society for a loan. It is granted on the basis that there is a joint tenancy and that, if the husband dies fairly quickly as is expected, she will own the whole property. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would mean that the building society's security would be halved?
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right, and I do not doubt that many other examples of that effect could be devised. However, that is the problem of retrospective legislation, as the Trade and Industry Committee recognised. The Government undertook that the provision would not have retrospective effect, but the Bill as it stands would have just that effect. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Burnett: Clause 12 is designed to deal with a well known mischief. It is manifestly unfair that a deceased insolvent's interest in joint property escapes the creditor's net, but it is also unfair to make the change retrospectively. Retrospective law is bad law and contrary to the House's traditions. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) gave the example of a woman whose only asset, after she is widowed, might be the property in which she lives and which she will inherit from her insolvent husband when he dies.
      Another problem appears in clause 12(3), which states that
      the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the interests of the deceased's creditors and of the survivor.
      However, the subsection continues:
      but, unless the circumstances are exceptional—
      and we do not know what is meant by "exceptional; that will be for the courts to decide in due course—
      the court must assume that the interests of the deceased's creditors outweigh all other considerations.
      That is pretty draconian and unfair.
      In reply to a point I made in Committee about how long this liability was to last, the Minister referred me to the Limitation Act 1980—that is, six years. An order might be made or applied for under this measure in respect of events that occurred five years ago. That is a bit tough, and I hope that the Minister reconsiders. I support the amendment.
      Dr. Howells: By way of clarification, the Select Committee did not consider this version of the clause. We have moved away from revesting a property in a trustee. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South-West

      1151
      Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has looked at what is, in effect, new clause 12, but as the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) has just pointed out, the court can only make a monetary order and it will apply only when a petition is presented after the new section comes into force.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will look at subsection (3), which was referred to by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. The court can do justice, having regard to all the interests concerned, which includes the interests of the former wife. I thought that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West gave a good example. It is entirely reasonable to assume that there will be such cases.
      Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but that is not what subsection (3) actually says. It makes it clear that only in exceptional circumstances will anybody other than the creditors of the deceased be taken into account. I am by no means convinced that the circumstances that I have described—which I think are deserving, and would be accepted as such by any reasonable person—are what a court might consider, strictly speaking, as exceptional circumstances.
      Dr. Howells: It is a statement of faith—obviously I have more faith in the courts than the hon. Gentleman in that respect. [Interruption.] I will be steady. I think that what I said in Committee still holds true: we need to strike a balance between the interests of creditors who have not been paid by a deceased insolvent and the survivor, who is the sole owner of what he or she formerly owned jointly with the deceased insolvent.
      We are not convinced that the creditors of an insolvent should be in a worse position if the debtor has died than if he or she were living. We think that limiting the application of the new provision so that it will apply only in those cases where the petition for the insolvency administration order is presented after the new provision comes into force strikes the appropriate balance.
      It must be remembered that prior to the Palmer case, it was understood that the survivor would automatically have been deprived of the deceased's interest and the creditors would have got the debtor's entire share. On that basis, no thought would have been given to the survivor's situation or interests.
      Clause 12 certainly does not treat the survivor as harshly as that. Indeed, it provides for the court to have a discretion to make a monetary order against the survivor, which is very important. It provides that the order will concern only so much of the value lost to the estate as is needed to meet the debts and other liabilities to which his estate is subject. In addition, the court will make such an order only after it has weighed the interests of both the survivor and the deceased's creditors; and in the balancing exercise, the court must assume that the interests of the deceased's creditors will outweigh all other considerations, unless the circumstances are exceptional.
      6 pm
      Mr. Chope: Is the Minister telling us that the measure may not prove retrospective in practice because one may be able to get the indulgence of the court not to apply it retrospectively? Nevertheless, the legislation will apply
      1152
      retrospectively and will put in jeopardy women whose husbands have died and who have relied upon having absolute entitlement to the formerly joint estate.
      Dr. Howells: It is a question of balance. The hon. Gentleman is right: a judgment has to be made. As I have tried to explain, the provision will apply only in those cases in which a petition has been presented after the measure comes into force. We think that that is right and I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Page: On Second Reading in another place, the noble Lord McIntosh said that he understood
      the need to be satisfied there is no retrospective aspect involved.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2000; Vol. 611, c. 1272.]
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said that he remained to be convinced that the Government's amendment would not have a retrospective effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred to the Select Committee report and touched on the matter yet again. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred the Minister to paragraph 20 of the Government's response to the Trade and Industry Committee, to the effect that the new provisions would not have a retrospective effect. My hon. Friend repeated that today.
      Mr. Chope: It is important that the words be on the record. They are:
      It will be made clear that provisions will not have retrospective effect.
      That is what the Government said.
      Mr. Page: I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for taking my next line away from me. which he did a number of times in Committee. My opportunity will come, however, as the wheel turns.
      Despite all those Government statements and despite what the Minister has said, there has been no move. In its present form, the Bill has a retrospective effect in relation to those debtors who die before
      the commencement of this section.
      As I said, and it bears repeating, there will be widows who live in modest accommodation on a modest pension, who have ordered their affairs with regard to the law, and who, if the Bill is enacted in its present form, will find that their affairs are no longer valid.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the plight of such a widow is compounded by the fact that, under (b), the petition for the order can be presented within five years of the day her husband died? That means that she may have to wait five years to find out whether the provision will descend upon her. That is the most appalling uncertainty in which to place her.
      Mr. Page: My hon. Friend makes his point. It is a fact of life that elderly people worry more than young people about security. I know of several of my elderly constituents who are desperately worried about accommodation and living in a secure environment. The risk of that environment being upset is exceedingly worrying.

      1153
      The provision will put widows under pressure and at risk. The Minister says that he has faith in the courts and so do I—particularly if one has a lot of money. My faith in the courts is such that, as I read the section, it clearly directs the courts that unless there are exceptional circumstances they must assume that the interests of the deceased's creditors outweigh all other considerations.
      The operative word is "exceptional". The Minister is therefore being disingenuous in his response. I do not believe that the effect that he described will be the effect in practice. The courts will, in practice, go for the extra money and those widows will be at risk, but—
      Mr. Chope: I hope that my hon. Friend is not going to seek to withdraw the amendment. Surely, this is a constitutional outrage. Why should not this House deal with the matter rather than leaving it to the other place? Their Lordships were very concerned about any retrospective provisions. Will my hon. Friend join me to divide the House on this important issue?
      Mr. Page: This is what friends are for. I have to tell my hon. Friend, having considered the Minister's answer, that I believe that although the thrust and tone of my amendment are right, the drafting is neither specific nor accurate enough to deal with the matter. The Minister has shown himself in his true colours by his answer. I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that it can be produced in another place and that the Government can find it in their heart to look at the matter once again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 210.

      Division No. 339]

      [6.5 pm

      AYES

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

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

      Beggs, Roy

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Boswell, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burnett, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Butterfill, John

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Page, Richard

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Pickles, Eric

      Rendel, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Spring, Richard

      Cotter, Brian

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Syms, Robert

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Gray, James

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Harvey, Nick

      Mr. Christopher Chope and

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Mr. David Heath.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Banks, Tony

      Ainger, Nick

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Barron, Kevin

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Battle, John

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bayley, Hugh

      Austin, John

      Beard, Nigel

      1154

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Hurst, Alan

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Hutton, John

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Illsley, Eric

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Jenkins, Brian

      Berry, Roger

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Blackman, Liz

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Browne, Desmond

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Burden, Richard

      Kemp, Fraser

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Khabra, Piara S

      Casale, Roger

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Caton, Martin

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Cawsey, Ian

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Clapham, Michael

      Laxton, Bob

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Levitt, Tom

      Clelland, David

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Linton, Martin

      Coleman, Iain

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Colman, Tony

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Connarty, Michael

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Cooper, Yvette

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Macdonald, Calum

      Cousins, Jim

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Cox, Tom

      McIsaac, Shona

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      MacShane, Denis

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McWalter, Tony

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

      McWilliam, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Dawson, Hilton

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dowd, Jim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Martlew, Eric

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Maxton, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Ennis, Jeff

      Meale, Alan

      Etherington, Bill

      Merron, Gillian

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Flint, Caroline

      Miller, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Foulkes, George

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Galloway, George

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Gapes, Mike

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mountford, Kali

      Gerrard, Neil

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Olner, Bill

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Grogan, John

      Pearson, Ian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Pike, Peter L

      Hanson, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Healey, John

      Pollard, Kerry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Pope, Greg

      Heppell, John

      Pound, Stephen

      Hesford, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Hope, Phil

      Rammell, Bill

      1155

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Rogers, Allan

      Timms, Stephen

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Touhig, Don

      Rowlands, Ted

      Trickett, Jon

      Roy, Frank

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ruane, Chris

      Tynan, Bill

      Ruddock, Joan

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Salter, Martin

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wareing, Robert N

      Skinner, Dennis

      White, Brian

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Soley, Clive

      Wills, Michael

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Winnick, David

      Spellar, John

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wood, Mike

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stevenson, George

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wyatt, Derek

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mr. Graham Allen and

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 15

      REPEALS AND AMENDMENTS
      Dr. Ho wells: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 9, line 40, at end insert—
      '(3) Section 356 of that Act (Authority's powers to participate in proceedings: company voluntary arrangements) is amended as follows—
      (a) for subsection (1), there is substituted—
      "(1) Where a voluntary arrangement has effect under Part I of the 1986 Act in respect of a company or insolvent partnership which is an authorised person, the Authority may apply to the court under section 6 or 7 of that Act.",
      (b) for subsection (2), there is substituted—
      "(2) Where a voluntary arrangement has been approved under Part II of the 1989 Order in respect of a company or insolvent partnership which is an authorised person, the Authority may apply to the court under Article 19 or 20 of that Order.",
      (c) in subsection (3), for "either" there is substituted "any" '.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 52 and 53.
      Dr. Howells: In Committee, the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) asked whether the Financial Services Authority should also be given the right to apply to a court under paragraph 39 of proposed new schedule Al to the Insolvency Act 1986, and he subsequently wrote to me on that point. I have carefully considered what he said, and I have concluded that we should afford the authority that further right—the right to make applications to the court on the grounds that any of the company's creditors or any other person is dissatisfied with the actions of the supervisor, and for the authority to be heard if such an application is made by another.
      1156
      However, we need to go a stage further. Such rights should also be afforded to the authority in respect of applications under section 7 of the 1986 Act and article 20 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. Those involve a procedure relating to existing voluntary arrangements without a moratorium, both here and in Northern Ireland. Such rights were not included in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 when it was passing through Parliament. We have concluded that they should have been, especially as the authority is given such rights in that Act to make an application and to appear on an application by another, in relation to the actions of a supervisor and the individual voluntary arrangements procedures.
      We have therefore tabled amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53, to give the authority the right to make applications and be heard on applications under those three provisions. All three allow applications to be made where any of the company's creditors, or any other person, is dissatisfied by any act, omission or decision of the supervisor.
      Mr. Page: I wish to express to the Minister my appreciation of the fact that he has listened to the arguments. We shall support him if amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53 are pressed to a vote.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 17
      EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 52, in page 10, line 8, after "except" insert "section 15(3),".—[Dr. Howells.]
  Schedule 1

    MORATORIUM WHERE DIRECTORS PROPOSE VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT
    Dr. Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 11, line 37, at end insert—
    '"money market contract" and "money market charge" have the meanings given by the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Money Market) Regulations 1995 ("the 1995 regulations"),'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 6 to 9.
    Amendment No. 1, in page 12, line 24, after "small", insert "or medium".
    Amendment No. 2, in page 14, line 12, leave out "28" and insert "90".
    Government amendments Nos. 10 to 12.
    Dr. Howells: The Bill already contains provisions to prevent the moratorium prejudicing the existing modifications of insolvency law applicable to contracts undertaken in connection with certain key operations on the financial markets. The modifications to insolvency law are contained in part 7 of the Companies Act 1989 and the provisions in the Bill are to be found in paragraphs 2 and 23 of the proposed schedule A 1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.
    The purpose of the modification of insolvency law is to protect the integrity of the financial markets, to provide an appropriate framework to deal with the possibility that a market participant may default on his obligations, and to avoid systemic risk. However, a little more is needed.

    1157
    The amendments are intended to ensure that the moratorium does not prejudice the existing modifications of insolvency law relating to "money market contracts", "money market charges" and "related contracts" as defined in the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Money Market) Regulations 1995, and "system-charges" as defined in the Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations 1996.
    The amendments are necessary to enable financial markets to continue to function in the event of the insolvency of one of the market participants. The Government do not believe that these exemptions will have a significant effect on the operation or effectiveness of the moratorium, because it is to be an option for smaller companies that would not normally participate in such markets.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 6, in page 11, line 40, at end insert—
    '"related contract" has the meaning given by the 1995 regulations,'.
    No. 7, in page 11, line 42, at end insert—
    "'system-charge" has the meaning given by the Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations 1996,'.
    No. 8, in page 12, line 11, after "contract", insert—
    ', a money market contract or a related contract'.
    No. 9, in page 12, line 12, after "charge", insert—
    ', a money market charge or a system-charge'.[Dr. Howells.]
    Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 13, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
    '(a) such information as is necessary for a nominee to be able to judge if there is a reasonable prospect of drawing up a workable voluntary arrangement which warrants being submitted to creditors,'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 13, leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert—
    '(a) there is a reasonable prospect of a workable voluntary arrangement being drawn up which warrants being submitted to creditors,'.
    No. 34, in page 13, line 16, leave out "the proposed" and insert "a".
    No. 17, in page 13, line 24, at end insert—
    'but he shall take steps to assure himself independently of the validity of information submitted by directors in relation to subparagraph (2)(b).'.
    No. 44, in page 13, line 35, at end insert—
    '(iii) a statement from the directors of the company stating that the nominee is independent of the company's officers, the company, its subsidiaries and associated companies.'.
    No. 35, in page 13, line 39, leave out "the proposed" and insert "a".
    No. 36, in page 20, line 6, leave out "the proposed" and insert "a".
    No. 37, in page 20, line 27, leave out "the proposed" and insert "a".
    No. 38, in page 33, line 39, leave out "the proposed" and insert "a".
    1158
    No. 39, in schedule 3, page 39, line 5, leave out "the" and insert "a".
    No. 40, in page 39, line 5, leave out—
    'which the debtor is proposing'.
    No. 41, in page 40, line 2, leave out "the" and insert "a".
    No. 42, in page 40, line 2, leave out—
    'which the debtor is proposing'.
    Mr. Chope: The amendments are motivated by the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. They are designed to ensure that a moratorium works better in practice than we fear that it will work under the Bill as drafted.
    Paragraph 19 of the report refers in detail to the concerns that were expressed to us by, among others, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. We reached the conclusion that a balance is required between the recognition that a moratorium may he needed urgently to give time for a nominee to sit down with directors and others to find out whether proposals can be put to a creditors meeting with a chance of acceptance, and a limitation on the possibility of making the protection of a moratorium available simply on demand. In that case, there would be no chance of other arrangements subsequently being accepted. Unfortunately, the Bill does not deal with that concern in the way that we hoped it would. Despite having talked about consultation, the Government have dismissed rather peremptorily the concerns that have been expressed.
    The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales supports a moratorium as part of the existing procedure for company voluntary arrangements, but it does not believe that the Bill will achieve the right result. It says:
    In order for the company to obtain the moratorium, the directors are expected to submit to the nominee the terms of the proposed voluntary arrangement and a statement of the company's affairs. The nominee is expected to provide the directors with a statement indicating whether or not, in his opinion, the proposed arrangement is reasonable and the company is likely to have sufficient funds available during the moratorium.
    The institute—the experts—went on to say:
    The implications of these requirements are that, before the moratorium begins, the directors will have to have obtained all the information they need to formulate a proposed arrangement and to prepare the statement of affairs. Similarly, the nominee is expected to have been able to form opinions before the moratorium begins. This seems contrary to the purpose of the moratorium which is to allow time for the directors to put together a voluntary arrangement. We consider that all that should be necessary to obtain a moratorium would be a requirement for the directors to submit to the court a petition giving the reason why a moratorium is necessary, the name of the nominee and a letter of acceptance of appointment from the nominee and a funding proposal for the 28 days of the moratorium.
    If the Government had listened to the evidence that the Select Committee received, and taken note of the Committee's conclusions after it had heard that evidence, the Bill would be more likely to succeed in its avowed purpose. It would be much improved if the amendment were accepted.
    Mr. Butterfill: I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said. The evidence that we heard at the Select Committee hearings was very powerful. The Committee was

    1159
    unanimous in its concern that a moratorium would require funding. A moratorium is not of itself necessarily a panacea—indeed, it could make the situation of creditors worse.
    The fact that there is a 28-day delay while a funding proposal is produced is frightfully important. In a large number—if not the majority—of cases the rescue attempt will probably not succeed. That is not to say that it may not be worth trying, but if the procedure is used frequently, and, in particular, without sufficient deliberation beforehand, some people may end up worse off than they would have been. That is why the Government should have taken more notice of the Select Committee's recommendations and why I support the amendment.
    Dr. Howells: The obtaining of a moratorium will result in significant restrictions being imposed on the exercise of creditors' rights. For that reason, we consider it important that there should be reasonable grounds for confidence that a voluntary arrangement is likely to be approved and implemented at the end of a moratorium. The formulation of amendment No. 16 would only require the nominee to express a view on whether what is likely to be put to creditors would be workable. It does not ask him to say whether he thinks the directors' actual voluntary arrangement proposal, once provided, is likely to be approved and implemented.
    The requirement is important because the moratorium is not intended to be a refuge for hopeless cases. A proposal could be workable but it might be evident that it would not be acceptable to creditors, perhaps because it would pay them less than they would get in a liquidation. Only companies that are eligible and whose rescue proposals have a reasonable chance of success should be able to obtain a moratorium. That is why we believe that a company should not be able to obtain a moratorium unless the nominee considers that a voluntary arrangement proposal, as provided by the directors, stands a reasonable chance of being approved and implemented.
    Given the key role of the nominee in that regard, it would not be acceptable to expect him to express such a view on anything less than a properly worked out proposal. Therefore, information indicating that it might be possible to put a proposal together once a moratorium has started will not be enough. We wish the nominee to be able to see exactly what the directors propose by way of a voluntary arrangement and then use that document as a basis for expressing his opinion on whether a successful rescue is likely to result.
    If a company is to have the benefits afforded by a moratorium, there should be reasonable grounds for confidence that a voluntary arrangement is likely to be approved and implemented. There was disagreement in the Committee about whether the amendment that the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) proposed to the paragraph would introduce a lower or higher hurdle, but I do not think that there is much doubt about whether the amendment would result in an easier text; it does not offer that assurance, and I therefore urge the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to withdraw it.
    Mr. Chope: We again have the Minister's views on record. At least he is being consistent by taking the same
    1160
    line that he took in response to the Select Committee report, which is more than can be said for his approach to an earlier amendment. Although the debate occasionally seemed like a dialogue of the deaf, in the atmosphere of benevolence that is developing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Page: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 16, line 33, after "enforced", insert—
    'against a liquidator representing interests including interests of creditors of the company at the time of the moratorium'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in page 16, line 33, leave out "that" and insert "the".
    No. 20, in page 16, line 33, after "time", insert "of its grant".
    No. 31, in page 16, line 34, leave out "it" and insert—
    'the consideration for which the security was granted'.
    No. 32, in page 16, line 34, at end insert—
    'or if, at any time, the security is approved by the committee established under paragraph 35(1) or, where there is no such committee, by the nominee.'.
    Mr. Page: The amendments touch on matters that I raised in Committee, and to which I believe it is important that we return.
    The parts of schedule 1 that provide for invalidating a security to be granted during a moratorium seem at first glance to be sensible enough. They would ensure that a company under the protection of a moratorium would not be able to grant security to one preferred creditor to the detriment of others. That is fair enough. However, there is the fundamental point that the company's other creditors need protection primarily in circumstances arising from the failure of the moratorium. If the moratorium succeeds, cheers all round. The loans will be safe and they will be repaid in due course.
    In its present form, the schedule seems to protect companies under the aegis of a moratorium irrespective of the outcomes. A company that has experienced a moratorium and subsequently has grown will be under no obligation to meet its freely negotiated dues if the schedule is unaltered. I believe that the amendments address the issue. They will remove an anomalous and unnecessary advantage that may accrue to companies that successfully recover from a moratorium. There is no good reason for creating that extra protection for companies and I would be glad to hear what the Minister has to say, working on the assumption that I have interpreted this part of the Bill correctly.
    Amendment No. 32 is closely related to amendment No. 18. It deals with the key issue of the likelihood of banks or other institutions lending to small companies during the moratorium. It is clear from the present drafting of the relevant paragraph in the schedule that the Department has missed the point. Under these provisions, the banks will be less likely to advance funds available during the moratorium rather than more likely. It will be on the banks and other lending institutions that the duty of determining whether there are reasonable grounds for making loans will fall.

    1161
    Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have experience of running small firms will know how lengthy and time-consuming such inquiries can be. Lenders will not have access to the papers and statements that are available to the nominee, and may not necessarily be able to rely on information offered by the directors. Quite often it is the breakdown in communication between the directors and the banks that is partially responsible for the situation arising in the first place. In these circumstances it is understandable that banks will be highly cautious about lending.
    It is one of the potential ironies of the Bill that it may reduce the flow of money to small companies when they are most likely to need it. A little experience in business suggests that that could well happen. The amendment will go some way to remove a future difficulty. I hope that the Minister finds it in his heart to accept it.
    Dr. Howells: The purpose of amendment No. 18 is not clear. It appears to suggest that security granted by a company during a moratorium could be enforced only against a liquidator. That seems not to make sense. Security granted by a company over its assets is enforced by the holder of the security against those assets and not by a liquidator. Furthermore, a liquidator would not have been in office at the time that the security in question was given because a moratorium was in force. So we are left asking ourselves what security could be enforced and against whom if the amendment succeeded. The proposal could also be read as suggesting that security is generally enforceable other than against a liquidator. If that was what was intended, the amendment does not seem to achieve it.
    It is also not clear what interests in addition to the interests of creditors it is intended a liquidator should represent. We consider that paragraph 14 should not be amended in that way.
    Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are simply unnecessary. The use of the phrase "at that time" in paragraph 14 is a clear reference to the time at which security is given by a company during a moratorium. Both amendments would only add unnecessary words.
    Amendment No. 13 adds nothing. The granting of a security and the security itself are inextricably linked. A security could be of benefit to the company only if the company got something in return for granting it—for example, the funds necessary to enable it to finance a viable business. That security will either be of benefit to the company, or it will not. If it were not, we would want the security to be enforceable. Therefore, no more is needed to achieve the intended effect and I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Page: In view of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 10, in page 19, line 33, at end insert—
    'a money market contract or a related contract,'.
    No. 11, in page 19, line 35, after "charge", insert—
    ', a money market charge or a system-charge'.
    1162
    No. 12, in page 19, line 46, after first "charge", insert—
    ', a money market charge, a system-charge'.
    No. 13, in page 22, line 8, leave out from "period" to "and" in line 9 and insert—
    'for the time being specified in paragraph 8(3))'.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Mr. Page: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 28, line 33, leave out—
    'to the value of £500 or more'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 21, in page 28, line 35, leave out—
    'to the value of £500 or more'.
    Mr. Page: One of the penalties of growing older—albeit not old—is that one's memory starts to play tricks with one. I have a persistent memory of the then Labour Opposition claiming that they would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime—indeed, I seem to recall their making such statements in government.
    Mr. Butterfill rose—
    Mr. Page: Perhaps my hon. Friend is about to tell me that my memory is not playing tricks and mention the reduction in police numbers.
    Mr. Butterfill: I am tempted to do so, but I think that I should be likely to incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were I to pursue that route. However, I can confirm that my recollection of the Government's words is precisely the same as that of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for assuring me that I am right, which enables me to proceed with greater confidence—I would have hated to start on dodgy or shaky ground.
    In Committee, I definitely remember the Minister defending the £500 minimum in respect of the offence of removing any part of a company's property. He appealed to the provisions of insolvency law dating back as far as the Bankruptcy Act 1914.
    Dr. Howells: I have no desire to delay the House, but I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have tracked back as far as the Bankruptcy Act 1824, which also imposed a £10 threshold.
    Mr. Page: I am glad to learn that the Minister has been ferreting around, but I, too, have done a little ferreting and it may be that I shall be able to trump him by going back a few more years.
    The Minister has now told us that the £10 threshold was in place almost 100 years before the Act to which he referred in Committee was passed. However, my historical research has revealed that, in 1811, Members of Parliament debated at some length whether stealing goods from a house to a value of more than 40 shillings should be a capital offence, whereas the threshold in respect of stealing from a shop was only 5 shillings. Evidently, they were worried about their servants stealing from them—the Minister will understand that problem. I wonder what punishment those Members of Parliament would have

    1163
    thought appropriate had they heard today's news that a wedding gift worth £1 million has gone walkabout from a house in London.
    However, life moved on and in 1860, stealing goods worth £10 or more led to hard labour or transportation. The judiciary was obviously having difficulty in obtaining convictions leading to capital punishment for the theft of sums larger than 40 shillings, so transportation was introduced. As the crime was stealing goods worth £10 or more, that meant that we were sending only the bigger and better operators over to Australia. That must be the genetic reason why the Australians regularly thrash us at all forms of sport.
    I make no apology for returning to the subject. Although the Minister's historical examples were extremely interesting, they were not matched by the soundness of his arguments. He told us that during a moratorium, directors were unlikely to spirit away the various assets. Human nature being what it is, if a director thinks that the moratorium will fail, the temptation to spirit away assets during that period of grace will in certain cases become irresistible.
    As I understand it, it is the nominee's duty to monitor the company's affairs so that he or she may come to an opinion whether a proposed voluntary arrangement has a reasonable prospect of being approved and implemented. Furthermore, the nominee is required to be satisfied that the company will have sufficient funds to carry on its business during a moratorium. In reaching those conclusions, the nominee must rely on the information supplied by the directors.
    I am therefore curious to learn where in the Bill the nominee is granted powers to make his or her own inquiries and to watch over the physical assets of the company worth £500 or more. The Minister surely does not believe that the directors or anyone intending to remove property from the company's premises will be daft enough to inform the nominee of the plans.
    A moratorium may provide more opportunities for a director or employees to remove property than would occur when an administrative receiver or provisional liquidators were appointed. It would be so easy to get the proverbial white van up to the door, open it and steal items worth up to £499.99. It is still not clear from the Bill whether a blind eye will be turned to the removal of items with a cumulative value of £499.99, or whether that represents a single item. I naturally condemn such offences.
    In certain respects the Government have been generous and given a 100 per cent. write-off. A piece of electrical equipment could appear on the books at zero, having been written off during the year. If such an item were stolen from the company, would that be stealing, or would it be taking away nothing? I do not condone such activities, but they are a fact of life.
    We discussed the matter in Committee. I raise it again in the hope that since then the Minister will have read his various manifesto commitments and will present a more powerful argument, supporting our police force and the law and order of this land. I look forward to his response.
    1164
    There is another gap in the Bill which we did not discuss in Committee. I refer to the concealing of part of a company's property worth less than £500. We hope that the Minister will tell us what he intends to do to block that loophole. If it is not blocked, it will be exploited by unscrupulous people during a moratorium.
    Under the Bill's provisions, holders of floating charges cannot appoint administrative receivers. I remind the Minister that administrative receivers have powers to prevent directors from concealing any part of a company's property. In the Bill directors are given the open door. Small items will undoubtedly go missing. We do not believe in turning a blind eye to crimes. We do not believe in supporting moves that will enable the white van to come to the door and pick up goods that will later be sold as having fallen off the back of a lorry.
    The Government have an opportunity today to eschew the spin and put some substance behind their law and order policies.
    6.45 pm
    Dr. Howells: This issue was raised in relation to previous amendments, which were debated extensively in Committee and another place. We are puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the £500 limit referred to in paragraphs 41(4)(a) and (b) of proposed new schedule Al to the Insolvency Act 1986. I put it to him that such provisions have worked perfectly satisfactorily for at least the 176 years that I managed to track them back, and I do not understand why he should find the £500 limit unacceptable.
    I remind hon. Members that similar offences exist elsewhere in the 1986 Act, which was enacted by the previous Government. Both measures involve a £500 minimum limit and have worked perfectly satisfactorily. Those provisions were introduced by a Conservative Government, and I find the hon. Gentleman's objections odd.
    Mr. Burnett: For the benefit of those hon. Members who were not in Committee, does the Minister agree that it might be wise to remind the House that there is such a thing as the Theft Act 1968, and that the theft of any item, of any value, is an offence and is punishable as such?
    Dr. Howells: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman gives us a valuable lesson in the law—and for free, despite the fact that he is a lawyer. We should be grateful for that.
    The amendments do not address the issue across the piece. There are similar offences in sections 206 and 354 of the 1986 Act, but the amendments would not apply to them. The issue has been debated extensively in Committee and in another place and I give the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) the undertaking that we shall consider it in the context of the two reviews that my Department is conducting. I hope that that will satisfy him and that he will withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Page: In view of the fact that the Minister will consider the matter in the context of the reviews, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    1165
    Amendment made: No. 53, in page 30, line 21, at end insert—
    '() Where paragraph 39(3) (implementation of voluntary arrangement) applies, the persons who may apply to the court include the Authority.
    () If a person other than the Authority applies to the court under that paragraph, the Authority is entitled to be heard on the application.'.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    6.47 pm
    Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Bill contains all the provisions necessary to deliver what we intend. In particular, it will ensure that the rescue of a small company will not be lost for the want of a short breathing space within which a rescue plan could be agreed. When there is agreement between the Secretary of State and an unfit director, disqualification can be achieved without the need to involve the courts.
    The Bill contains other important provisions, but I shall not detain the House by repeating them. Those provisions were considered by a range of interested parties before the Bill was introduced in Parliament. The Trade and Industry Committee also considered them closely and they were scrutinised carefully in debate in the other place and in this House. As a consequence, the Bill has been amended as it has progressed through Parliament. It is better and more effective legislation because of that scrutiny and amendment.
    I thank all Members on both sides of the House who participated in our good-humoured and interesting debates on the detail of a very technical Bill.
    6.48 pm
    Mr. Burnett: I, too, shall not detain the House for long. The Bill's main thrust is to introduce a moratorium, which is welcome, although the approach is pretty half-hearted. If creditors disagree with members, the courts will decide. Obviously, the strength remains with creditors, and the moratorium could be said to be too short. Nevertheless, we agreed in Committee that our business culture is particularly creditor friendly. The Bill represents a small step in the other direction and, as such, is welcome.
    6.49 pm
    Mr. Chope: I should like to make only a few brief remarks—particularly on the retrospective element remaining in the Bill after the Minister's insistence on rejecting amendments moved in Committee and, today, by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West
    1166
    Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). I hope that we will see the Bill again in this Session, after amendments are passed in the other place to remove that retrospective element. That element vitiates what is otherwise useful legislation, piecemeal though it is.
    6.50 pm
    Mr. Page: We broadly welcome the Bill, which obviously aims to widen the range of rescue provisions available to small business. However, we have made it perfectly clear that, as anyone listening to today's debate will know, we have considerable reservations about some of the Bill's detail—including the significant matter, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has just dealt, of retrospectivity.
    It is not clear from our debates whether Department of Trade and Industry Ministers really understand how small businesses work and the effects that the Bill may have on the practices of those who lend to small businesses.
    As we said, this is only half a Bill. We wish that there had been another half, to create a full picture and to endorse some of the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Although we are worried about how some of the provisions may work, we will support any action to try to help small business and companies in need of rescue. As such, we support the Bill's passage.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed with amendments.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the Social Security Amendment (Capital Limits and Earnings Disregards) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2545) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

    RAILWAYS (SAFETY CASE) REGULATIONS
    That the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2688) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.

    CSA Deductions (Ministry of Defence)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
    6.51 pm
    Caroline Flint: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this short but important debate, which arises from a case that I took up on behalf of one of my constituents. I have subsequently realised that the issue at stake affects many families who have a former partner employed in the United Kingdom armed forces. Today, before I entered the Chamber, I conducted a straw poll at my table in the Tea Room, and two other hon. Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)— confirmed that they had had similar problems in their constituencies.
    My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is acquainted with the case that I shall use to illustrate the problems created by current armed forces minimum pay regulations, and I appreciate his co-operation in not mentioning the name of my constituent—to whom I shall refer as Mrs. X—to protect the identity of the children. I have made a similar request to the media.
    My constituent was married for more than a decade to a serving Army non-commissioned officer, a staff sergeant. Like any Army wife, she followed her husband's career, which included postings in Europe and the far east. Unfortunately, as is the case with many married service personnel, their relationship broke down: they separated and, in December 1996, Mrs. X gained full custody of their two children.
    In August 1997, the Child Support Agency imposed an interim maintenance assessment, but no payment was received. Eventually, in December 1997, a deduction of earnings order was imposed for £530 per month. The first payment was received in February 1998. After a total of four payments had been received, the CSA informed Mrs. X that the Army's minimum pay regulations prevented the withholding of more than 25 per cent. of the father's pay. An arrangement whereby Her Majesty's armed forces can use one regulation to undermine a court order imposed under other legislation must make them unique among employers nationwide. Every month that that arrangement applied, the arrears grew. That means that minimum pay regulations established in 1955 to guarantee a minimum income to a service person's family now have the perverse effect of limiting financial support for dependants.
    Parliament has established in law a father's responsibility to contribute to the financial maintenance of his children, and created the Child Support Agency to uphold those rights. Her Majesty's armed forces, however, can choose to ignore the best efforts of the CSA and the courts, all in the name of family welfare. In Mrs. X's case, the result has been that, from 1998 until now, her child support payments have been paid at a lower rate than the CSA and the courts have requested. By September 2000, the arrears had reached £7,000.
    In all such cases, the Ministry of Defence and the relevant commanding officers have consistently maintained that, although they are bound by the 25 per cent. ceiling on deductions, they will encourage service men to honour their CSA payments. Well, honour has not
    1168
    got my constituent very far. Indeed, deductions of earnings orders would not be imposed at all if honour had anything to do with the case. Deductions of earnings orders involve compulsion, because the payments are not volunteered. That compulsion is being undermined by the minimum pay regulations.
    My constituent can confirm that not one voluntary additional payment has been made since the deductions of earnings order was introduced. I wonder how the Army encourages service personnel to honour such obligations. Are personnel encouraged by a stiff talking to, or by a quiet word, to open their cheque books for their children? Whatever form that encouragement takes, I can tell my hon. Friend that it has not produced tuppence extra for my constituent, and every month the millstone of underpayment grows.
    What will the agency do if the deductions of earnings order fails Mrs. X and her children and other former Army, Navy and Air Force families? Baroness Hollis, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, informed me that a liability order or bailiff's action is the next recourse even in the case of service personnel, except that no bailiff will be allowed on to an Army base to seize the goods owned. "Join the Army and escape the CSA" is hardly a great advert for the armed forces. Morally repugnant it may be, but the financial incentive is clear.
    I cannot understand why the maximum deduction in the Army is 25 per cent. I understand that that can now also be extended to 50 per cent. in certain circumstances—I shall say more about that later—yet in the Royal Navy, for example, the figures are 43 per cent. and 75 per cent. respectively. Why the difference? Are rates of pay so different between the forces that the Navy needs to allow a greater slice of pay to be deducted?—I think not; it is another historical anomaly.
    I have been informed that the minimum deduction can be 50 per cent. in certain circumstances. To determine whether it is 25 per cent. or 50 per cent., we have to look at the Army's marital status categories, of which there are five. For example, marital status 4 includes service men who are divorced or separated without care of children but who are providing support under a court order, including CSA awards. Under that category, 50 per cent. can be applied, but under category 1, which includes those who are married with children, only 25 per cent. can be applied. My constituent's former husband appears in both categories, as he has since remarried and has another child.
    In some respects, if category 4–50 per cent.—were applied, my constituent's problem would appear to be resolved, but the Army has chosen not to apply that category. It seems odd that CSA payments from a previous relationship do not take precedence over, or have any parity with, a second marriage and subsequent dependants. That favourable interpretation has cost my constituent dear.
    I am also advised that the Department of Social Security and the CSA were under the impression that only up to 25 per cent. could be removed. There needs to be discussion between the Ministry of Defence and the DSS to ensure that everyone is clear about which payments can be applied and which amounts can be deducted.
    What are the Government going to do about all this? In March 1999, the Minister for the Armed Forces informed me that Parliament would review armed forces legislation

    1169
    by 2001; that there would be full consultation with other Departments; and that the need to amend the legislation would be considered in the light of any concerns expressed. In April this year, the Minister confirmed that those matters were under review. In July 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security stated that he was
    keen to amend the position where there are limitations on the amounts that can be withheld from service personnel's pay.
    He promised to keep me informed of progress. In October this year, a letter reaffirmed the Department's desire to amend the position and stated that the matter was still under consideration.
    Are the minimum pay regulations included in the review of forces legislation? What stage has that review reached? What is the outcome of discussions with the DSS, among others, to bring the child support legislation and Army, RAF and Navy regulations into line? Does my hon. Friend agree that minimum pay regulations were never contrived to thwart obligations for child support payments? Indeed, they make specific reference to them, but they are in need of an overhaul.
    This is a modernising Government. I have welcomed their willingness to take a new path and their ability to act across Whitehall Departments to ensure joined-up thinking. I welcome their family policies, which represent a radical improvement on the past. However, the Ministry of Defence has something to prove in that respect. I have no doubt that, with application, the Ministry can honour the moral obligation to parents with custody who are the former partners of service personnel. Given the rates of family breakdown in the armed forces, it is too great a problem to be overlooked. It is also too great a problem to hide behind red tape—or, even worse, behind Army red tape, exempt as it is from the full legal redress of the courts, which can be applied to almost any other employer in the land.
    It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Caroline Flint: For Mrs. X—a hard-working constituent of mine trying to raise a family and move on—there is a £7,000 millstone around her neck that cannot be collected while the Army protects the salaries of those with such liabilities to their offspring.
    The Ministry of Defence says that only 1 per cent. of child support payments are not made in full, and I welcome that. It is not too great a hope that the Department will not provide the camouflage for the 1 per cent. who wish to avoid being fully accountable for their children's welfare. For Mrs. X—someone with no place to hide and nowhere else to turn—the burden of underpayment grows by more than £77 for every month that the Army underpays her ex-husband's deduction of earnings order.
    I have raised the case of Mrs. X in detail with my hon. Friend's ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State. In his last letter to me, the Under-Secretary suggested that owing to changes in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, the problem will go away. But that is the case for new cases coming
    1170
    on-stream and it may be the case for when those concerned eventually get round to reviewing existing cases. But that does not help my constituent—and many other people around the country—who find themselves within the present procedures.
    I am concerned that the marital status categories have been used to disadvantage the children of my constituent, and that Ministers are being advised on the basis of inaccurate and sometimes inappropriate comments about my constituent and the lead-up to the family breakdown.
    More pertinently, I do not believe that it is the role of the Ministry, the Army or Members of Parliament to be moral arbiters or judge and jury in distressing cases of family breakdown. This is not just about Mrs. X's children; in fact, she has been determined to pursue the matter because it is her desire to protect other former Army wives and their children.
    It is our moral obligation to see that the CSA's and the courts' wishes are upheld on behalf of the welfare of children. Our obligations to service personnel and their dependants do not exist in some separate moral universe: they are part of the same equation. If, to accord with the judgments of the CSA and the courts on behalf of children, out-of-date minimum pay regulations have to be revised in the name of modern sensible family policy, so be it. This is a matter that I intend to raise with the Select Committee on Defence as part of its review of personnel procedures in the services.
    Laura Moffatt: The Select Committee has been examining the issue of a review of personnel matters. We have had senior officers before us who take family matters seriously. Can there possibly be a difference between the children of serving officers in our armed forces and children of officers who are now not together with their partners? Surely there should be no distinction.
    Caroline Flint: I agree and I would not like to suggest that the Ministry and the various branches of the services do not take family matters seriously. However, this is one of the areas where they are found wanting and an area they must address. In the present day, people can have families in which they live with their children, but they also have responsibilities to the families and children with whom they are not living. As a responsible employer, the Ministry of Defence should attend to that and make sure that its systems do not discriminate against those children.
    Before I arrived in the Chamber tonight, I was able to have a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) who raised his concern about the Territorial Army and its approach to CSA payments and the families of existing personnel. I will be encouraging many of my colleagues who have had similar problems to report to the Select Committee so that we can collate a larger and more diverse example of the practices which, unfortunately, are going on. I urge my hon. Friend not to close the door on reform in the vital area of pay and family responsibility and not to wait for changes in the child support legislation. I urge him to do something about the families who are affected by the present legislation and the regulations that are currently used in the services.
    The moving ceremonies across the nation last weekend were a reminder that, as a nation, we owe a debt of honour that is in keeping with the ideals of those who gave their

    1171
    lives. We also owe a debt of honour to the injured, former prisoners of war, widows of the fallen, service personnel and their families and the children of service personnel. Let the innocents not be the casualties of those out-of-date rules.
    7.5 pm
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I should like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing a debate on this important issue. I know that she takes a great interest in the service families in her constituency and, as she said in her excellent speech, the Government came to office committed both to putting people at the centre of defence policy and planning and to family policies.
    We have delivered on that commitment. The strategic defence review set in hand a wide variety of initiatives aimed at improving the lot of the men and women in our armed forces across the full spectrum of their needs and those of their families. Among those was the service families taskforce, which was set up two years ago. As I reported to the Chamber on 2 November, the taskforce has been doing excellent work in resolving issues of concern to families. It has taken a real lead in bringing the expertise of different Departments to bear on cracking problems that had been written off as insoluble.
    That does not mean that we are complacent. The taskforce is continuing to work hard to resolve outstanding issues and to ensure that all the families of service personnel are treated fairly. I am sure that the House will agree that we ask a great deal of our service personnel—ultimately we may require them to sacrifice their lives—and they do not let us down. It is only right, therefore, that we take good care of them and their families.
    In that context, my hon. Friend raised an important and sensitive issue. As the case that she outlined showed, the break-up of a marriage is always difficult and can be exacerbated when children are involved. It is essential that correct financial provision be made for the children, which is why the Child Support Agency can issue deduction of earnings orders to employers regarding ongoing maintenance and arrears payments. Those orders stipulate the rate of deduction that may be taken from the earnings of a non-resident parent. They also set a protected earning rate, which is the amount that the non-resident parent must be left with after the deduction has been made, to provide the non-resident parent with key living expenses. In cases in which the employer is unable to make the maintenance deduction in full because it would take the earnings below the protected earnings rate, the outstanding balance is rolled forward to the next week or month.
    Child support legislation, however, does not provide for deduction of earnings orders to be imposed on personnel in the armed forces. Instead, there is a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Defence and the Child Support Agency to ask the Ministry of Defence to make deductions for maintenance. I am pleased that, overall, there is a very good working relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the Child Support Agency, which ensures that deductions from the pay of service personnel are made quickly and accurately—indeed, I understand, far more so than with almost all other employers. The Ministry of Defence has an exemplary record in meeting its obligations.
    1172
    My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley mentioned that the full amount is not deducted in only 1 per cent. of cases. That is my understanding as well: in over 99 per cent. of cases, the full amount awarded is deducted. That compares favourably with those outside the armed forces, where 22 per cent. are paying only a part of their assessment and 29 per cent. pay nothing at all. The Government are doing something about that, which I shall come on to later.
    The very few members of the armed forces who are not meeting the full amount payable—as I said, we believe that they are fewer than 1 per cent. of all cases—are doing so as a result of the minimum rates of pay set by Ministry of Defence legislation, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out. Minimum rates of pay were introduced around 50 years ago to ensure that service families were properly looked after. In fact, the Royal Navy regulations date from 1947, while the those for the Army and the Royal Air Force were brought into force in 1955. Those minimum rates of pay were introduced as a result of the experience of the second world war.
    During the war, service personnel were encouraged to make an allotment of a fixed weekly sum to their families. Not all did, with obvious consequences. For those who did receive an allotment, the sum was not guaranteed because deductions from the pay of service personnel could mean that there was insufficient to cover the allotment—and this caused substantial hardship. To prevent those problems from recurring, new regulations were introduced. For example, two separate provisions were added to the Army Act 1955. One established a minimum rate of pay and the second gave the service authorities powers to make immediate deductions from the remaining pay for the maintenance of the spouse and children.
    The provisions were designed to protect the whole family and continue to do so today. The amount of separation experienced by service personnel means that day-to-day financial planning within service families remains very difficult compared with that within the civil community. Civilians have recourse to the courts if they are being overburdened with deductions from pay, so that the amounts that they pay can be varied to take account of their circumstances. Service personnel, particularly if they are deployed on operations, cannot easily access the courts. In addition, the application of the Discipline Acts means that service personnel may face fines for a range of military offences that do not apply to civilians.
    The powers that I have outlined have been made available to the service authorities so that the families of service personnel are properly supported. For example, deductions can be made to ensure that service personnel meet their responsibility to their families. These are often used when relationships break down to ensure that service families are properly cared for prior to the CSA making an assessment. They are the key tools which enable us to respond to CSA assessments, but they are also of utility in other circumstances. For example, they were used recently to make an immediate payment to the wife of a soldier who suffered a massive stroke before he had had time to set up any method whereby she could access his bank account.
    As my hon. Friend said, the minimum rates of pay calculations differ slightly between the services, but in all three the principle applied is to take account of the

    1173
    circumstances of the individual. For instance, it is only right that any children from a second relationship should have some protection.
    Caroline Flint: The CSA also takes into account any subsequent families and their children, so why did not the Ministry of Defence find a balance between the marital status 1 category and the marital status 4 category, which would have met the needs of both families concerned?
    Mr. Spellar: I understand that my hon. Friend has been in correspondence with my ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on the particular details of the case in question and the circumstances surrounding it. I am outlining the general principles under which we operate, including the fact that we have responsibilities not only to the children of the first relationship, but also to the children of the second relationship.
    Caroline Flint: I must press my hon. Friend on this point. When the 25 per cent. rule was applied, my understanding was that the service man in question had not remarried and did not have a child. That was when the first order was imposed. I gather that at the time the Army had the discretion to apply category 4, which would increase the deductions to 50 per cent. So there is a real issue about the judgments being made in deciding which marital status category to apply.
    Mr. Spellar: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
    The Army regulations allow for up to 50 per cent. deductions from pay where there are no other children or dependants. However, in circumstances where the soldier is legally married and living with his or her spouse, or where the soldier is widowed, divorced or separated and has care of the children, or the soldier does not have care of the children but is providing voluntary financial support, there is a limit of 25 per cent. deduction on pay. It is only in very rare cases that this limit is not sufficient to cover CSA maintenance awards. The statistics that I outlined earlier bear that out.
    The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 will introduce a more efficient, customer-focused child support system built around a much simpler method
    1174
    of assessment. The new system will calculate maintenance based on a percentage of income after taking into account an allowance for children in a second family, and will then impose flat-rate deductions on the income that remains.
    When the new system is in force, it will require there to be three or more children and the absent parent to be in arrears before there is any difference between the maximum that the CSA might impose and the maximum that the armed forces could deduct from earnings. That shortfall could be up to 5 per cent. in the worst case. It is very important to emphasize that, even if arrears occur, minimum pay regulations do not absolve the parent from meeting the CSA assessment. Accordingly, the debt remains and can be recovered subsequently and by other means.
    Caroline Flint: I have highlighted an individual case, but the principle and the policy would apply regardless of who was affected. When there was recourse to the courts for a liability order, and two such orders were instigated, it led to bailiffs being sent to the barracks to retrieve goods to the amount that was owing, but they were refused access to the base. Even with a liability order, the courts do not seem to be able to pursue these matters with the individual in question. In an odd sort of way, the way in which the system is organised seems to be aiding and abetting an individual to default on payments.
    Mr. Spellar: I reiterate that the debt, even then, is still not liquidated and can be recovered subsequently. Indeed, it can continue after the immediate obligation is ended. The courts have various means of trying to secure payment, of which bailiffs are but one.
    We expect the number of cases in the armed forces in which the full amount imposed by the CSA cannot be met in full to be extremely small, but we realise that, in such cases, an extra strain could be added to what may already be a very stressful situation. However, as my hon. Friend knows, our armed forces give up a lot of the comforts and privileges often taken for granted in civilian life, in the service of their country, and it is only right that they and their families should be properly looked after. I assure my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Defence will continue to liaise closely with the CSA to ensure that maintenance cases involving members of the armed forces are dealt with quickly and sensitively.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Fishing Safety
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I am delighted that the Speaker saw fit to allow this debate on fishing safety. It is many years since the House was able to debate safety at sea, and it is clear from the attendance in this Chamber that the matter excites considerable interest in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Fishing is one of the UK's longest and proudest traditions, and for many fishermen the history of our fishing industry is in their blood. They accept the reality of hard, physical work in harsh and sometimes dangerous conditions, and the fact is that for many, the rewards are variable at best. What they sometimes find harder to accept is the regulation of their activity in the interests of safety.
Sadly, however, there is also a tradition that goes hand in hand with the business of fishing: the loss of fishermen's lives. We have only to think back to the loss of deep-water trawlers in the late 1960s and the 1969 Holland-Martin inquiry into trawler safety to remind ourselves how true that is. By comparison with other UK industries, including those long regarded as dangerous, such as mining and quarrying, sea fishing still has by far the worst record of fatalities. On average, more than 20 fishermen have lost their lives in each of the past five years as a result of accidents on board their vessels. With the loss of 30 fishermen already this year, the record of fatalities in 2000 looks like being the worst for 10 years. Add to that accidents where fishermen survive more by luck than good judgment, and one sees that the problem is even worse. It is appropriate to say something at this point about the considerations that have followed the 1998 consultation on fishing vessel accidents and those lost at sea.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that all of us have a particular concern for the protection of young, inexperienced fishermen? I would ask him—if he needs urging—to keep a close watch on the investigation into the sinking of the Karianda, which the Scottish media allege was deliberate. The young boy involved made some serious allegations about the sinking of that vessel, and I urge my hon. Friend to tighten regulations if the inquiry calls for such action.
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He will understand that, as that matter is now subject to criminal inquiries, it would be quite wrong for me to comment on it. Having said that, I take on board his general observation about young entrants
248WH
into the fishing industry, and I shall say something about the proposals that we have for them. We are all very conscious of the matter, and the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) will, I dare say, want to talk today about the Solway Harvester tragedy.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I represent Brixham, which is the second largest fishing port in England and Wales. The Minister will appreciate that although the dangers of the sea are recognised, so is the cost of doing what is expected on safety, security and hygiene. The Government are expected to spend unlimited amounts of time and money putting things right in those three areas. Does he agree that there must be an assessment of the cost and likely risk of new regulations? If he does not, he may find that he is putting fishermen, especially shell fishermen, out of business. As my constituency has the largest crab and lobster fishing fleet in the south, I would not want him even to consider anything that would do so.
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman refers to anxieties that have been well vented in our consultation on the safety code for under 12 m vessels. I am sure that he will have the patience to wait for me to deal with some of his concerns in the course of my remarks.
I was referring to the 1998 consultation on fishing vessel accidents and the recovery of those lost at sea. Government policy continues to be to regard the wreck site as an honourable burial ground, but we recognise that that view is not always shared by the families of those who are lost. Therefore, consideration is being given to the practicalities of establishing a trust fund that could be called on to recover bodies of fishermen when accident or criminal investigations do not require their recovery. Work to follow up the Clarke report on the loss of the Gaul will also help us to trace vessels that sink so suddenly that they are unable to transmit explicit distress messages.
Mr. Andrew George: Does the Minister accept that, because the families involved and others collected money to raise the Sapphire, important evidence in the investigation into the tragedy was uncovered? That helped to get closer to identifying the cause of the tragedy.
Mr. Hill: I am certainly aware that the families succeeded in generating significant sponsorship to secure the raising of the Sapphire, but not that the raising of the vessel yielded further evidence about the causes of the sinking. The general policy of the marine accident investigation branch is that vessels are raised only in cases of suspected criminality, or when it is deemed that raising them will make a specific contribution to discovering the reasons why they sank.
If hon. Members will forgive me, I have a rather hefty speech to make. For the sake of permitting a wide range of debate, I had better make progress.
Why do so many fishermen, often skilled and experienced individuals, die while earning their living? The investigations carried out by MAIB identify the primary causes of accidents. Flooding, capsize and "man overboard" incidents result in the greatest loss of

249WH
fishermen's lives, but we must look behind those "labels" to see how accidents are caused, or how they escalate from problems to catastrophes. In doing that we begin to see what needs to be done to prevent those accidents from happening repeatedly.
In many cases, the underlying cause is human error. People often know what should be done, but for some reason do not do it. Fishermen often think that they know what should be done, but discover too late that they are wrong. Once the error is made, it may be too late to prevent the consequences. It is worth taking time to consider what that means. Flooding is a major cause of vessel losses, and when the vessel is lost, lives are at risk.
The causes of flooding can vary. Perhaps the pipe work is of poor quality or poorly maintained; perhaps the bilge-pumping system has not been checked; perhaps the bilge alarm is not working, or worse still is switched off, denying those on board the opportunity of an early warning of a problem. Another obvious cause of flooding is the leaving open, for convenience, of doors and hatches that should be closed at sea, allowing water to flood into the vessel.
There are also cases of more sudden and potentially more catastrophic capsizing, which occur when the vessel's stability is compromised. That may be due to the shifting on deck of a weight such as a heavy catch, the exertion of forces on the vessel by powerful winches when trying to free fishing gear from an obstruction on the sea bed, or a lack of control of the weight of a catch as it is brought inboard. The last of those is a particular problem on beam trawlers.
I shall pause to recognise the work that has been done by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in conjunction with the fishing industry to follow up a MAIB recommendation on beam trawler safety following the loss of the Margaretha Maria. A study of the sea-going stability levels of a sample of beam trawlers is leading towards a new operational stability regime. What will happen if, despite all precautions, an accident occurs with little or no warning? Will the emergency position-indicating radio beacon work? It will not do so if it has not been correctly maintained, or if the float-free mechanism has been compromised by painting over or is incorrectly secured.
Mr. Frank Doran: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he has a heavy speech to make on a serious subject. I am anxious because all the technical deficiencies that he mentioned are symptoms of the problems. I know, because I represent a fishing area, that the most significant problem is that there is no safety culture. The priority is catching fish. Fish stocks are declining rapidly, and the Government are discussing next year's quotas with Brussels. My fear is that, as stocks decline, safety will become even more of a problem. My hon. Friend has already said that deaths in the fishing fleet are the highest for many years, and I want him to address the culture issue.
Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right. Culture is central to any discussion of safety at sea, and I shall say a few
250WH
words about it in due course. Safety is lacking in the fishing industry, especially at the margins, and we shall seek to improve the culture, which is central to the delivery of safety.
I was discussing the failure of precautions: life rafts can float free if the hydrostatic release unit is wrongly connected or if the life raft is not otherwise secured to the vessel. Even if correctly secured, the position of the life raft needs to be carefully considered if it is not to become trapped in the vessel's rigging or superstructure as it inflates and rises to the surface.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) mentioned the safety culture. What happens if fishermen become careless through over-familiarity with the routines of fishing or through fatigue? A moment of inattention or loss of concentration may be fatal if the fisherman is operating machinery, keeping watch or simply moving around on deck.
I am not in the business of scaremongering; the scenarios that I have described appear in the report of the marine accident investigation branch—some with depressing regularity. Neither the Government nor the fishing industry should be willing to accept that so many fishermen lose their lives each year or that many more only just survive an accident that should never have happened. Fishermen do not set out to put themselves or others in danger. I can understand why they may not want to be reminded of the risks that they face, but the danger is that a lack of awareness, convenient rather than safe working practices, and over-familiarity with the routines of fishing may have a desensitising effect.
What can Government and the fishing industry do to change such a culture? The solution lies in creating a positive safety culture, where identifying risks and taking action to mitigate them is part of the way that a fisherman thinks. Fishermen say—some said it in response to consultation on the code of practice for small fishing vessels—that they think about the risks before every trip, but just thinking is not enough. It must be reinforced with information about and awareness of the risks to which their vessels are exposed, and with effective measures that will mitigate those risks.
The fishing vessel owner, the skipper and the crew member must first ask themselves the "what if" questions: "What if my vessel were to flood, capsize or catch fire? What if I or another member of the crew were to fall overboard?" Fishermen must then ask themselves the "what can I do" questions: "What can I do to prevent those things happening? If I cannot prevent them, what can I do to reduce the consequences? If, despite all I have done, the worst happens, what can I do to ensure that the crew survives?"
In asking and answering such questions, the fisherman is undertaking the process of hazard identification and risk assessment. That is a much more effective way of addressing operational safety issues than prescriptive regulations. The problem is that, although many fishermen dislike any regulation that appears to get in the way of their earning their livelihood, the absence of prescription is unfamiliar. It places responsibility on them to take decisions about risks associated with their vessels and the actions that they need to take to mitigate those risks.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I have listened closely to the Minister, whom I am delighted to see in his place, for reasons that I shall elaborate on in due course. Fishermen tell me something fundamentally different from what he has been outlining. They make the point that they are not members of a suicide squad. They are concerned that their experiences and views about what might improve their safety are often dismissed out of hand by people who are conducting a consultation exercise. Until Ministers understand that feeling among fishermen, we shall not make much progress.
Mr. Hill: I am grateful for those observations, with which I am familiar. I have had several meetings with representatives of the fishing industry as part of the consultation process, including one yesterday in the company of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), and I am aware that there are deep suspicions and misgivings about the Government's intention in the consultation process. It will be part of my purpose, in my remaining remarks, to dispel many of those anxieties and—I hope—correct some of the misinformation that has developed.
Perhaps it is asking a lot of an industry that for the past 25 years has been used to the prescribed requirements of the Fishing Vessel (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975, but it must be right that those who know the vessel best take responsibility for such decisions—albeit with appropriate guidance. When that is done well it is a significant step towards building a positive safety culture.
On that note, when I met the fishing industry safety group earlier this month, I was encouraged by what I learned of industry organisations' activities to promote that positive safety culture. Initiatives include a working group on safety at sea, studying pipe-work failure; support for a research project on health and safety issues, including fatigue, on board fishing vessels; support for training; and the provision of constant-wear life-jackets.
The last item builds on the spontaneous reaction of industry in the south-west of England in promoting the wearing of life-jackets, following the death in January of Daniel Kebble, a single-handed Cornish fisherman. The campaign represents a significant breakthrough: the promotion of a positive safety culture by industry at local level. Those who would once have laughed at their fellow fishermen for wearing personal buoyancy equipment while on deck now wear it themselves and encourage others to do so. If such an approach can work with personal buoyancy equipment, it can work with all the other issues that I have mentioned—but it depends on Government and industry working together to get the message across to the grassroots of the industry.
Mr. Malcolm Moss: On a recent visit to the south-west, I met Daniel Kebble's mother and father and heard about their campaign. They want the Government to make the wearing of lifejackets mandatory for all fishermen, particularly those on smaller boats, so that, otherwise, insurance claims will not be paid, and so on. Have the Government investigated ways in which to make the wearing of lifejackets mandatory?
Mr. Hill: Although I totally understand the motives of Daniel Kebble's parents, Government action towards
252WH
establishing a mandatory system would create precisely the hostility and suspicion towards the relationship between Government and industry that we want to dispel. We of course maintain that some basic pieces of equipment are necessary for safety on vessels, but on the whole our purpose is to create a safety culture, to work with the industry and to go with the grain, encouraging more and more fishermen to wear buoyancy equipment. We want to work with them on deciding which equipment is appropriate.
Many fishermen have deep misgivings about lifejackets. They say that they become tangled with gear and that the danger that they create is greater than their contribution to safety. That might or might not be so. Perhaps certain types of life-jackets could be used. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) has powerful views on the matter, and I dare say that he will allude to the wearing of immersion suits, which the fishing industry seems to resist. I want to work with, not against, the industry.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is responsible not only for developing and enforcing high standards of marine safety, but for promoting them. It is working with the fishing industry and organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution to find new and better ways of getting safety advice and information into fishermen's hands and minds.
More fundamental approaches are also needed. That is why the Government have taken a fresh look at the objective of providing safety grants, which have been used to subsidise the purchase of statutory safety equipment. A new generation of safety grants is seen as providing an opportunity to promote fishermen's safety awareness and a positive safety culture through training.
I am delighted that fisheries departments have agreed to fund, over the next three years, the development and delivery of industrywide courses, which will provide, first, safety updates for older fisherman who have been exempt from basic safety training requirements. Secondly, they will provide accident prevention and risk awareness courses for all fishermen. Thirdly, there will be a training package for new entrants, which will encompass existing basic safety training in sea survival, first aid and fire fighting, and introduce basic training in risk awareness and accident prevention. The fishing industry has asked us to consider supporting fishermen's attendance on training courses and we will do so. On safety grants, fisheries departments are also keen to support the trialling of innovative experimental equipment that might have a safety benefit.
I have said little about the regulation of safety, but in building a safer industry, a statutory framework must set the standards. Those relating to the safety of fishing vessels are encompassed in regulations that are a quarter of a century old. Regulations that govern fishermen's safety training, and training and certification, though not as dated, are also in need of review. A great deal has changed in the fishing industry since those regulations were developed. We will incorporate the review of the regulations in a comprehensive strategy for safety in the fishing industry, which brings together regulations, education and other initiatives to meet the needs of a modern industry.

253WH
The review process began with the development of the code of practice for small fishing vessels—those under 12m—and work is beginning on a code for larger fishing vessels of between 12 m and 24 m. Requirements for fishermen's training and certification are due for review. I shall focus on the code of practice for small fishing vessels and round off the consultation process on it. I see this debate as the natural culmination of that process by allowing parliamentary colleagues to express their views.
As I said, the development of a code of practice for small fishing vessels marked the beginning of the first major review of fishing vessel safety regulations since 1975. The principal aims in developing the code were to update the safety equipment requirements for small fishing vessels and, building on the concept of hazard identification and risk assessment that already applies to health and safety on board the vessel, to introduce an assessment by owners of the fitness of their vessels.
The industry's reaction to the code, both in its development and in response to consultation, has been mixed. There is broad acceptance by some, strong resistance from others and some evident misunderstandings. Points of detail must be addressed before conclusions are reached.
I shall deal with some of the concerns and misunderstandings. Representatives of the under 12 m sector have often asked why the regulations for smaller fishing vessels need to be changed, because that sector appears to have a better accident record than larger, more heavily regulated vessels. In assessing relative accident rates, some account must be taken of the greater time spent at sea by larger vessels, at greater distances from shore and in greater extremes of weather. The MCA is working with the industry to refine the assessment's parameters. However, the simple answer is that accident rates may be better in the under 12 m sector, but they are not so overwhelmingly good that they can be ignored. Perhaps the most significant fact is that accident rates in the under 12 m sector improved during the years that the code of practice was under discussion—the result, I believe, of increased safety awareness in that sector. It is important to maintain that awareness by implementing the code effectively.
It is suggested that the introduction of the code will place such an enormous cost burden on the industry that fishermen will be driven out of business or forced to put to sea in worse conditions in order to earn the money to pay for the additional equipment requirements. The balance between safety and cost is not easy to strike, but we are proposing minimum requirements aimed at reducing accident levels through increased vessel safety in foreseeable operating conditions and improved survival rates in the event of an accident. At the end of the day, fishermen must decide, as part of the risk-assessment process, whether it is safe to go to sea. They must also decide whether, if their business is close to the margins of viability, they can operate in accordance with the regulations applicable to their vessel.
Mr. Steen: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way twice. I also want to thank him for seeing yesterday some Devon fishermen who greatly
254WH
appreciated his approach and his kindness to them. May I ask the Minister one question? Does he know, from the consultation process, whether any shell fishermen or others who fish in boats of under 12 m approved of the proposals, or whether every one of them disagreed? My information is that every fisherman who goes to sea in a boat of under 12 m believes that the proposals are neither right nor good, and will not work.
Mr. Hill: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks. We received several hundred responses to the consultation exercise, and I have to confess that I have not analysed each of them. The response was mixed. In the under 12 m sector, about a third—mainly those in Scotland and Northern Ireland—are broadly in favour of the proposals. I guess that they include some of the categories of fishermen to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There were also mixed responses from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, although, there was almost universal agreement with the safety equipment list among all groups, despite difficulties with other aspects of the proposals.
I am conscious that I am speaking at length; the Chamber can be assured that the end is in sight. Let us consider the costs of the proposals in the safety code. I shall deal first with the additional items of equipment required by the code, why they are important and what the one-off costs are. First, a VHF radio costs between £200 and £400. The industry says that several fishermen in the under 12 m sector are already equipped with VHF radio; others argue that a mobile phone is a cheaper option and just as good. Coverage, however, is patchy and batteries get flat—no use at all when fishermen are in serious trouble and need to call for help. Secondly, bilge pumps and bilge alarms together cost about £400. I have already spoken about the problems of flooding, which can affect some small vessels as much as their larger counterparts. For the smallest vessels, the minimum requirement is a bailer.
Thirdly, a magnetic compass costs up to £500. Again, it is likely that reasonable numbers of vessels under 12 m are already equipped with a magnetic compass, but it is not unreasonable to regard it as an essential item for all vessels. Fourthly and finally—and only on larger vessels from 10 m to 12 m—a life raft costs about £1,000. That takes us back to what I said earlier about the hazard identification and risk assessment, where the question is, "And if, despite all I have done, the worst happens, what can I do to make sure the crew survives?" I need hardly say more on that.
Let me tell the Chamber about two further matters. First, the industry says that many fishermen on smaller vessels already choose to carry life rafts. Secondly, in response to consultation, fishermen asked why we did not require all vessels under 12 m to carry a life raft. For all those equipment items, it is important to appreciate that the requirement will be for items that are fit for the purpose and not necessarily those that are formally approved.
Another major concern is the cost of inspections. There is a significant misunderstanding here. The consultation draft of the code made it clear that existing inspection arrangements would apply for the first two years of the code's existence. Let me emphasise that there will be no charge for the first visit to a vessel. No fees will be incurred if the vessel complies with the code

255WH
or if any defects found can be rectified without the need for a revisit. Fees would be incurred only where the defects were significant enough to warrant a revisit and would, in all probability, have resulted in the vessel's detention. That is a clear incentive to comply with the code.
One of the most difficult areas for the industry has been the requirement for a fitness-of-vessel assessment. Again, misunderstandings have arisen in the minds of some fishermen who appear to see that as the first step towards making smaller fishing vessels subject to the same requirements for survey as those over 12 m. That is emphatically not the case. The concept behind the fitness-of-vessel assessment is akin to that of the health and safety risk assessment in that the fishing vessel owner himself assesses the hazards to which the vessel is exposed—flooding, capsize, fires and explosions—and the action needed to mitigate them. No guidance currently exists, although it does for health and safety assessments, and that, I believe, has been a significant part of the problem for the industry.
For that reason, I am considering whether the requirement for a fitness-of-vessel assessment should be remitted to the committee that will review the code after its first two years of operation. However, if the matter were to be remitted to that committee, I should want the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to work during the intervening period on the development of draft guidance, which might assist the committee to reach a decision on the future inclusion of a fitness-of-vessel assessment.
Mrs. Ray Michie: I have many fishermen who belong to the Clyde Fishermens Association in my constituency, as does the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). Could the Minister say something about the appeals procedure for those who are found to be in breach of the code of practice? My constituents are concerned that the appeal would be determined by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which is the enforcer. There may well be a conflict of interest.
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope to deal with that question towards the soon-to-be-arrived-at conclusion of my remarks when inspiration finally reaches me. [Interruption.] Inspiration has now reached me. There will be an appeal to the local manager and then to the headquarters of the MCA and then to an outside body. There is quite clearly a good deal of scope for pursuing an appeal beyond the level of the local administration. I hope that that is of some use to her and the fishermen whom she represents.
Development of the code of practice for small fishing vessels has proved a long and hard road for Government and industry alike. I know that not all of its members would agree with me, but we have listened to the fishing industry. We listened in 1997 to their concerns about the complexity and cost of the draft code. We listened again in 1998 when the industry suggested a code based on schedules of safety equipment and risk assessments. We listened again before the current consultation by leaving existing inspection arrangements in place and in making it clear that fitness-of-vessel assessments would not be required until guidance had been developed. We are still listening as we move towards a decision on the code.
256WH
The work that lies ahead of us in modernising the fishing vessel safety regulations for larger vessels and for fishermen's training and certification will, I am sure, have its own share of difficulties. However, the Government are committed to working with industry to create positive attitudes to safety, which are the key to driving down accident rates and creating a safer industry. From my meetings with its representatives, I know that the fishing industry is also committed to that and I look forward to meeting the challenges that lie ahead.
I welcome the opportunity to co-operate with fishermen in raising safety standards and am aware, from regular joint meetings, how much is happening on both sides of the fishing industry. We still have a long way to go, but we know that everyone wants more safety. There is potential for improvement.
3.4 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: I, too, welcome the debate, which is long overdue. It gives many hon. Members an opportunity to express their concerns. The subject concerns me, both as shadow Shipping Minister and as representative for Poole which, apart from being a port, has a small fishing fleet. I shall not speak at length, given the number of hon. Members present, but will briefly address a few topics—coastguards, fishing vessel safety grants and the code of practice—and make a few general comments. I shall also ask the Minister a few questions.
Last year, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency decided that it would close five coastguard stations by 2003. Those involved were Oban, Pentland, Tyne-Tees and Liverpool, while Portland and Leigh-on-Solent were to merge. As I understand it, Liverpool was reprieved, but Oban, Pentland and Tyne-Tees have closed or will soon close. Following the intervention of Lord Donaldson, Portland and Leigh-on-Solent are to remain open and independent stations. The condition of the buildings and equipment in both stations is not of the highest standard. I therefore seek an assurance that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will upgrade them as a matter of priority because the stretch of water between Portland and Leigh-on-Solent is one of the busiest in the world. I expressed concern when the closures were first proposed because it has always been clear to me that local knowledge is an important commodity among coastguards. I would like further reassurance that the coastguards are happy with the arrangements as they are proceeding. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who was involved with some of the original announcements, gave reassurances on that at the time. We are further down the road and a few further reassurances are necessary.
On fishing vessel safety grants, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food decided on 21 May 1999 to end the grants that had been given for several years to larger fishing boats, for what were described as budgetary reasons. In a written answer, the relevant Minister spelled out that the Department had looked at that aspect as part of the comprehensive spending review and decided that it would not proceed with the grants. Since the budgetary position is somewhat better at this stage, perhaps the Minister will ask his colleagues why the Government have not reintroduced them, and what the Government's strategy is. The matter has caused some controversy, as my hon. Friend the

257WH
Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has said on several occasions—he will probably raise it in more detail during the debate.
The Minister stated that the code of practice was the key reason for the debate. All of us with fishing constituencies, particularly those with small fishing boats, have had quite a lot of correspondence on the subject. I understand that Mr. Alan Cubbin has received considerable correspondence from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—some of which sounds a little irritable. There are real concerns in the industry. I received a letter from the South Coast Fishermen's Council, which expressed concern that it had not had any input into the latest proposals and was not satisfied with the consultation. The letter points out:
Every boat under 12m is different and general legislation such as this code cannot work without putting many out of business.
It also makes the point that the Minister made:
It is significant, however, that the accident rate for the longer and more heavily regulated vessels is substantially greater than that for the smaller vessels.
That is a good point. The letter goes on to make other good points, the first being a general one:
We are completely disgusted by the content of 4 (ii). Fishermen do more for the rescue services than any other group, not only have many been lifeboatmen and coastguards but they carry out many rescues of the totally unregulated and often inexperienced sailor.
Many leisure sailors get into difficulty, and the fishing community does a fair amount to help them out.
The South Coast Fishermen's Council, which represents 400 boat owners between Lyme Regis and Portsmouth, summarised its objections by saying:
We totally reject the code as it stands.
The main points that upset them were: written risk assessments; the fitness of vessels; any attempt to tie registration to compliance; making non-compliance a criminal offence; recommendations and matters of opinion; the exclusion of smaller boats and beach boats, because stowage is a genuine problem; the fact that no paperwork is to be carried on board open boats; self-certification; and inspection fees.
The Minister's mention of inspection fees may have clarified matters because, even if one started softly, perhaps saying that the regime would not change for a year or two, people would still be suspicious of what might happen in future. The fear is that if the regulatory regime were to change suddenly, the costs would fall on those who are already finding it pretty difficult to earn a living. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) was right to say that we all want a safe fishing industry, but a balance has to be struck between the real cost of upgrading boats and the real safety of the fishing vessels. The Minister also mentioned the appeals procedures. I am a little happier to know that there is a means of going beyond the agency; it is important to have a degree of independence.
People are worried about the code of practice. The Minister used the phrase "mixed response". I wonder whether a summary of replies or copies of some of the letters might be kept in the House of Commons Library. I know that 700 hundred letters have been received, and that they will have expressed various different opinions,
258WH
but if the real weight of consultation is against the change, Members ought to know that and not simply be told that the response is mixed. We are all politicians, we have all undertaken consultation, and we all know that different opinions can be expressed and that "mixed response" can mean many things. The phrase does not shed much light on today's debate.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency does an excellent job. It reported that the accident rate among fishermen had fallen since 1995, but seemed to suggest that there had been under-reporting because some people in the fishing industry were unnecessarily unwilling to be included in the statistics. However, some changes are welcome, and the safe fishing campaign and the spot-the-risk competition are good ideas. Nevertheless, although we need to change the culture, we must be sensible about it.
The director of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution told me recently that he believed that some fishermen thought that wearing a life jacket meant that one was a bit of a wimp. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) made clear, it is important to try to change that culture.
That is all that I have to say. I welcome the debate, and I look forward to the Minister's answers to some of the points that I have raised.
3.13 pm
Mr. Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister and the Government for making time for this overdue debate. Although I had an Adjournment debate on the matter in July 1998, things have moved on since then. However, our worries about safety in the fishing industry have not gone away. As the Minister said, despite the fact that the fleet is being reduced and mechanisms to improve safety and communication systems to maintain contact with land are becoming more sophisticated, the number of lives lost is increasing. The figures for this year are already unacceptably high. That confirms the fact that fishing is, without question, the most hazardous occupation in the country, and has been for many years. The Government are right to take the view that they should not simply step aside, and that safety is an issue on which they should intervene. They do not accept that that danger is simply a fact of life and that Government intervention is inappropriate.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Grennock—
Dr. Godman: Greenock.
Mr. George: The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman); pardon my Cornish pronunciation.
As hon. Members have said, it is a sad and all too regular fact of life that lives are lost in the fishing industry. Such loss formed part of my upbringing in Cornwall. A few decades ago—the culture continues—risk taking was sometimes admired as bravery. The industry needs to face up to that culture, as do we, as representatives of constituencies in which there are fishing ports.
Following the tragic loss of the Margaretha Maria, to which the Minister referred, Herculean efforts were made in the port to establish a fisherman's reporting and

259WH
positioning scheme. We did not know that the tragedy had occurred until many days after the event; such a scheme would enable continual reporting between the boat and someone on land. There should be a mechanism to detect the problem that occurred on the Margaretha Maria, when the emergency-release mechanisms for the emergency position-indicating radio beacons—EPIRBs—and life rafts did not work. Even in Newlyn, however, it is difficult to persuade fishermen to sign up to such a system, despite the fact that they know that information would not be disclosed to their competitors at sea who were chasing the same fish.
The Minister emphasised the initial response to the Government consultation on the under 12 m code. As other Members have noted, he said that the response was mixed. However, I have spoken to several people in the industry who did not respond but said that they were generally happy with the proposals. There were aspects of the code that they did not like but, broadly speaking, there was no contention over the safety equipment check list, or over the proposals for self-assessment, self-certification and risk assessments. Those to whom I spoke did, however, have a problem with the proposals over the fitness of vessels—a point to which the Minister referred. I hope that the Government will review their approach in that regard, as the Minister implied.
I can cite a recent example of the problems created by such an approach in my constituency. The inspector involved was responsible for interpreting the generalised regulations with regard to a working boat with a good record. A draconian interpretation of the rules nearly put a marine operator out of business. That is the sort of thing that the industry fears, so I welcome the Minister's undertaking to review the matter. It would be helpful if, when winding up, he described the approach that will be taken to charges when inspections are carried out by Maritime and Coastguard Agency surveyors. When a boat owner fails to comply with the regulations, an MCA surveyor could become involved. At what point will charges be imposed on the industry?
Following the tragic death in March 1997 of my constituents William Pirrie, Steven Cooper and Philip Benney as a result of the Gorah Lass disaster, the first recommendation to the MCA was for it to consider funding a research project into the behaviour of under 12 m fishing vessels in rough seas, to establish how the risk of capsize or swamping is related to freeboard, freeing ports, static stability and bilge keels. I am not aware that such work has been undertaken or that any report has been published on the outcomes of any such research. Issues arose from the marine accident investigation branch inquiry into that sinking from which we should learn lessons, but I am not certain that we have done so.
There are broader issues to be considered. Life rafts, EPIRBs and hydrostatic release units have failed many times and, on some occasions, for inexplicable reasons. Admittedly, at times they had been tied down or had not been maintained, but on other occasions a proper explanation has not been given for such failures. The MCA is undertaking further research into the matter and it would be helpful if hon. Members who have a close interest in the subject were kept informed of any progress.
260WH
As for safety equipment on board, I welcome the Minister's recognition of the excellent campaigning of the Cornish family of Danny Kebble—of Polperro—who died earlier this year. I strongly support campaigns that encourage the use of permanent-wear life-jackets, particularly on single-handed vessels. That has been long overlooked. I agree that it is partly a culture issue, but such campaigns need encouragement and to be led from the front.
The MAIB's digest of lessons learned from fishing accidents identifies several problems with working conditions on vessels. Some commonly encountered serious issues cause accidents on board fishing vessels, but could be corrected at relatively little expense. I refer to fish rooms without ladder access—climbing or jumping down during rough conditions can be extremely hazardous. In difficult conditions, unpreserved wooden decks covered with fish slime can become ice rinks. Bent booms on beam trawlers can be hazardous. Indeed, the beams themselves can pose a danger for the men, especially during rough conditions. In my experience, the sheer weight of the beams are a cause of concern. Sometimes, there are devious warp winches and warps are poorly maintained. I shall refer later to exhausted fishermen. It is hardly surprising that mistakes can be made in certain conditions. Watertight integrity breaches are a worry, as are inaccessible life rafts, the lack of upper deck lifeline rigging and clutter, especially old netting that is unsecured on the upper deck.
I draw attention to the positioning of safety equipment and the working conditions on boats. I recently experienced some time aboard a fishery protection vessel. We have very well trained fisheries inspectors working in the Royal Navy and inshore. While on board to inspect the catch, they could provide a helpful support service by offering fishermen advice. Fisheries inspectors tell me that they witness some extremely dangerous working conditions on boats, such as the strapping down of life rafts, on which they are not permitted to comment while they are on board. That is a wasted Government resource. With a little interdepartmental co-operation, those issues could be discussed and that advice given. I am not suggesting that fisheries inspectors should become safety inspectors, but they could offer advice and should be encouraged to do so.
The Minister rightly identified serious concerns about the stability of trawlers following the tragic loss of the Margaretha Maria to which he referred, which resulted in the loss of four men from my constituency—Robbie Holmes, Vince Marshall, and John and Kerry Todd—in November 1997. The MAIB report into that incident identified, not before time, that static stability tests in the harbour may not have given a true picture of the seagoing stability of beam trawlers.
The recommendations of the MAIB's report were welcomed at the time, and last year's Wolfson report, and the subsequent roadshow around the ports of the UK, provided an opportunity for skippers to discuss the issue. A lot of expertise was injected and their input was extremely welcome. Some experienced beam trawler skippers expressed to me a serious lack of confidence in MCA inspectors. There should he a closer relationship between the MCA and beam trawler skippers: the MCA should call on their experience a great deal more.

261WH
From my experience on board a beam trawler, it is clear that I would probably turn it over in two minutes. Enormous experience is required, but fortunately the experience of beam trawler skippers around the coast is first class, and that is what keeps those vessels afloat. However, beam trawlers can be extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. I hope that the work on that front is taken further.
We support the proposed training and the training grants, which are welcomed by crews. However, skippers feel that the fishing industry is not being treated in the same way as the merchant shipping industry, where skippers are given grants from the small firms merit award for research and technology to fund maintenance and course fees. The Minister should go further and offer support to skippers, because, after all, skippers set the tone for safety on board vessels. Correct training at that level will percolate through the rest of the industry and certainly through the crews.
The fishing industry is in crisis, as the Minister is aware. The crisis relates to the impact that high fuel prices might have on safety at sea, which has not been covered so far in today's debate. The 200 per cent. increase in fuel prices in the past two years is putting pressure on the industry. Fuel costs have risen from between 10 and 20 per cent. of a vessel's earnings to more than 50 per cent. Although last week hauliers were given sweeteners, the fishing industry has not received any support, unlike other European fishing industries. The Government could help the industry by means of many measures that are in their gift, such as survey charges, light dues and landing dues.
The tone of the debate has been absolutely right. All too often, debates in Parliament tend towards juvenile point scoring. That is clearly inappropriate in the case of fishing safety, as all parties have a genuine and sincere interest in improving the unacceptably poor level of safety in the industry. The Government are right not to accept that they can have no impact on that safety record.
We welcome the under-12 m code, the review of the fitness of vessel requirements and recommendations following the Gorah Lass sinking that work should continue on improving equipment reliability; that the use of fisheries protection vessels to offer advice at sea should be considered; that anxieties about the stability of particular vessels should be considered; that the Minister should speed up the review process; that training should include skippers as well as crew; and that, in the light of the fuel crisis, the Minister should consider taking action before the crisis leads to a fatality at sea.
3.32 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I begin by responding to a comment made by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) about fisheries protection crews. They do a great job, but he must remember that they are maritime policemen. He obviously has no experience of the people whom I would describe as the toughest maritime policemen in the north Atlantic—the Norwegians. My brother, Leslie, is the skipper of a freezer trawler. While fishing off northern
262WH
Norway recently, he was visited by such a bunch of policemen from the fisheries protection service in Norway, and they were on board his vessel for four hours.
We need tough policing, because many fishermen will fish illegally. I have been on vessels that have fished illegally off Shetland, Bear Island and Norway. The hon. Member for St. Ives may say that I keep disreputable company, but many fishermen will cheat if given the chance—not that my brother Leslie would.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not referring to the company that he was keeping last week.
Dr. Godman: You and I were in the company of Orange Order representatives in Drumcree, Mr. Deputy Speaker—not that I would say that they were disreputable.
This is an important issue. I have known about the involvement of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in campaigns to improve the safety of mariners since the early 1960s, when we were both so-called mature students at Hull university. I disagree with him about the national air traffic control system, which I shall not discuss, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will rule me out of order.
The recent sinking of the Karianda was a deeply disquieting affair, but I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the matter now being sub judice. On the sinking of the Solway Harvester, when I think of the young lads involved, some of whom were constituents of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), I am deeply concerned, as is everyone in Scotland. I believe that our Ministers, including my hon. Friend here today, do their best to protect and promote the interests of our fishing communities. That was not always the case with Conservative and Labour Administrations, but I have no time to discuss that now. I believe that our Ministers fight their corner well in Brussels.
In that context, the dismissal of the Scottish Fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), was unfortunate and deeply regrettable. His dismissal is especially unfortunate given that the Fisheries Council meets tomorrow. Rhona Brankin is a formidable woman and a formidable politician, and I am sure that she will become an equally formidable Scottish Fisheries Minister. I want a Scottish Fisheries Minister to be treated as an equal, along with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in negotiations in Brussels. The Scottish fishing industry is an important industry, and, comparatively speaking, much bigger than that south of the border.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is seeking a constitutional impossibility? Regardless of how equal he would like the two Ministers from different jurisdictions to be, under the current constitutional set-up there can be only one UK negotiating position in Brussels.
Dr. Godman: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would not be able to resist that observation. I have long argued

263WH
that, given the contrasting importance of the industry north and south of the border, the Minister leading the negotiations should be from the Edinburgh Parliament. However, that is another story. I am talking about the safety of fishermen.
I was 12 years old when my mother told me that my Uncle Midge had been killed. He was the mate of the Boston Seafire when a wave demolished the bridge of his vessel. I remember, as a young teenager, the loss of the Norman, the Lorella and the Roderigo, which accounted for the loss of about 60 men in terrible conditions. The terrible loss of the three Hull trawlers in 1968, to which the Minister referred, led to the setting up of the Holland Martin inquiry. The most recent statistics, to which the Minister, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) and the Opposition spokesman referred, were given to me in an oral answer by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. He said:
Over the past three years. the total number of fishermen who died as a result of their vessel being lost or of falling overboard is 53, and the number of vessels that capsized or foundered is 60. This year, there have been 14 deaths up to May.—[Official Report, 13 June 2000: Vol. 351. c. 778.]
That is a disgraceful record. This is not a question of party political differences—the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has always been concerned about such matters, and I cannot recall his missing a single fisheries debate. All hon. Members must agree on the need to improve safety.
I make no apology about returning to the issue of survival suits, or, as they are now called, immersion suits. I am happy to respond to the Minister's comments about my campaign to have a regulation introduced at national and European Union level. Such a regulation would require the skippers and owners of vessels to carry immersion suits for all crews. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), who unfortunately had to leave the debate early, reminded me of remarkable developments in lightweight immersion suit design by BP—in relation to which I do not have to declare an interest—which have been produced in collaboration with Gore-Tex. My hon. Friend suggested that the new suits felt like underwear; I do not know what kind of underwear he wears, but I cannot imagine that even the most lightweight immersion suits are as lightweight as that. My hon. Friend made a serious point: BP has adopted the Gore-Tex suit, which costs £150, for its offshore oil and gas industry workers.
Many members of the Scottish fishing industry chastise me for continuing with the campaign, and I hope that the Minister is listening closely to what I say. BP has also introduced a personnel locating device that can be worn like a wristwatch, and if a man goes over the side and cannot get his arms out of the water because of the gear he is wearing, the device can send out a signal, which can be picked up by an answering device from several feet below the surface.
I ask the Minister to take the BP development seriously and to respond to it. When a ship is going down and everything is in darkness it is a horrible experience, but if a fisherman or other mariner has the time to put on an immersion suit, he has a much better chance of being picked out of the water than a lad who goes over the side wearing his ordinary gear. For
264WH
example, about 13 or 14 years ago, a large French trawler, with a crew of 27, went down off St. Kilda. The fourteen men who were on watch had time to put on their immersion suits, which in those days were big, clumsy things. It was February and there was a force 8 gale blowing, but those men survived upwards of two and half hours, which was enough time for a helicopter to come from Lossiemouth, which was quite a long way away. The men and youths who were in their bunks when the ship went down had to jump over the side in their sleeping gear and they all died within minutes.
A more recent example of which the Minister will be aware, as it was in all the Scottish papers, is an Orcadian deckhand who was knocked overboard from a purse-seiner off Shetland and was in the water for about half an hour. Fortunately, he was wearing a survival suit and he was rescued. His skipper said, "I have not paid much attention to the need for survival suits, but from now on everyone on my ship will have one." It is a disgrace that there are no European Union and national regulations on the issue.
I am reminded of the character in Sir Walter Scott's "The Antiquary" who said, "It's no fish ye're buying—it's men's lives." Men's lives are being sacrificed because we have failed to introduce regulations. On a fishing vessel, especially a single-handed vessel, if a fisherman who is leaning over the side to get the pots falls in, he is likely to drown, I am sad to say. However, if he is wearing an immersion suit he has a chance of surviving long enough to be rescued.
I am pleased to support the proposals on safety training for youngsters and the refresher training outlined in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation brief, of which the Minister has a copy. The federation and others in the fishing industry's safety and health group are to be complimented for helping to sponsor research into fatigue at Aberdeen university.
3.43 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4 pm
On resuming—
Dr. Godman: I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
On the provision of safety aids, I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister that where they are introduced, especially on vessels of less than 12 m, the Government must give serious consideration to grant aid. Am I right in thinking that such domestic aid is quite common in other maritime member states of the European Union, and that the same holds true for emergencies? I know that French trawlers cannot leave port without carrying immersion suits, but I think that that applies only for trawlers of more than a certain overall length. The kinds of trawlers that we—unfortunately—see fishing in our traditional fishing grounds certainly carry them.
On EU funding for safety equipment and training and all other matters relating to the catching sector of the fishing industry, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me an assurance in writing, and to send a copy to the Library, that we receive the same kind of aid as, for example, the Spanish fishing fleet, and the fleets of other

265WH
member states. There is a perception among our fishermen not that we are less generous than other maritime member states of the Union, but that they get more. I have no illusions about our fishermen, being the son of one and the brother of three of them. We know that some of them are chancers, but I think that they have a genuine case for receiving grant aid for the introduction of safety equipment. They make a legitimate request that we should examine our record on EU funding for equipping our crews and vessels to the very best standards.
I am pleased by the Minister's commitment to safety. We have to improve the safety record of our industry for the fishermen themselves, their families and their communities. Some may think that I have been critical today, but let me end by complimenting the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants his compliment to be recorded, will he stop drifting away from the microphone? If he does, he will not be recorded upstairs.
Dr. Godman: I always drift to port, and one might say, "Don't drift to starboard with this character next to you." I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to the Hansard official.
I want to compliment the Government on the compensation that they have awarded, largely at the behest of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. My hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and others from the fishing ports have also played a role. The compensation is going to those elderly ex-fishermen who lost their jobs when the Icelanders—rightly and properly, I think—sought to protect stocks for their indigenous industry. I have heard of one ex-fisherman in his mid-70s receiving £18,000. That is not a great sum, but it will make his life a little easier. I offer my sincere compliments and congratulations to the Government on behalf of him and all the other ex-fishermen. Much more must be done on safety, so that our fishermen's lives are a little safer as they go about this most hazardous occupation.
4.4 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: It is always a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). When he saw me coming into the Chamber, he said that he thought that I would be here. I could not work out whether he had thought so in a spirit of hope or dread.
I did not expect to say this, but I greatly valued the way in which the Minister opened our debate today. He will understand that some of what I must say will sound critical, but the tone of what he said was excellent and absolutely right. The content may not be right yet, but it is early days. He has obviously listened to the points made today.
To some extent, the debate is a precursor to the major fishing debate that we always have in December. I am afraid to say that the same cast will probably reassemble
266WH
for it this year, though with a different Minister. It is good to be able to talk specifically about safety today, and not to have to do a tour d'horizon, as we must do during the annual fishing debate.
We are really debating the new fisheries safety grants that were produced on 6 November. Despite what I said about the Minister, it may be instructive if I briefly state how we find ourselves in the current position. I do so not just to be critical, but to try to explain why many people in the fishing industry, although they will be pleased with the tone of what he has said today, will be sceptical about whether he can carry it through.
The regulations were introduced on 6 November, but the background goes back to Whitsun last year when a, doubtless planted, written answer was sneaked out at the last moment in the grand old tradition of politics. It was an announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that he would withdraw the fisheries safety grants. Unsurprisingly, that caused a stir among those of us who take an interest in such matters. It certainly caused a stir in the west country, especially because it was within a matter of days of the European elections.
At that stage, something dramatic happened. The Western Morning News was told by the Deputy Prime Minister to hold the front page, because he had a marvellous announcement and would come down to the west country to make it. He slightly spoiled the effect by saying that he had heard about the withdrawal of the grants on the radio, that they would not be withdrawn and that it was all a misunderstanding. It was obvious that there was confusion at the heart of the Government. I did what any concerned Member of Parliament would do: I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask who was correct. He followed a safe and prudent course, and has yet to reply.
In the ensuing months, there was pressure to find out what was happening. By the middle of October, my "friends" in the press were telling me that MAFF officials were unofficially saying that there was no question of the grants being restored, and that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong. By 21 October, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was taking a different line. He said:
The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that fishing safety grants will be reinstated, and MAFF has made no attempt to overrule that.—[Official Report, 21 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 564.]
That was clearly confirmation in ringing tones that the original press story was right. Confusion was piled on confusion, so I put down a priority written question to try to work out what was going on. The instructive answer was:
The Government are currently considering the issue of reinstating a scheme.—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337. c. 165W.]
There was no longer a firm commitment to overrule the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There was reference to "a" scheme rather than "the" scheme, and it was a question of currently considering it rather than doing something about it.
Matters then moved on. In the annual fisheries debate there was an exchange, as there often is, between myself and the Parliamentary Secretary, who said:
New structural funds will be introduced next year. There will be an opportunity to consider safety grants—[Official Report, 13 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 54.]

267WH
In a sense, despite the valiant efforts of the Western Morning News in particular to keep the issue at the forefront of the public's attention, that was that. Finally, today, some 18 months after the planted parliamentary question and the scrap between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Deputy Prime Minister, the matter is resolved.
There are many opportunities for Opposition Members to attack the Government. You will remember that well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you were no bad hand at it. I do not particularly like to use an occasion such as this to do it, but it is relevant. There was obvious confusion about what the devil was going on. I take what the Minister said today at face value. I do not know how these turf wars resolve themselves in the end, but I suspect that it comes down to departmental budgets. A scheme has now been installed, and I am delighted that the Minister will be responsible for it on a day-to-day basis.
I said that I welcomed the tone in which the Minister spoke, but there was a problem with the content. The reason is simple. It has been echoed by the Minister's comments today, although I suspect that he toned down some of the initial draft that he was offered. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency apparently assumes that fishermen belong to a suicide squad and want to go to sea in the most hazardous conditions and risk their lives in a macho fashion. There may be people like that out there, but they have not spoken to me. Fishermen are almost the last of the hunter gatherers. Undoubtedly, when the stocks are there, there is a strong inclination to go for them, but I do not recognise the notion that they willingly and deliberately put themselves at risk and flout safety regulations that are designed to help them.
Over the past 18 months to two years I have tried to understand why the MCA takes that view. In fact, that attitude is probably shared by the Deputy Prime Minister himself. There is no doubt that as an ex-seaman he has a passionate concern about the safety of those who go to sea. I accept that to the hilt. But all his remarks, especially the unscripted ones, and his body language suggest that he believes that fishermen are part of the great downtrodden, mythical working classes who are chased off to sea in coracles by top-hatted capitalists. It is not like that any more, if ever it were. We are for the most part, although not exclusively, dealing either with the self-employed or with people with a real share in their catch. There may be examples of downtrodden people chased out to sea by rapacious employers, but it is not the general position.
Dr. Godman: I am reluctant to intervene, given that I have just made a speech. I know of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the fishing communities, but when the Deputy Prime Minister referred to fishermen being placed in danger of their lives, his remarks related, in many cases, to incidents at the behest of bosses of small trawler companies on the Humber. I can assure him from personal experience that trawler companies have an appalling safety record. We are not talking about share fishermen.
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman speaks from long experience. I suppose that, to an extent, we speak as we find. He speaks from what he knows from his locality,
268WH
and I speak from what I find in mine. For the most part, it is true to say that for entirely honourable reasons, the Deputy Prime Minister has the wrong attitude. That is important, because, if the safety regulations are to work, there has to be a degree of ownership. Those on whom they will be imposed must believe that they will do them some good. If they do not believe that, they will break them and flout them. The improvements that we all want in safety records simply will not happen.
My second point is more sombre, but it has to be made. Fishermen who speak to me have the impression that an understanding, almost an obligation, is being imposed on them, that fishing can be as safe as any other occupation. However, it cannot; fishing is a dangerous and hazardous occupation. That should never stop us trying to improve safety, but the idea that it can be as safe to go to sea as it is to go to Westminster simply is not correct. That must be acknowledged.
Fishermen tell me that the regulations with which they are threatened have not arisen as a result of their experience. No one has said, "Look, you've got to improve your game. How do you think that can happen?" They feel that those in the front line at the MCA who are directly charged with such responsibilities are mostly retired master mariners with a big-ship mentality. Why, indeed, should they not have such a mentality? That is how they gained their experience, but fishermen believe that the proposed regulations have no relevance to the way in which they conduct their working lives.
In what is inevitably a short debate—I am grateful to the Government that it is taking place—I cannot give a range of the examples that have appeared in the west country press, but perhaps two will suffice. Fishermen have told me that if they wore a regulation life-jacket on some of the boats that they take out, they would be unable to get into or out of the wheelhouse. As a piece of kit for jumping overboard, it might be a good idea, but it has obviously been devised by people who do not understand what conditions on such boats are like. Fishermen tell me repeatedly that that is typical of the way in which the MCA treats them. There is a fear that, in the end, the MCA will inspect their boats as well. Confidence between fishermen and the MCA simply does not exist, and it needs to be built up.
I can do no better than quote Dave Pessell, of Plymouth Fishermen's Association, whom the Minister knows. I have always found that Mr. Pessell gives a good account of himself and the industry and deserves to be listened to. He recently said:
We don't believe this is a consultation exercise. It has obviously come out without the agreement of the industry. We are sure the Government will try to push it through.
Perhaps I am becoming less cynical and more naïve as I get older, whereas that traditionally happens the other way round, but when the Minister said that this debate was the end of the consultation, I took that to mean that the consultation was now over and that Ministers would consider whether what had been said would help them to formulate policy. If that is the business that we are in, today is a good day. However, if the Minister acts behind closed doors without my being a fly on the wall, he will have a battle on his hands.
In a press notice of 16 October, the MCA said:
The consultation process has prompted a mixed reaction from fishermen. Though significant numbers are in favour of updating existing safety standards, there is still some concern

269WH
amongst fishermen about the processes of risk assessment, annual self-certification, and inspection. We need now to analyse the responses to consultation and to consider how best to address the concerns which fishermen and their representatives have put to us.
Some of that is absolutely glorious for connoisseurs of Whitehall. I have been in government and know that the phrase "a mixed reaction" means that the people to whom we spoke thought that we were nuts, so we are going to ignore them. I have probably written or sanctioned the same phrase in the past, so I know that that is what it means in a Government document. "Mixed" means that no one at the sharp end agrees at all.
I hope that the Minister will tell the MCA that not all fishermen are members of a suicide squad or determined to flout the rules. Ultimately, it is the fishermen who go to sea in what will always be a relatively dangerous occupation and who are concerned about their standards.
Today we have seen a new Minister at the helm. If he is prepared to consider what fishermen are saying and accept that they must have some ownership of the regulations, a great deal of good could come from this debate. If not, I fear that ultimately the fishermen will suffer.
4.19 pm
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: My constituency is perhaps not best known as a fishing area, despite its extensive coastline along the Solway. The fishing industry is not insignificant, particularly scallop fishing and its on-shore processing. We have a significant export industry to France. When people buy scallops in France, they have probably come from Galloway.
Our lack of a national reputation for fishing was cruelly changed on 11 January, when the Solway Harvester was lost off the Isle of Man. The accident highlighted many features typically associated with sea disasters. As hon. Members have said, many of the crew were young and either related or boyhood friends. The skipper, Craig Mills, was the father of a five-year-old daughter. Also in the crew were his brother Robin Mills, whose wife was pregnant, and his 18-year-old cousin, David Mills. David Lyons, aged 17, and Wesley Jolly, also 17, were others. We should recognise that not all of their families had a fishing background, but in the economic climate in the southern Machars of Galloway, few jobs were to be had. Martin Milligan and John Murphy also died in the tragedy.
The tragedy typically impacted on the small, tight-knit communities of the area—in this case, the Isle of Whithorn and Garlieston. The communities came together in their grief and much support was given to the bereaved families. If anyone ever doubted the necessity for constant efforts to improve fishing safety, attendance at the funerals of these seven lads would have convinced them of the need for unstinting attention.
I do not want to comment on the reasons for the disaster, which are still under investigation by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. I learned during an adjournment that the result may not be released until
270WH
May next year. Having looked at the MAIB website at lunch, I wanted to urge the Minister to press for its conclusions on accidents to be delivered much more quickly. A comparison of the dates on which the MAIB published its reports with the dates of the accidents revealed considerable delays, which seems inexplicable.
I want to make a specific point about the Solway Harvester disaster. There will always be fishing accidents: we are talking today about reducing the likelihood of their occurring, or reducing their tragic consequences as much as possible. Accidents will never be eliminated, so the recovery of wrecks—and the bodies on them—is important. The traditional view is that the sea is the final resting place for people who have drowned, but the MAIB will fund recovery of a vessel if it is practical and necessary to ascertain the costs of the accidents.
Fishing communities are among the most traditional in the country, so we might expect them to hold to traditional views. However, things have begun to move on significantly in that respect. We have had 25 years of North sea oil technology. It is now possible to accomplish things at depth in the ocean that it was impossible to accomplish 25 years ago. The technology that makes that possible is in daily use. In many more cases than was hitherto practicable, we can recover wrecks, and bodies if they are in them.
Social attitudes have changed even in traditional fishing communities. People want their loved ones brought back, if possible. They want to finalise the grieving process and provide comfort to the families. In recent military conflicts such as the Gulf war and the Falklands war, bereaved relatives had the option of having the bodies of their loved ones brought home.
The Minister alluded to the fact that, after the campaign to raise the Sapphire by public subscription, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) played a prominent part, the Government set up a consultation exercise. The result of that consultation, like the results of other consultation mentioned earlier, seems to have been somewhat mixed—if not contradictory. In a letter to me, the Minister summarised that consultation by saying that
the majority of respondents believed that the sea should continue to be regarded as an appropriate grave for those lost at sea.
In the next paragraph, however, he said:
The majority of respondents to the consultation exercise held the view that a funded industry-based scheme should be established for the recovery of those lost at sea.
It seems that if you ask the same question twice, you will receive two different answers.
Mr. Andrew George: Has the hon. Gentleman found from speaking to his constituents, as I have found from speaking to mine, that there is a strongly held view that funerals are love's last act? I do not know of a single family that would not strongly wish to have the bodies of its loved ones recovered.
Mr. Morgan: Yes, I agree. That was certainly the unanimous feeling among the relatives whom I visited in the case of the Solway Harvester disaster. It was unanimous also among the relatives of those killed in the Sapphire disaster. The universal feeling is that, if it is practical, people want their loved ones brought home.

271WH
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government are investigating the setting up of an industry trust fund. How much has been achieved, and when does he expect to be able to draw some conclusions from that investigation? Has he given any thought to the fact that the Government might wish to make a contribution to that fund instead of leaving it solely to the industry?
In the Solway Harvester case, the families were fortunate—that is probably the wrong word—that the incident did not happen in UK territorial waters, but in those of the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man Government immediately committed themselves to recovering the vessel, and persevered with that recovery despite the significant delays caused by the weather and the increases in the budget set for that recovery. I put on record my thanks and the thanks of my constituents to Donald Gelling, Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, and Alexander Downey, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and Forestry, both of whom subsequently came to my constituency and visited some of the bereaved families.
Some of my constituents believed that the Government were being shown up by the Isle of Man, because, despite its having an enviable gross domestic product per capita, its total resources are much less than ours. We expected that the Government would do more. I asked the Minister if the Government could not offer some contribution to the Isle of Man's expenses. He replied:
As regards the provision of financial assistance to the Manx Authorities to meet the recovery costs of the Solway Harvester, it was the decision of the Isle of Man Government to respond to the wish of the bereaved families to recover the bodies. They did so, aware that they would be responsible for the costs of the operation. The Government considers that to contribute to those costs would set a precedent that cannot be overlooked.
There are too many fishing accidents, but how many boats can we expect to founder in the territorial waters of the Isle of Man—or even those of the Channel Islands, which is the only other jurisdiction where it is likely to happen? Surely we are morally bound to take action, and I ask the Minister to reconsider the Government's position even at this late stage.
My second point is on a different matter. A constituent of mine is having a new vessel built at Hepworth yard in Hull. Work on the vessel, which will be 24 m long, has started. My constituent needs to decide by early next year whether a shelter deck should be installed. He wants it primarily for crew comfort and safety, but following a recent European Council ruling, tonnage is, I believe, strictly monitored. The cost resulting from extra tonnage units to cover the shelter deck could be £100,000. However, the Council has also ruled that member states can increase their multi-annual guidance programme capacity, to make allowance for safety improvements such as a shelter deck of the kind envisaged. How flexible are responses likely to be to requests for extra tonnage capacity to install vital safety measures? In that context, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that financial assistance in general should be available for the many extra safety features that are being considered.
I support what has been said about the need to inculcate in the industry a real culture of safety. We should recognise, however, the huge commercial
272WH
pressures on fishermen. In the scallop fishery alone, many areas off Scotland have been closed for fishing at various times this year due to amnesic shellfish poisoning. That, of course, increases the pressures on fishermen at the times when the grounds are open. They must bring in their year's catch in a much shorter time. We need a realistic regime and culture, which can survive the pressures that work against it.
I welcome, as did the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, the proposals for training, and the positive impact that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has made in drawing those up.
4.32 pm
Mr. Hill: The debate has been an important one, with many valuable contributions. The numbers present are depleted relative to when we began the debate, but that is perfectly understandable due to the exigencies of the transport situation. Various colleagues who were present earlier have apologised to me for their necessary absence. I shall of course endeavour to respond to the points that they made, so that they will appear in the Hansard record.
The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked for an assurance that the buildings and equipment at coastguard stations at Leigh-on-Solent and Portland will be upgraded at the earliest opportunity. They will be. He asked for further reassurance that Ministers are content with the programme of closures in respect of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The answer is yes. He also asked about fishing vessel safety grants and why there was no intention to reintroduce grants for safety equipment. I remind the hon. Gentleman of a point that I want also to explain in response to some comments by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
Such safety grants previously applied only to vessels of more than 12 m and are therefore not central to a debate about the provision for smaller fishing vessels. Those grants were largely devoted to subsidies for statutory safety equipment, but the Government have chosen not to persist with that. Our strategy now is to focus on safety training. To that end, £1.2 million has been allocated over the next three years, about which I shall say a little more later.
The hon. Member for Poole mentioned the response of the South Coast Fishermen's Council on the proposed code. In response, I offer the reassurance that there is no absolute requirement for a written risk assessment. There is simply a recommendation that any changes to the code be subject to discussion with the industry, through the committee responsible for the review—which will include the industry—and that responses be publicly available. That was mentioned by other hon. Members. Responses to the consultation are publicly available in the Maritime and Coastguard Agency summary of responses, which will be published and placed in the Library. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) made a wide-ranging and knowledgeable speech, as befits an hon. Member representing a constituency in which fishing plays such a major part. I was grateful for his general support of the Government's efforts and for his welcome of the under-12 m code. I was encouraged by his report of the positive attitudes of those fishermen

273WH
who did not respond to the consultation. We will have in some way to embrace them in our considerations on those matters. He also asked about the charges of the MCA surveyor. Charges for follow-up visits will be made in accordance with the fee regime applicable at the time. Fees are currently applied to all time on board and in the office, plus a maximum of four hours travelling time.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about lessons learned from the sinking of the Gorah Lass. The first phase of the report on that ship has recently been completed and the results are being discussed with the industry. The second phase, which should be completed early next year, will be aimed at obtaining more details. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would undertake to keep hon. Members informed of progress on that research; I certainly do so. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. He asked about co-operation between the MCA and sea fisheries officers. British sea fisheries officers already carry out checks on vessel safety certificates and on the certification of officers and we will certainly consider, with the fisheries department, what more can be done in terms of co-operation.
The hon. Gentleman next asked about the health and safety rules on beam trawlers. The new rules require that all skippers and owners consider the risk for the crew while working on board, which includes conditions of decks and the beams on the beam trawlers. There are clear requirements on beam trawlers in the new health and safety rules.
Mr. Andrew George: On the issue of the stability of beam trawlers, as the Minister knows well, as a result of the inquiry into the loss of the Margaretha Maria, serious questions have been asked about beam trawler stability. Although the Wolfson report has come out, subsequent phases of the follow-up work have not been completed. The speed with which we broadcast information to the industry is important and would ensure that issues of stability are properly addressed.
Mr. Hill: I fully accept that point, and reiterate my undertaking that that information and final report will be available early next year. We recognise the urgency of the matter, but we must obviously draft as comprehensive, detailed and proper a report as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the working time directive in connection with fisherman fatigue. The Government are committed to extending the protection of the working time directive to workers in the sea fishing industry. However, we recognise that a balance must be struck between a fisherman's need to earn a living and the requirements of the directive. My officials are working with the industry to implement the directive in a way that meets its aims without threatening the livelihoods of those employed on fishing vessels. That kind of balance always needs to be struck for the fishing industry.
The hon. Gentleman said that other member states were giving aid to the industry to combat the fuel crisis. The United Kingdom fishing industry already benefits from tax-free fuel, as I am sure he is aware. We have
274WH
pressed the European Commission to ensure that any measures adopted by other member states comply fully with the community's state aid rules, and the Commission is taking action on that.
I note the positive response of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who remains heavily involved in the European dimension of the matters that we are discussing. His intervention reflects a lifelong study of maritime issues and especially of safety issues. I remember his service on the Labour party national executive committee's working party on the law of the sea in the 1970s; he was brought in as an expert on those matters. He will not remember my being there, because I was there only in a support capacity, as a mere minion—a researcher—but I have a distinct recollection of, and respect for, his contribution.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about the treatment of young fishermen. The loss of the Solway Harvester, and other incidents in which young fishermen have been lost, has raised awareness of the requirement for basic safety training and, reassuringly, the demand for courses has increased as a result.
My hon. Friend also referred to the question of immersion suits and the campaign in Europe, as I had predicted that he might. Under the Fishing Vessels (EC Directive on Harmonised Safety Regime) Regulations 1999, immersion suits must be carried on new vessels of 24 m and over. Those regulations certainly apply to the French vessels to which he referred, but they are not intended to impose new domestic requirements in excess of those called for by international or European obligations. The owners of existing vessels of 24 m and over and of smaller vessels remain free to make such provision voluntarily. I am confident that my hon. Friend will maintain his campaign on that matter.
My hon. Friend asked about the experience of other maritime countries, especially European countries, with regard to grant aid. I undertake to write to him on that subject, as he requested. I was grateful for his warm remarks and congratulations on the recent announcement of compensation for those who lost their livelihoods as a result of the Icelandic fishing disputes. He also referred to personal indicator beacons worn on the wrist. I am told that they cause problems on radio frequencies, but I assure hon. Members that the matter is under review.
On the general question of immersion suits, I give an undertaking to my hon. Friend that we will look at the BP designs to which he alluded. I am open-minded on the design question, and I know the problems experienced by fishermen in the use of personal buoyancy equipment. I would regard it as the abiding monument of what will doubtless be a brief tenure as Minister with responsibility for such matters if we secured progress and agreement on the issue.
I was grateful for the kind remarks made by the hon. Member for Teignbridge about the Government' s tone and approach on safety matters. He is right that there is a history of uncertainty in relation to safety equipment grants. As I said to the hon. Member for Poole, such grants applied only to vessels of more than 12 m. To that extent, they are not central to our discussion of safety

275WH
arrangements for small vessels. However, £1.2 million has been allocated to safety training over the next three years, which has been widely welcomed by the industry.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the industry's misgivings about the attitude of the MCA. First, the MCA does not believe that fishermen are a suicide squad. It is concerned, as we all are, about the lack of a safety culture among some, but by no means all, fishermen. The MCA wants to work with the industry to ensure that a good safety culture prevails. As for the fishermen's apparent impression that the MCA is run by a group of master mariners, it has introduced ex-fishermen into the organisation and is working with fishermen to improve the approach to safety matters. I agree with the hon. Member for Teignbridge about the need for ownership by fishermen of the safety regime in the industry. I recognise that we can succeed only if the Government work with fishermen to achieve common safety objectives.
The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale reminded us of the tragedy of the Solway Harvester and its devastating impact on the local community, especially the families affected, on the Isle of Whithorn. It was a timely reminder that in dealing with such matters we are dealing not only with the deaths of fishermen but with the dreadful ramifications for families and whole communities. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about delays in the publication of marine accident investigation branch reports. I remind him that, in connection with the Solway Harvester, the MAIB issued a safety bulletin following the initial investigation, which highlighted points of concern and addressed the issues of hatch covers and safety training. Furthermore, a major reason for the delay in the Solway Harvester report is the Isle of Man police investigation into the loss.
The MAIB, for which I have the highest esteem, is extraordinarily hard pressed—especially so at present, for the reasons that we discussed at the beginning of the debate—but seeks to issue reports as quickly as possible. For a tiny organisation, its work rate is phenomenal. It deserves support, both public and in terms of resources.
The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale referred to the recovery of vessels and the recovery of those lost at sea. I must say to him in all candour that no Government could undertake always to recover bodies from sunken vessels. There may be many practical difficulties with the recovery operation and no one would wish further lives to be put at risk in an attempt to retrieve trapped bodies.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I was talking about recovery not in all circumstances but where it is practical and does
276WH
not pose undue danger to those engaged in the recovery operation. We all agree that such criteria would have to be met. It is the current blanket insistence that recovery will not happen that people consider unsatisfactory.
Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that qualification of his remarks. Such matters must be considered seriously. We have agonised over the issue and will continue to do so, but our position remains as I have stated.
The consultative document on the recovery of those lost at sea is in the House of Commons Library. The hon. Gentleman seemed to identify a contradiction in that consultation process, but the majority of the respondents upheld the tradition that for those who are lost, the sea should be the final resting place. They recognised that, when there was a desire on the part of families to recover the bodies, that should be made possible. To that end, we are examining the practicality of establishing a trust fund, primed at least in part by public money. I offer that specific positive response to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. We envisage in principle that the fund would administer moneys that could be called on to recover the bodies of fishermen when there was no case for doing so to assist accident or criminal investigations. A board of trustees would be entrusted to determine the feasibility of an operation before any funds were released. We are considering how to take that proposal forward and I am sure that we shall be making an announcement about it in due course. Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about extra tonnage capacity. Quotas for tonnage are considered when a vessel is designed.
I have attempted to respond to the many specific points that have been raised in the debate in appropriate detail. I reiterate my gratitude to those who have participated in our discussions. They have made an important contribution to the consultation process and we shall consider their proposals thoroughly.
Undoubtedly, difficult balances will have to be struck between education and regulation and between the cost of compliance with regulations and the safety benefit. There will always be some people who consider that the balances are not right. The test is whether those balances result in fewer accidents and fewer lives lost. If they do not, we must try to understand why and make the necessary changes more speedily than we have done in the past. I personally look forward to that challenge. Let me say again that the views and ideas that have been put forward today have provided valuable food for thought in the quest for a safer fishing industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Five o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Accommodation Questionnaire
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what the cost was of issuing the questionnaire to hon. Members on the type of accommodation they preferred; how many hon. Members replied to the questionnaire; and what action has been taken to accommodate the requests contained in the replies. [138543]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  Other than the cost of the stationery, there was no cost in issuing the questionnaire. 556 hon. Members responded. The results of the survey were analysed, presented to the Committee and passed to the Accommodation Whips.

PRIME MINISTER

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the seventh Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement. [138994]

  The Prime Minister
  I am pleased to announce that the seventh Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, entitled "Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords", has been published today by the Committee. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Libraries.

  The recommendations in the Report are for the House of Lords. The Government welcome the Report and hope and expect that the House of Lords will give it the serious consideration that it deserves.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the value is of the social network payment anticipated in the Post Office Network Business Plan for each year to 2005–06; [138042]

  (2) how much of the £80 million per annum payment towards the Post Office Network's fixed costs from the Government Practitioner Services and Internet learning access points anticipated in 2005–06 in the Post Office Network Business Plan will be offset by savings in other Government Departments currently offering similar services; [138037]
  718W
  (3) what proportion of the extra revenues anticipated as a result of the Post Office's Business Plan for the Post Office Network are assumed to come from Government agencies. [138041]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: It is established practice under section II paragraph 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose such information.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a list of the sub-post offices which have closed since May 1997. [136704]

  Mr. Byers
  I understand from the Post Office that a full list of sub-post office closures since May 1997 is not readily available in one central location.

  Ultra-low Sulphur Fuel
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of filling stations which(a) supply ultra-low sulphur petrol and (b) will supply ultra-low sulphur petrol by April 2001. [138440]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 November 2000]: The Department does not hold information on the number of petrol retail outlets in the UK selling ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP). According to HM Customs and Excise data, ULSP currently constitutes around a third of petrol released for consumption in the UK.

  Future levels of supply for ULSP will be a matter for individual companies to determine.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many fuel retail outlets sell low sulphur petrol in(a) Wales, (b) rural Wales, (c) England and (d) rural England; and what proportion this is of total petrol outlets. [138268]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

  Information Technology
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which Departments had not produced e-business strategies by the end of October; [138640]

  (2) in which disadvantaged communities the Government plan to pilot the costs and benefits of universal broadband access; [138637]

  (3) which Government Departments have introduced low cost personal computer leasing schemes for public service employees; and how many public service employees have benefited from these schemes; [138638]

  (4) which Government Departments and agencies are not connected to the Government secure internet; [138636]

  (5) if the methods for monitoring the achievement of the target of conducting 90 per cent. of low value Government procurement electronically have been agreed;[138641]
  719W
  (6) when the last monthly progress report to the Prime Minister on e-commerce was (a) submitted and (b) published on the e-Envoy website; [138642]

  (7) when he will publish his plans to liberalise re-use of Government information by internet content providers. [138741]

  Ms Hewitt
  I would like to thank my hon. Friend for the interest he has shown in key elements of the Government's strategy for the information age. I have been asked to reply as the Minister with overarching responsibility for that strategy, which the e-Envoy and I published in the UK Online Annual Report on 11 September.

  Yesterday, we published our plan for implementing all the commitments to action in the UK online report. This is on the internet at www.e-envoy.gov.uk/2000/progress/montprog.htm. The e-Envoy and I report monthly to the Prime Minister on progress against these targets. These progress reports areaccessible on the internet at www.e-envoy.gov.uk/2000/progress/progress.htm.

  On the specific questions my hon. Friend asks, the position is as follows:

  Universal broadband access

  The Wired Up Communities initiative will be piloting the impact that providing access to the internet might have on disadvantaged communities. On 11 October the Minister responsible for Learning and Technology, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), announced that the first wired up community will be Kensington, Liverpool. We expect to announce further pilot areas in the new year.

  Electronic Government procurement

  Departments will monitor their own progress towards the target that
  by 2001 90 per cent. of low value goods (by volume) will be purchased electronically.

  A tool to enable them to measure their progress has been developed and extensively trialled by the Office of Government Commerce. The measurement tool will be distributed to Principal Finance Officers shortly.

  Liberalising re-use of Government information

  I announced on 6 September our plans to boost the Knowledge Economy by overhauling the way Government information can be acquired and reused by publishing and internet businesses. This announcement was in the context of the Government's Review of the Knowledge Driven Economy as part of the Spending Review 2000. Her Majesty's Stationery Office colleagues are in the process of finalising details of key reforms with Treasury colleagues and are planning to publish these in late November.

  Personal computer leasing schemes

  We are committed to encouraging low cost leasing schemes in the Public Sector, and are currently auditing existing schemes. Over 27,000 teachers have purchased low cost computers through DfEEs 'Computers for Teachers' programme.
  720W
  Publication of UK online monthly progress reports

  The last monthly progress report to the Prime Minister was submitted on 15 November and published on the e-Envoy's website, www.e-envoy.gov.uk, on the same day.

  Government Departments and Agencies connected to the Government secure intranet

  All sizeable central Government Departments have joined, or are in the process of linking to, the Government secure intranet. Details of those Government Departments which are connected, or planning to connect, will be placed in the Library.

  Government Departments' e-business strategies

  Most Government Departments have submitted their plans.

  Many of the actions we are taking forward relate to matters for which the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for setting targets and implementing initiatives. Details of these are included in the UK Online Annual Report.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Malaria
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what target the Government have set for combating malaria; what additional resources have been allocated to meet this target; and if she will make a statement.[136971]

  Clare Short
  The United Kingdom is strongly supporting the World Health Organisation (WHO) led Roll Back Malaria (RBM) initiative to achieve the goal of reducing the malaria burden by half by 2010. The RBM initiative provides the vehicle for concerted action by partners, especially in Africa, to deliver more widely the benefits of currently available methods of malaria control to the poorest. Overall UK developmental programme spending on malaria control activities increased to over £19 million in 1999–2000 and is set to increase further. We have contributed £12 million to WHO RBM this year alone. The UK is also supporting public-private partnerships to develop the new generation of affordable drugs required for malaria control in developing countries, both by direct funding to WHO for the Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV) initiative, the Lapdap product development programme and the Malarone donation.

  Palestinian Education
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will suspend the transfer of further funds to the Palestinian Authority for education purposes until the schools under their control are reopened. [137501]

  Clare Short
  We have provided technical assistance to the Palestinian Ministry of Education for a number of years. Our help has focused on building the capacity of the Ministry, districts and schools to deliver high quality education to Palestinian children. To achieve this we have provided the services of experts, training and a limited amount of equipment. In company with other development partners we are considering further
  721W
  assistance to the education sector. There is no reason to delay this work because of school closures for valid security reasons.

  Kosovo
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with her European counterparts on the reconstruction of Kosovo; and if she will make a statement. [138195]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have not had recent discussions on Kosovo with other Ministers but I met key officials on my visit to Kosovo earlier this year and officials of this Department attend meetings of the Management Board of the EU Agency for Reconstruction, which is responsible for the EU's programme in Kosovo. The Department's office in Pristina liaises directly with the agency and with other donors, including EU member states, on reconstruction issues. The agency has made good progress on developing its 360 million euros programme of reconstruction activities in 2000 since its establishment in March. The United Kingdom's contribution to this programme is about £39 million. In addition, we are providing £5 million in bilateral technical assistance in this financial year.

  Departmental Employees (New Deal)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff her Department employs under the New Deal for Young People. [137959]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We currently employ two members of staff under the New Deal for Young People and have recently embarked on a new recruitment process for the New Deal arrangements.

  Departmental Employees (HIV)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will take steps to ensure that people who are HIV-positive do not suffer discrimination as a result of employment practices followed by her Department.[137792]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Staff who are HIV-positive are not discriminated against in any of DFID's employment practices. Staff who have AIDS are treated in the same way as others with potentially serious health conditions, bearing in mind DFID's duty of care to ensure the health and safety of staff with immuno-suppressive conditions.

  Child Labour (Rugmark Initiative)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the international Rugmark initiative; and what steps she has taken to encourage British carpet companies to take part. [137744]
  722W
  Mr. Foulkes
  We have not been involved with the Rugmark initiative and therefore we have not made an assessment of it.

  In general terms labelling can make a positive contribution to the elimination of child labour but impact hinges on effective monitoring, sustainable income replacement and/or access to quality education—if not children may simply be displaced into non export oriented work.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received from Oxfam regarding reducing Third World debt. [138405]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Secretary of State and I meet regularly with representatives of non-governmental organisations, including Oxfam, to discuss debt and other development issues.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Petrol Costs (Ministerial Cars)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [135029]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 552W.

  Housing Investment
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total amount was of Government expenditure on capital investment in housing in each year since 1979–80 in(a) England and (b) London, separately identifying expenditure under capital receipts; and what the projected expenditure is in each category for each year until 2003–04. [135802]

  Mr. Mullin
  The available information on Government allocations, or outturns, for expenditure on housing capital investment made since 1979–80 is set out in the tables. A revised local authority finance regime was introduced from 1990–91, and thus prior years' figures are not directly comparable. Some of the resources allocated through the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund and City Challenge are applied to housing, but this element is not distinguished in the allocations and is therefore not included. Allocations under the Capital Receipts Initiative over the period 1997–98 to 1999–2000 are identified separately in the table.

  Government expenditure plans from 2001–02 to 2003–04 which were set out in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 24 July 2000,Official Report, columns 398–04W, are as follows.
  723W

  Spending Review 2000 Settlement Housing Capital Programmes

  £ million

  England

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Housing Corporation ADP (including Rough Sleepers initiative)

  789

  940

  1,236

  Local Authority Credit Approvals

  2,305

  2,465

  2,545

  Disabled Facility Grants and Housing defects loans

  87

  88

  89

  Starter Homes Initiative

  50

  100

  100

  Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund

  20

  40

  60

  Programme allocations at Regional level are yet to be decided.

  Housing capital expenditure allocations 1979–80 to 1989–901—England

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Development Programme(ADP)—Gross expenditure

  2—

  2—

  521

  755

  734

  697

  711

  715

  752

  791

  935

  Local Authority Basic Block allocations (prior to 1990–91)

  2,544

  2,186

  1,771

  1,847

  1,769

  1,821

  1,572

  1,392

  1,262

  1,119

  874

  Estate Action

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  42

  67

  129

  176

  Other allocations

  0

  17

  25

  345

  464

  32

  33

  25

  71

  83

  45

  Housing capital expenditure allocations 1990–91 to 2000–011—England

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Housing Corporation Approved Development Programme (ADP)—Gross expenditure

  1,063

  1,586

  1,760

  1,796

  1,484

  1,142

  1,044

  684

  607

  638

  542

  Local Authority Credit Approvals (ACGs—from 1990— 91)

  1,296

  1,343

  1,290

  1,378

  1,038

  994

  943

  628

  544

  609

  2,019

  Estate Action

  175

  264

  347

  357

  373

  239

  203

  155

  99

  65

  68

  Other Credit Approval

  221

  187

  110

  45

  70

  88

  88

  51

  31

  3—

  3—

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  174

  569

  570

  3—

  Private Sector Renewal Support Grant

  413

  413

  397

  392

  308

  283

  271

  192

  166

  165

  3—

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  56

  59

  65

  72

  Estate Renewal Challenge Fund

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  30

  103

  146

  165

  81

  Housing Action Trusts

  3—

  10

  27

  57

  73

  47

  66

  69

  76

  68

  63

  Housing capital expenditure allocations 1979–1980 to 1989–901—London

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Development Programme (ADP)—Gross expenditure

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2
  —

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Local Authority Basic Block allocations (prior to 1990–91)

  887

  767

  548

  617

  532

  555

  480

  427

  385

  371

  290

  Estate Action

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  15

  14

  30

  37

  Other allocations

  0

  3

  3

  14

  64

  5

  7

  3

  17

  26

  2

  Housing capital expenditure allocations 1990–91 to 2000–011—London

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Housing Corporation Approved Development Programme (ADP)—Gross expenditure

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  424

  408

  261

  252

  264

  276

  Local Authority Credit Approvals (ACGs—from 1990-91)

  436

  451

  454

  474

  355

  321

  299

  194

  162

  184

  602

  Estate Action

  33

  67

  93

  91

  98

  88

  87

  86

  68

  46

  54

  Other Credit Approvals

  123

  100

  29

  3

  28

  43

  43

  31

  18

  3—

  3—

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  53

  167

  170

  3—

  724W
  Specific allocations for Estate Action and Housing Action Trusts within the Regeneration Programme are as follows:

  Estimated capital allocations

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Estate Action

  England

  39.5

  11.1

  4.7

  of which London

  35.5

  11.1

  4.7

  Housing Action Trusts England

  70

  92.3

  54.3

  Allocation has yet to be distributed between individual HATs.
  725W

  Housing capital expenditure allocations 1990–91 to 2000–011—London

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Private Sector Renewal Support Grant

  55

  52

  57

  55

  42

  44

  45

  39

  33

  33

  3—

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  9

  9

  11

  12

  Estate Renewal Challenge Fund

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  13

  58

  114

  79

  46

  Housing Action Trusts

  3—

  2—

  2—

  21

  32

  23

  24

  39

  33

  39

  34

  1Cash prices

  2 Denotes figures not available

  3 Not applicable

  Notes:

  1. ADP Gross Expenditure—excludes ADP funding of City Challenge, Rough Sleepers Initiative and ERCF. Data prior to 1981–82 are unavailable as Corporation expenditure was not cash limited in this period. London boroughs' expenditure was not separately identifiable prior to the Corporation's regional re-organisation from 1995–96. The 1992–93 figure excludes £591 million under the Housing Market Package. 2000–01 figure is forecast expenditure.

  2. Estate Action—figures up to 1994–95 represent supplementary credit approval (SCA) and continuation scheme allocations; thereafter, direct grant payment outturns within the Single Regeneration Budget. 2000–01 outtum is estimated.

  3. Other allocations/credit approvals—covers special programmes for Energy Conservation, Home Insulation, Home Improvement, Private Sector Initiative, Homelessness, Special Grant Allowances, Rural Housing Defects Act, New Town Defective Dwellings, Flats over Shops, Cash Incentive Scheme and Housing Partnership Fund. Figures represent final outtum.

  4. Capital Receipts Initiative—initial allocations.

  5. Private Sector Renewal Support Grant—distributed via Specified Capital Grant Allowances 1990–91 to 1992–93; SCG-dependent SCAs 1993–94 to 1996–97.

  5. Disabled Facilities Grant—initial allocation. DFG was incorporated within SCG and SCG-dependent SCAs prior to 1997–98.

  6. Estate Renewal Challenge Fund—2000–01 outturn is estimated.

  7. Housing Action Trusts—2000–01 outturn is estimated. Separate figure for London expenditure in 1991–92 and 1992–93 not available.

  Low Carbon Technology
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much he has spent on the development of low carbon technology in each year since 1995. [137214]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has spent under its Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme in each year since 1995 the following amounts directly supporting Research and Development (R & D) into low-carbon technologies. On average an additional 30 per cent. has been spent each year on R & D related promotion. The amounts vary from year-to-year according to opportunities and programme priorities. For example, the number of quality R & D proposals put forward changes, the needs of energy users move between R & D and requirements for other types of support. In the last few years needs have focused on more impartial advice.

  £ million

  1995–96

  1.7

  1996–97

  1.7

  1997–98

  1.2

  1998–99

  0.7

  1999–2000

  0.5

  2000–01

  11.1

  1estimated outturn

  The Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme is the UK Government's principal energy efficiency information, advice and research and development programme for the public and private sectors. The programme covers industrial processes, buildings and the managed housing stock.The Department's Partners in Innovation scheme has also supported collaborative projects on low carbon technologies broadly at the level of £50,000 per year. The Partners in Innovation scheme is a central part of the Department's Construction, Innovation and Research programme.
  726W
  It is the Department's intention to provide a significant stimulus to R & D in future years through the funding recently announced for the Carbon Trust in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 357W.

  Bus Fuel Rebate
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how much was paid to bus companies under the bus fuel rebate scheme between the financial year 1998–99 and the latest available date; [137761]

  (2) what will be the cost of his plans to extend the bus fuel rebate to community transport schemes; and if he will estimate for each of the last three years the cost of the scheme had the same rebate been extended to community transport schemes in that period; [137760]

  (3) what progress he has made on extension of the bus fuel rebate to community transport schemes; and if he will make a statement. [137814]

  Mr. Hill
  My Department's expenditure on payments of bus fuel duty rebate to bus operators in England was £222 million in 1998–99 and £277 million in 1999–2000. Payments this year are expected to total about £300 million.

  As promised in 'Transport 2010', the 10-year plan for transport, we are now working up proposals for extending the rebate to a wider range of community transport schemes. We shall be consulting on these proposals shortly with the intention of having new rules in place for the 2001–02 financial year.

  It is not possible at this stage to give an estimate of what the cost of this change will be in future years, or would have been in past years, since this depends on

  727W
  decisions still to be taken on the precise definition of the services which will benefit and on the eligible mileage which they run.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of EU directives on wildlife on SSSIs in England. [138032]

  Mr. Mullin
  No assessment has been made of the general impact of EU directives on wildlife. However, two EU directives specifically address the protection of wildlife:Council Directive 92/43/EC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ("the Habitats Directive") and Council Directive 79/409/EC on the conservation of wild birds ("the Birds Directive"). These generally serve to reinforce the protection of wildlife in England. Under the directives, we have classified 83 special protection areas for birds and have submitted 148 sites to date for possible designation as special areas of conservation for inclusion in a network of sites of European importance. These sites are all already or will be notified as SSSIs, and benefit from special protection under the provisions of the directives.

  Aircraft Fuel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research has been conducted (a) into the quantity of aircraft fuel that is used while aircraft are (i) stacked and (ii) delayed due to air traffic control processes and (b) into the impact on the use of aircraft fuel of introducing a single European air traffic control system; and if he will make a statement. [138262]

  Mr. Mullin
  Air traffic control delays are, of course, imposed for safety reasons when there is a lack of en-route air traffic control or airport capacity. Stacking and en-route delays do exacerbate fuel burn, but the Government are unaware of any research undertaken to specifically calculate additional fuel burn due to these delays.

  Much work has, however, been done across Europe to accommodate high rates of traffic growth safely while minimising air traffic delays. These efforts have resulted in delays in summer 2000 being comparable to summer 1998, but it is recognised that this record needs to be improved.

  The reduction of air transport delays is one of the principal objectives of the European Commission's single European sky initiative. The recommendations arising from this initiative are to be presented to the December Transport Council. These are likely to include the need to improve civil/military co-operation and to strengthen the regulatory regime to compel European States to implement commonly agreed capacity enhancements in order to optimise airspace use, and hence reduce delays and fuel burn.

  Noise Act 1996
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities which have implemented in full the provisions of the Noise Act 1996. [138510]
  728W
  Mr. Hill
  There is no requirement for local authorities to inform the Department once they have decided to adopt the Act. The local authorities in England which have, so far as we are aware, adopted the Act, are:

  London Borough of Barnet

  London Borough of Bromley

  London Borough of Havering

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  Westminster City Council

  East Devon District Council

  Guildford Borough Council

  Hertsmere Borough Council

  Newark and Sherwood District Council

  Rushcliffe Borough Council

  Shepway District Council

  Surrey Heath Borough Council

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions he has taken to encourage local authorities to implement the provisions of the Noise Act 1996. [138511]

  Mr. Hill
  The Noise Act was introduced following consideration of the effectiveness of neighbour noise controls by the Neighbour Noise Working Party and consultations with local authorities. When the Act was introduced the Government at the time left open the option of adopting it to local authorities in the light of their local requirements and available resources.

  Following a commitment made to Parliament, we commissioned a review of the Act last year and expect to announce the outcome of this to the House shortly.

  Noise Strategy
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a noise strategy; and if he will make a statement. [138512]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have given a commitment to consider the case for a national ambient noise strategy. A first step will be to issue a consultation paper on the options.

  National Forest
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will report on the National Forest Company's progress in creating the national forest in the East Midlands. [139110]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have arranged for copies of the National Forest Company's Annual Report and its Accounts for 1999–2000 to be placed in the House Libraries.

  Trunk Roads
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce further additions to the targeted programme of trunk road improvements. [139225]
  729W
  Mr. Hill
  At the time of the Roads Review in July 1998, we decided to take forward consideration of the A63 Melton Grade Separated Junction in Yorkshire. I can now confirm that following further work, including a full appraisal, and consultation with the regional planning body, the scheme has been added to the targeted programme of improvements. By removing three existing junctions the scheme will improve safety and reduce delays. It will also facilitate access to enable regeneration of a large area of brownfield land to the south of the A63 on the banks of the Humber. Draft orders for the scheme were published on 17 October.

  Further additions to the programme will in general depend on the outcome of studies commissioned as a result of the Roads Review and priorities identified in the course of development of Regional Transport Strategies within the context of Regional Planning Guidance.

  However, if the objectives of investment in trunk roads under the 10-Year Plan are to be delivered it is important that we make some immediate progress. Therefore, we have initiated consultations with regional planning bodies to consider possible targeted improvements to tackle problems on those parts of the core trunk road network not being considered within a study. As part of this exercise we will also consider whether decisions can be taken on taking forward some targeted improvements within the areas covered by studies without prejudicing the strategic context of the study in question or the emerging Regional Transport Strategy. Specific proposals for improvements will be evaluated using the New Approach to Appraisal to ensure they are consistent with our transport criteria of safety, economy, environmental impact accessibility and integration. We will make an announcement about the outcome of this exercise in the spring.

  I can also confirm that work on the programme of 100 early action schemes to tackle localised safety and congestion problems on the trunk road announced at the time of the 10-Year Plan has begun. Copies of a leaflet showing the locations of these schemes have been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the element of SSA for each local authority in England was for the placement of children in residential care in the last five years for which figures are available. [135104]

  Mr. Hutton
  The standard spending assessment for children's personal social services does not include a specific element relating to the placement of children in residential care. The SSA reflects differences between authorities in the potential need for all children's social services, based upon the socio-economic and health characteristics of each authority. It also reflects unavoidable variations in the costs of supplying these services.
  730W
  The total SSA for children's personal social services in the current financial year is £1,997.7 million. Allocations for each local authority are given in the tables.

  Standard spending assessments for 2001–2001

  £ million

  Summary table

  Children's SSA

  Principal Metropolitan Cities

  199.597

  Other Metropolitan Districts

  326.132

  Metropolitan sub total

  525.729

  Inner London

  309.502

  Outer London

  263.918

  London sub total

  573.420

  Shire Counties

  570.033

  Shire Unitary Authorities

  328.518

  Shire sub total

  898.551

  England total

  1,997.700

  £ million

  Local authority

  Children's SSA

  Principal Metropolitan Cities

  Birmingham

  64.179

  Leeds

  28.549

  Liverpool

  33.142

  Manchester

  36.239

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  15.828

  Sheffield

  21.660

  Sub-Total

  199.597

  Other Metropolitan Districts

  Barnsley

  8.119

  Bolton

  10.872

  Bradford

  22.913

  Bury

  6.477

  Calderdale

  7.191

  Coventry

  14.907

  Doncaster

  11.102

  Dudley

  9.522

  Gateshead

  8.970

  Kirklees

  13.820

  Knowsley

  12.530

  North Tyneside

  8.316

  Oldham

  10.050

  Rochdale

  10.558

  Rotherham

  9.706

  Salford

  12.145

  Sandwell

  14.704

  Sefton

  12.164

  Solihull

  6.468

  South Tyneside

  8.596

  St. Helens

  7.029

  Stockport

  8.882

  Sunderland

  13.637

  Tameside

  9.177

  Trafford

  7.622

  Wakefield

  10.904

  Walsall

  11.070

  Wigan

  10.411

  Wirral

  15.798

  Wolverhampton

  12.471

  Sub total

  326.132

  Metropolitan sub total

  525.729

  Inner London

  City of London

  0.637

  Camden

  22.246

  Greenwich

  21.633

  731W

  £ million

  Local authority

  Children's SSAM

  Hackney

  29.076

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17.967

  Islington

  26.735

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15.430

  Lambeth

  39.037

  Lewisham

  28.318

  Southwark

  35.360

  Tower Hamlets

  28.416

  Wandsworth

  23.308

  Westminster

  21.338

  Sub total

  309.502

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  12.559

  Barnet

  13.875

  Bexley

  8.848

  Brent

  21.538

  Bromley

  10.403

  Croydon

  19.217

  Ealing

  21.099

  Enfield

  14.439

  Haringey

  22.787

  Harrow

  7.902

  Havering

  7.240

  Hillingdon

  10.245

  Hounslow

  13.199

  Kingston upon Thames

  4.899

  Merton

  9.359

  Newham

  25.673

  Redbridge

  10.239

  Richmond upon Thames

  5.541

  Sutton

  7.372

  Waltham Forest

  17.487

  Subtotal

  263.918

  London sub total

  573.420

  Shire Counties

  Bedfordshire

  9.351

  Buckinghamshire

  10.003

  Cambridgeshire

  11.712

  Cheshire

  16.211

  Cornwall

  13.165

  Cumbria

  12.495

  Derbyshire

  16.369

  Devon

  16.781

  Dorset

  7.913

  Durham

  17.541

  East Sussex

  14.832

  Essex

  35.037

  Gloucestershire

  13.910

  Hampshire

  28.499

  Hertfordshire

  27.363

  Kent

  39.941

  Lancashire

  37.147

  Leicestershire

  10.974

  Lincolnshire

  14.857

  Norfolk

  19.772

  North Yorkshire

  11.241

  Northamptonshire

  17.844

  Northumberland

  8.120

  Nottinghamshire

  19.487

  Oxfordshire

  14.396

  Shropshire

  5.512

  Somerset

  11.172

  Staffordshire

  18.502

  Suffolk

  15.944

  Surrey

  22.833

  Warwickshire

  11.569

  West Sussex

  17.480

  Wiltshire

  9.106

  Worcestershire

  12.954

  Sub total

  570.033

  732W

  £ million

  Local authority

  Children's SSA

  Shire Unitary Authorities

  Isles of Scilly

  0.030

  Isle of Wight Council

  4.310

  Bath and North East Somerset

  3.991

  Blackburn with Darwen

  7.089

  Blackpool

  6.687

  Bournemouth

  5.915

  Bracknell Forest

  3.179

  Brighton and Hove

  11.324

  Bristol

  18.960

  Darlington

  3.719

  Derby

  9.974

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  6.015

  Halton

  6.549

  Hartlepool

  4.194

  Herefordshire

  3.933

  Kingston upon Hull

  14.065

  Leicester

  16.391

  Luton

  9.492

  Medway

  8.428

  Middlesbrough

  8.453

  Milton Keynes

  7.788

  West Berkshire

  2.680

  North East Lincolnshire

  6.276

  North Lincolnshire

  4.449

  North Somerset

  4.202

  Nottingham

  19.207

  Peterborough

  6.526

  Plymouth

  11.510

  Poole

  4.137

  Portsmouth

  9.467

  Reading

  6.596

  Redcar and Cleveland

  6.088

  Rutland

  0.574

  Slough

  6.372

  Southend-on-Sea

  7.921

  South Gloucestershire

  5.010

  Southampton

  10.978

  Stockton-on-Tees

  7.620

  Stoke-on-Trent

  10.784

  Swindon

  5.566

  Thurrock

  5.982

  Torbay

  4.923

  Warrington

  5.373

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  3.238

  Wokingham

  2.184

  Telford and The Wrekin

  5.871

  York

  4.498

  Subtotal

  328.518

  Shires sub total

  898.551

  School Nurses
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many school nurses were employed in each health authority in England and Wales in(a) 1979, (b) 1987, (c) 1997, (d) 1998 and (e) 1999; and if he will make a statement; [137869]

  (2) what proposals he has for adopting a benchmark for the provision of school nurses within a health authority in terms of the number of pupils per school nurse; [137867]

  (3) if he has received a copy of the report 'School Nursing within the Public Health Agenda' jointly published by the Community Practitioners' and Health Visitors' Association, the Queen's Nursing Institute and the Royal College of Nursing; and if he will make a statement; [137866]
  733W
  (4) what proposals he has to increase the total number of school nurses across England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.[137868]

  Mr. Denham
  Data on the numbers of school nurses employed by health authority in 1987 are shown in the table. This information is not available for the other years. Information on numbers of school nurses after 1995 is not available due to a change in occupation codes used.

  The school years offer an invaluable opportunity for the promotion of healthy living which sets the pattern for lifestyle and health status in adulthood. School nurses have an important role to play in meeting the needs of school-aged children and young people. The documents "Saving Lives", "Supporting Families" and "Making a Difference" identify and support a comprehensive programme of action for developing the public health role of school nursing. We look forward to receiving a copy of the report "School Nursing within the Public Health Agenda".

  It is for health authorities and GP purchasers, with advice from professional colleagues, to determine benchmarks for the numbers, nature and levels of nursing staff and the training required to deliver cost effective school health services. The National Health Service Plan sets out increases in the numbers of nurses undertaking nursing training. Between now and 2004 there will be 5,500 extra nurses and midwives being trained each year than today and around 45,000 nurses and midwives will have come out of training. This means an increased supply of qualified nurses from which school nurses can be recruited and trained.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): School nursing staff by Health Authority in England as at 30 September 1987

  Whole time equivalent

  England

  2,960

  Northern

  240

  North Tees District HA

  20

  South Tees District HA

  40

  East Cumbria District HA

  10

  South Cumbria District HA

  10

  West Cumbria District HA

  10

  Darlington District HA

  10

  Durham District HA

  10

  North West Durham District HA

  10

  South West Durham District HA

  10

  Northumberland Health Authority

  1—

  Gateshead District HA

  10

  Newcastle District HA

  40

  North Tyneside District HA

  10

  South Tyneside District HA

  10

  Sunderland Health Commission

  30

  Hartlepool District HA

  10

  Yorkshire

  240

  Hull District HA

  20

  East Yorkshire District HA

  10

  Grimsby District HA

  10

  Scunthorpe District HA

  10

  Northallerton District HA

  1—

  York District HA

  20

  Scarborough District HA

  10

  Harrogate District HA

  1—

  Bradford District HA

  60

  Huddersfield District HA

  10

  734W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): School nursing staff by Health Authority in England as at 30 September 1987

  Whole time equivalent

  Dewsbury District HA

  10

  Leeds Western District HA

  30

  Leeds Eastern District HA

  50

  Wakefield District HA

  1—

  Pontefract District HA

  1—

  Trent

  340

  North Derbyshire District HA

  10

  Southern Derbyshire Health

  30

  Leicestershire HA

  70

  North Lincolnshire District HA

  10

  South Lincolnshire District HA

  20

  Bassetlaw District HA

  10

  Central Nottinghamshire District HA

  30

  Nottingham HA

  50

  Barnsley District HA

  1—

  Doncaster District HA

  20

  Rotherham HA

  30

  Sheffield Health

  50

  East Anglia

  80

  Cambridge District HA

  20

  Peterborough District HA

  10

  West Suffolk District HA

  10

  East Suffolk District HA

  10

  Norwich District HA

  20

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney District HA

  10

  West Norfolk and Wisbech District HA

  10

  Huntingdon District HA

  10

  NW Thames

  230

  North Bedfordshire District HA

  10

  South Bedfordshire District HA

  30

  North Hertfordshire District HA

  1—

  East Hertfordshire District HA

  10

  North West Hertfordshire District HA

  10

  South West Hertfordshire District HA

  10

  Barnet HA

  30

  Harrow District HA

  10

  Hillingdon Health Agency

  1—

  Hounslow and Spelthorne District HA

  20

  Ealing District HA

  30

  Brent District HA

  20

  Paddington and North Kensington District

  HA

  20

  Riverside District HA

  30

  NE Thames

  220

  Basildon and Thurrock District HA

  20

  Mid Essex District HA

  10

  North East Essex District HA

  10

  West Essex District HA

  10

  Southend District HA

  20

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood District

  Health

  10

  Hampstead District HA

  20

  Bloomsbury District HA

  20

  Islington District HA

  20

  City and Hackney District HA

  20

  Newham District HA

  10

  Tower Hamlets District HA

  30

  Enfield District HA

  20

  Haringey District HA

  10

  Redbridge District HA

  1—

  Waltham Forest District HA

  10

  SE Thames

  190

  Brighton District HA

  20

  Eastbourne District HA

  1—

  South East Kent District HA

  10

  735W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): School nursing staff by Health Authority in England as at 30 September 1987

  Whole time equivalent

  Canterbury and Thanet District HA

  10

  Dartford and Gravesham District HA

  10

  Maidstone District HA

  10

  Medway District HA

  10

  Bexley District HA

  10

  Greenwich District HA

  20

  West Lambeth District HA

  10

  Camberwell District HA

  30

  Lewisham and North Southwark District HA

  30

  SW Thames

  150

  North West Surrey District HA

  10

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  District HA

  10

  South West Surrey District HA

  10

  Mid Surrey District HA

  10

  East Surrey District HA

  1—

  Chichester District HA

  10

  Mid Downs District HA

  20

  Worthing District HA

  10

  Croydon Health Commissioning Agency

  30

  Kingston and Esher District HA

  10

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  District HA

  20

  Wandsworth District HA

  10

  Merton and Sutton District HA

  10

  Wessex

  130

  East Dorset District HA

  20

  West Dorset District HA

  1—

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health

  1—

  Commissioning Agency

  30

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  Health Commissioning Agency

  20

  Winchester District HA

  10

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire District

  HA

  10

  Salisbury District HA

  1—

  Swindon District HA

  10

  Bath District HA

  30

  Isle of Wight Health Commission

  10

  Oxford

  110

  East Berkshire District HA

  20

  West Berkshire District HA

  30

  Wycombe District HA

  10

  Milton Keynes District HA

  1—

  Kettering District HA

  20

  Northampton District HA

  10

  Oxfordshire District HA

  10

  South Western

  180

  Bristol and Weston District HA

  30

  Frenchay District HA

  20

  Southmead District HA

  20

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly District and

  Family Health

  20

  Exeter District HA

  20

  North Devon District HA

  10

  Plymouth District HA

  20

  Torbay District HA

  10

  Cheltenham and District District HA

  10

  Gloucester District HA

  10

  Somerset HA

  10

  West Midlands

  340

  Bromsgrove and Redditch District HA

  10

  Herefordshire HA

  1—

  Kidderminster and District District HA

  1—

  Worcester and District District HA

  10

  736W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): School nursing staff by Health Authority in England as at 30 September 1987

  Whole time equivalent

  Shropshire HA

  10

  Mid Staffordshire District HA

  10

  North Staffordshire HA

  40

  South East Staffordshire District HA

  20

  Rugby District HA

  1—

  North Warwickshire District HA

  20

  South Warwickshire District HA

  10

  Central Birmingham District HA

  20

  East Birmingham District HA

  10

  North Birmingham District HA

  10

  South Birmingham District HA

  30

  West Birmingham District HA

  20

  Coventry HA

  10

  Dudley HA

  20

  Sandwell HA

  30

  Solihull Health

  10

  Walsall HA

  20

  Wolverhampton HA

  20

  Mersey

  230

  Chester District HA

  20

  Crewe District HA

  10

  Halton District HA

  10

  Macclesfield District HA

  10

  Warrington District HA

  20

  Liverpool HA

  70

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  40

  Southport and Formby District HA

  10

  South Sefton (Merseyside) District HA

  20

  Wirral HA

  30

  North Western

  260

  Lancaster District HA

  1—

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde District HA

  10

  Preston District HA

  1—

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  District HA

  30

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale District HA

  20

  West Lancashire District HA

  1—

  Chorley and South Ribble District HA

  10

  Bolton District HA

  30

  Bury District HA

  10

  North Manchester District HA

  20

  Central Manchester District HA

  20

  South Manchester District HA

  20

  Oldham District HA

  1—

  Rochdale District HA

  20

  Salford District HA

  20

  Stockport Health Commission

  30

  Tameside and Glossop District HA

  20

  Trafford District HA

  10

  Wigan District HA

  10

  1Five or less and greater than zero

  Notes:

  1 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2 Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  3 Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census.

  Hospital Staff Assaults
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 242W, on hospital staff assaults, how

  737W
  many of the violent incidents against NHS trust staff in 1998–99 led to (a) prosecution and (b) conviction. [137968]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not held centrally. The cross-Government National Health Service zero tolerance zone campaign, to stamp out violence against staff working in the National Health Service, has been strongly supported by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. The campaign makes clearer that employers need to work with the police, magistrates and the Crown Prosecution Service in order to apply a zero tolerance on violence against staff.

  At the launch of the campaign last year, the Lord Chancellor said it was entirely legitimate for magistrates to respond decisively to a particular form of criminal behaviour, such as assaults on National Health Service staff, and to impose sentences which have deterrent components. New national sentencing guidelines issued to the Magistrates Courts in September underline our commitment to tackle violence against National Health Service staff. The guidelines now include as aggravating factors, to be taken into account when sentencing, whether the offence occurred in hospital or medical premises and whether the victim was serving the public.

  Harrogate and York NHS Trusts
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on proposals to merge Harrogate and York NHS Trusts; and if he will make a statement. [138314]

  Mr. Denham
  At the present time there are no formal proposals to merge the Harrogate Health Care National Health Service Trust and the York Health Services NHS Trust. Discussions between the North Yorkshire Health Authority and the trusts are ongoing concerning the future configuration of acute services. Should any proposals to change management structures come out of these discussions, they will be the subject of formal consultation.

  Elderly People (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the designated time scale and programme for action is to improve the care and health available to older persons in ethnic minorities.[138320]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Service Framework for Older People, which is to be introduced from April 2001, will help to ensure that the health and social care needs of older people from all backgrounds are properly addressed.

  Guidance on access to social care services to be issued to local councils soon will include advice on addressing the needs of older persons from ethnic minorities.

  Out-patient Waiting Times
  Mr. St.Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on out-patient waiting times in the West Surrey Health Authority.[137264]
  738W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: At 30 June this year (latest available figures) there were 3,713 patients who had been waiting 13 weeks or over for an appointment in West Surrey Health Authority following referral by a general practitioner.

  The health authority and the South East Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive are in close liaison with the three trusts in West Surrey to address this position.

  Hospital Mortuaries
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 379W, on hospital mortuaries, if he will list NHS pathology service sites where all or part of the site fails to meet necessary minimum standards. [138461]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 November 2000]: With the exception of cervical cytology screening laboratories, accreditation of National Health Service laboratories is voluntary and carried out by Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) UK Ltd. Laboratories accredited by Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) UK Ltd. are listed on the company's website at www.cpa-uk.co.uk. I have placed a copy of this information in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Shipyards
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the shipyards in the United Kingdom which are capable of building ships of the size of the future generation of aircraft carriers. [136273]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Gould to Mr. William Ross, dated 16 November 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will list the shipyards in the United Kingdom which are capable of building ships of the size of the future generation of aircraft carriers. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The competing Prime Contractors for the future aircraft carrier—BAE Systems and Thomson Naval Systems—have identified a number of UK shipyards with the potential capacity to participate in the build of the vessels. These include Harland and Wolff in Belfast, Swan Hunter on Tyneside, Cammell Laird at Birkenhead and the BAE Systems' yards at Govan and Barrow. Much will depend on the carrier design that is taken forward and the method of construction; consequently, other UK yard options have not been ruled out. Some of the yards identified by the Prime Contractors face potential build limitations or have access restrictions that could prevent whole-ship construction.
  We do not plan to award a contract for the build of CVF until 2004 and no decisions are planned at this stage on yard selection. Ongoing assessment work will include a thorough review of all UK facilities and will address yard suitability, construction/access limitations and the overall cost-effectiveness of potential build strategies.
  I hope this explains the position.

  Eurocorps
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 271W, on Eurocorps, if he will identify by (a) rank and (b) role the augmentees supplied by the United Kingdom to Eurocorps in Kosovo. [138000]

  Mr. Spellar
  The 62 posts filled by the United Kingdom in Headquarters Kosovo Force 3 (KFOR3), whose kernel was provided by Headquarters Eurocorps, were as follows:

  NATO rank

  UK rank

  Role

  OF-4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Military Assistant to Commander KFOR

  OF-6

  Brigadier

  Chief Joint Implementation Commission (JIC)

  OR-5

  Sergeant

  Driver to Chief JIC

  OF-4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  JIC Liaison Officer to the Kosovo Protection Corps

  OF-4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Chief Staff Officer Operations JIC

  OR-7

  Staff Sergeant

  Administrative Supervisor JIC

  OR-4

  Wren Writer

  Administrative Clerk Public Information Staff

  OF-2/3

  Flight Lieutenant

  Staff Officer (SO) Media Operations

  OF-2/3

  Major

  Escort Officer Joint Visitors Bureau

  OR-5

  Sergeant

  Administrative Assistant Coordination Office

  OF-3

  Lieutenant Colonel

  SO Information Operations Civil/Military Cooperation

  OR-6/7

  Staff Sergeant

  Staff Assistant (SA) Intelligence

  OF-2/3

  Flight Lieutenant

  SO Intelligence

  OR-6

  Staff Sergeant

  SA Intelligence

  OR-7/8

  Staff Sergeant

  SA Intelligence

  OR-2/3

  Lance Corporal

  Intelligence Analyst

  OF-5/6

  Sergeant

  SA Geographic

  OF-3/4

  Major

  Commander Intelligence Detachment

  OF-5

  Group Captain

  Chief Air Operations

  OR-6/7

  Flight Sergeant

  SA Helicopter Operations

  OR-7/8

  Flight Sergeant

  Air Traffic Controller

  OF-4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Chief Operations Cell Ground Liaison Vicenza

  OF-4

  Wing Commander

  Chief Air Operations ControlCentre

  OF-3/4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  SO Campaign Plans

  OF-4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  SO Civil/Military Cooperation Plans

  OF-5

  Colonel

  Chief Engineer

  OR-7

  Staff Sergeant

  Administrative Supervisor Engineer Branch

  OR-2

  Private

  Clerk/Driver Engineer Branch

  OF-3/4

  Major

  SO Infrastructure Plans

  OF-3

  Lieutenant Commander

  SO Liaison with United Nations Mission in Kosovo

  OF-3

  Major

  SO Civil/MilitaryCooperations Plans

  OF-3

  Major

  Personnel Planning Officer

  OF-3

  Squadron Leader

  Movement Planning Officer

  OR-4/5

  Corporal

  Administrative Assistant Transport Company

  OR-7

  Staff Sergeant

  Communications System Administrator

  OR-6/7

  Lance Corporal

  Communications System Administrator

  OF-4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Chief Theatre Contracting Office

  OR-3/4

  Civilian

  Customs Administration Clerk

  OR-8

  Warrant Officer

  Deputy Site Sergeant Major

  740W

  NATO rank

  UK rank

  Role

  OR-3

  Leading Regulator

  Military Policeman

  OR-3

  Corporal

  Military Policeman

  OF-7

  Air Vice Marshal

  Commander Rear and Communication Zone

  OF-4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Military Assistant to Commander Rear

  OR-6

  Sergeant

  Administrative Assistant to Commander Rear

  OR-2

  Leading Aircraftman

  Driver to Commander Rear

  OF-3

  Lieutenant Commander

  SO Coordinator Joint Visitors Bureau (Rear)

  OR-6

  Petty Officer Writer

  Administrative Assistant Legal Branch

  OF-3/4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Chief Personnel (Rear)

  OF-2/3

  Captain

  SO Training

  OR-7/8

  Warrant Officer 2

  SA Ranges

  OR-7/8

  Sergeant

  NCO/Driver Real Estate Mobile Team

  OF-3

  Major

  Logistic SO

  OF-3

  Major

  Property Officer

  OR-6

  Sergeant

  Clerk/Driver Joint Logistic Centre

  OR-3/4

  Leading Wren Writer

  Administrative Clerk Billeting

  OR-5/6

  Sergeant

  SA Power Troop

  OR-5/6

  Petty Officer

  Electrical Engineer

  OR-3/4

  Corporal

  Military Policeman

  OR-3/4

  Corporal

  Military Policeman

  OR-6

  Sergeant

  Alternate Cryptographic Custodian

  OR-5

  Sergeant

  Administrative Assistant Communication Zone South

  OF-4/5

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Deputy Commander Communication Zone South

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [137697]

  Dr. Moonie
  None of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Ministry of Defence have duties which relate specifically to Scotland, but the following have a remit which covers the United Kingdom:

  The RAF Museum

  The National Army Museum

  The Defence Nuclear Safety Committee.

  The remaining information is not held centrally in the form requested. General information on expenditure, staffing, board members and levels of remuneration is published annual in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" are available in the Libraries of the House and "Public Bodies 2000" is due to be published next month. Information on all Government non-departmental public bodies is also available at the Cabinet Office Public Appointments Directory website www.cabinet-office.gov.uk; information on Ministry of Defence bodies is available at the MOD website www.mod.uk.

  Zero-point Energy
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being funded by his Department into zero-point energy. [138298]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Mustard Gas (Pigs)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new research his Department is undertaking in Porton Down on the effects of mustard gas on pigs; and how many pigs were involved in the testing of mustard gas in Government centres in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [138299]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has been undertaking research on behalf of the Ministry of Defence on the effects of mustard gas on pigs at its Chemical and Biological Defence laboratories at Porton Down as part of its studies into improved methods for the treatment of wounds on the battlefield.

  Previous research studies to evaluate the technique of dermabrasion as a treatment for established mustard burns were completed at the end of September 1998. The results of this work have been published in the open technical literature. The current research programme is solely concerned with the evaluation of novel protective creams that have the potential to significantly reduce the severity of mustard burns to the skin following exposure.

  The number of pigs that have been used in both phases of these studies for the years in question is as follows: two animals in 1997, six animals per year for 1998 and 1999, and a total of 10 animals in 2000 to the current date.

  UK Military Equipment Sales
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions on which defence personnel have attended, as part of their duties, promotional events for UK military equipment sales in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and what the estimated costs were of such attendance in each year since 1996. [138310]

  Dr. Moonie
  Within the Ministry of Defence the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO) is responsible for co-ordinating Government support to industry in promoting sales of UK military equipment, with other parts of MOD assisting as required.

  Promotional events in the United Kingdom and overseas attended by defence personnel range from major defence equipment exhibitions and Defence Industry Days (DIDs) to demonstrations of individual items of equipment for potential customers. DIDs are held onboard HM ships when in foreign ports as part of the Fleet visit programme.

  There is no central record of visits to such events or the associated attendance costs and it is therefore not possible to provide the information requested.
  742W
  Major exhibitions and DIDs at which DESO has been represented in support of the UK defence industry between 1998–2000 include:

  1998

  Asian Aerospace, Singapore

  TRIDEX, Abu Dhabi

  FIDAE, Chile

  DSA, Malaysia

  Aerospace Africa, South Africa

  Eurosatory, France

  Farnborough International Air Show, UK

  Defendory, Greece

  MADEX, South Korea

  Euronaval, France

  Seoul Air Show, South Korea

  DEXSA, South Africa

  Aero India, India

  DIDs

  Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

  Valparaiso, Chile

  Gdynia, Poland

  Baltimore, USA

  Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

  La Guaira, Venezuela

  1999

  Australia Air Show, Australia

  IDEX, Abu Dhabi

  LAD, Brazil

  IDET, Czech Republic

  IMDEX Asia, Singapore

  Paris Air Show, France

  Aerospace North America, Canada

  DSEi, UK

  IDEF, Turkey

  DEFEXPO, India

  Dubai Air Show, Dubai

  LIMA, Malaysia

  DIDs

  Durban, South Africa

  Norfolk, USA

  Manila, Philippines

  Sydney, Australia

  Vera Cruz, Mexico

  Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

  Athens, Greece

  2000

  Pacific 2000, Australia

  Asian Aerospace, Singapore

  TRIDEX, Abu Dhabi

  FIDAE, Chile

  DSA, Malaysia

  SOFEX, Jordan

  Eurosatory, France

  Farnborough International Air Show, UK

  Africa Aerospace and Defence, South Africa

  Defence Asia, Philippines

  Defendory, Greece

  Euronaval, France

  DIDs

  Alexandria, Egypt

  Mumbai, India

  Singapore

  Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  Sydney, Australia

  Pusan, South Korea

  Tokyo, Japan

  Istanbul, Turkey

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what industrial action has been taken by Royal Fleet Auxiliary crews in the past six months; which ships were involved; and if he will make a statement. [138431]

  Dr. Moonie
  Industrial action involving Rail, Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) members of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary commenced in February this year following their rejection of the 1999 pay offer. The action was initially restricted to two days every fortnight; it then became weekly and, from 28 June, continuous. The RMT suspended the industrial action from mid August until the beginning of October to enable talks to take place at the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).

  The industrial action involved the refusal by RMT members to undertake certain tasks, such as cleaning officers' cabins, while ships were in port. The most significant measure was the refusal by deck and engineering personnel to carry out unmooring activity thereby preventing the ship from sailing.

  Prior to the action becoming continuous on 28 June, no record of the ships affected was kept, principally because it was possible to adjust ships programmes to minimise the impact. Following that date, three ships were affected: RFAs Sir Geraint, Sir Bedivere and Fort Austin were prevented from leaving port for a period of between four to six weeks during the summer.

  All operational commitments have continued to be met throughout the period of the industrial action.

  While the industrial dispute arose following the rejection of the 1999 pay offer, the focus changed to a demand by the RMT for additional earned voyage leave (EVL). As part of the 2000 pay round, ratings were granted an additional eight days leave per year. Unfortunately, this was not considered by the RMT to be sufficient to resolve the dispute. However, I am pleased to be able to report that, following agreement in principle to the terms of reference of a working group to set in place a timetable for further improvements to leave, the RMT has now suspended the industrial action. I am also advised that the RMT has written to its members recommending that the industrial action is called off.

  Meteorological Office
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he made of the strengths and weaknesses of the bid from Norwich research park for relocation of the Meteorological Office; [138555]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 326W, on the Meteorological Office, what account he took of the relative importance of proximity to centres of climatological research in making his decision on the relocation of the Meteorological Office; [138554]

  (3) what process for appealing against the decision to relocate the Meteorological Office exists. [138556]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.
  744W
  Letter from Peter Ewins to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 16 November 2000:
  I am replying to your three questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the relocation of the Met Office. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Met Office.
  As you know, the Under Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Lewis Moonie announced in the House on 9 November that the Met Office has chosen Exeter Business Park as its preferred site for relocation. Exeter was chosen from a shortlist of four sites that also included Beaufort Park in Bracknell, Shinfield Park in Reading and Norwich Research Park. These four sites were those that the Met Office believed could best meet its needs, following a thorough search and careful evaluation of potential sites throughout the United Kingdom.
  For Norwich to reach our short list of sites it had performed very favourably against our evaluation criteria. However, only one of the four short-listed sites could be chosen as our preferred site and when evaluating the business benefits and risks, including staff preference, financial appraisals, availability of land with planning consent, local access and other factors, Exeter was the clear choice. It was not an easy decision, but we are certain that Exeter is the best location from which to build a secure and successful future.
  In relative terms, the Norwich Research Park site had a number of strengths, notably the opportunities it offered for lower operating costs and improved living standards for our staff compared with the other sites in the Southeast. There would, in addition, have been good opportunities for collaboration with the University of East Anglia (UEA), which would also have been a valuable source of high quality graduate staff. Moreover, there was strong local political support and also from key organisations in the area, including Norfolk County Council, Norwich City Council, the Regional Development Agency and the University.
  The site also had some weaknesses in comparison to our preferred site. For example, there were serious doubts, raised at a late stage in the evaluation process, as to whether the site was actually available. We also had some concerns that the site was somewhat isolated on the fringe of the City and would not offer the profile we were seeking as a world-leading science based organisation. Moreover, our staff demonstrated a preference for Exeter. We have offered to give Norwich City Council's Chief Executive and her team a detailed de-brief in order that lessons may be learnt for similar initiatives in the future.
  We recognise the UAE's particular strength in the field of climate science and impact analysis and the importance of maintaining and strengthening the close working relationship we have with them. There are, of course, many other organisations throughout the United Kingdom and around the World with whom we have close links on a range of subjects, and others with whom we will develop links as we pursue our strategy of diversification into wider environmental services. With modern communications we are firmly of the view that such relationships can be achieved very well indeed from Exeter.
  As a trading fund agency, the choice of preferred site rested with me as Chief Executive and was made with the support of my Management Board, taking full account of the interests of the Met Office's customers—both in the public and private sectors—and our staff. This choice was made in the very best, long-term interests of the Met Office, following a thorough and rigorous evaluation process based on pre-determined criteria. I presented the choice of preferred site to both Dr Moonie and the Secretary of State for Defence who, having weighed all the issues, were content to endorse the decision.
  The two consortia with whom the Met Office is negotiating over the provision and ongoing maintenance of the new accommodation will now work up detailed proposals for the Exeter site. Tenders are due to be submitted by the end of February 2001 and a contract is expected to be placed by June 2001.

  Homosexuals
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the additional cost to public funds was in(a) legal costs incurred by the (i) Government and (ii) applicants and (b) damages awarded to the applicants by the decision to continue to contest cases relating to homosexuals in the armed forces (i) between 16 February 1996 and 1 May 1997 and (ii) after 2 May 1997. [138466]

  Mr. Spellar
  Compensation and legal costs have been paid in the four cases covered by the European Court of Human Rights judgment of 27 September 1999 and the figures are shown in the table. In addition, in light of the ECHR judgment, the Secretary of State for Defence authorised that settlement negotiations commence with those individuals discharged from the armed forces as a result of their homosexuality who had submitted Employment Tribunal applications and whose account is accepted as being substantially factually true. The level of compensation paid to those applicants who settled their cases during the periods in question, together with legal costs incurred by the Minister of Defence, are also shown in the table. Legal costs incurred by Employment Tribunal applicants are not normally recoverable from the Defendant and therefore the Ministry of Defence has no record of such costs. Settlement negotiations on the remainder of the outstanding cases remain ongoing.

  £

  16 February 1996 to 1 May 1997

  2 May 1997 to date

  Compensation paid in ECHR cases

  0

  324,875

  Claimants' legal costs paid in ECHR cases

  0

  81,200

  Compensation paid to ET applicants

  0

  79,000

  Legal costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence

  12,090

  156,507

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Petrol Costs (Ministerial Cars)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [134994]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office does not directly manage ministerial vehicles; this function is undertaken by the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, gave on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 552W.

  Press Office
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are currently employed in the Home Office Press Office and at what grades; what has been the total cost to public funds of the 746W
  recent expansion of the Home Office Press Office following the implementation of the report by Clear Communications; and if he will make a statement. [134973]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The total number of people employed in the press office is 27. This is comprised of five Senior Information Officers, 16 Information Officers, an Assistant Information Officer and a Chief Immigration Officer on attachment. In addition, there is an administrative support team of four people comprised of one Higher Executive Officer, one Administrative Officer and two Administrative Assistants.

  As I told the House previously, on 2 March 2000,Official Report, column 383W, the estimated cost of extra staff will be up to £400,000 in a full year, to bring total costs to around £1.6 million. This expansion has proved necessary to cope with the widened responsibilities and activities of the Home Office since May 1997 (including the larger programme of constitutional and other reforms) and a significant increase in calls to the press office over the last three years.

  In addition there has been a one-off cost of refurbishing the press office and the provision of additional equipment and IT support which will be in the region of £200,000.

  As I told the House previously, on 24 July 2000,Official Report, column 746, £82,000 was spent on recruitment advertising and the external consultant's report which recommended that the Press Office be restructured and expanded by between eight and 10 press officers.

  Seasonal Agricultural Work
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received from(a) Concordia and (b) other interested parties concerning the number of student permits allowed for assistance and training associated with seasonal agricultural work; what has been his response; and if he will make a statement. [137006]

  Mrs. Roche
  Representations in support of an increase in the quota of non-European Economic Area (EEA) students participating in the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Scheme (SAWS) have been made on behalf of various interested parties, including the National Farmers Union. Concordia (YSV) Ltd., one of the approved scheme operators, had indicated support for an increase.

  The Government have listened to the concerns of the agricultural industry and have agreed to increase the annual quota of students from 10,000 to 15,200 with effect from the 2001 season.

  Race-related Offences
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sentences were imposed on people convicted in(a) 1999 and (b) 1998 of incitement to racial hatred. [137891]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Data taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database are given in the table.
  747W

  Number of persons sentenced at all courts for offences1under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986, by type of offence and disposal, England and Wales, 1998 and 1999

  Offence description

  Year

  Total sentenced

  Conditional discharge

  Fine

  Compensation

  Probation order

  Combination order

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Section 18

  1998

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1999

  3

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Section 19

  1998

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Section 21

  1998

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Section 23

  1998

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1Data may include persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other 'principal' offences.

  Note:

  Based on principal offence

  Number Plates
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to require that scrap vehicles have number plates destroyed on arrival at scrap yards in order to reduce crime involving the use of false number plates.[137630]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have no plans to introduce such measures. We are, however, looking closely at the recommendations of the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team that the motor salvage industry and the supply and issue of number plates should be regulated by law in order to reduce crime.

  European Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress made under the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area for freedom, security and justice in the European Union. [138085]

  Mrs. Roche
  The European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 decided that it would keep under constant review progress made towards developing the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice in line with its own conclusions ("the Tampere milestones"). It called on the Commission to come forward with an appropriate proposal for a scoreboard to that end. The Commission presented its scoreboard at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 27 March 2000, at which it was discussed by the Council. The scoreboard was designed to be regularly updated. The Commission produced a revised version of the scoreboard at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 29 May 2000. A further revised version is expected for the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on30 November-1 December 2000.

  There has been progress on a wide range of issues covered by the Tampere conclusions over the past year. Developments range from the establishment of the Police Chiefs Task Force to the adoption of the European Refugee Fund. The first ever joint meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs and ECOFIN Councils took place on 17 October to consider measures to combat money laundering to implement Tampere conclusions 51–58.
  748W
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regularly reports to the European Scrutiny Committee on the outcome of Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings, in correspondence and in response to Parliamentary Questions. Copies of this correspondence are available in the Library.

  EU Immigration and Asylum Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) purpose and (b) present activities of (i) the Odysseus Programme and (ii) the Robert Schuman legal project. [138081]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Odysseus programme provides training, exchanges and co-operation in the fields of asylum, immigration and crossing of external borders in the 15 member states of the European Union. The programme provides for the possible involvement of the applicant countries. Other non-member countries may also be associated, provided this is in accordance with the programme's objectives.

  The programme is supporting approximately 40 projects during 2000, including:
  projects aimed at assisting applicant countries with the accession process, for example presentation of the European Union acquis in the field of immigration, asylum and control of external borders for Turkish officials;
  a seminar on the fight against networks in illegal immigration; and a seminar on liaison officers dealing with migration.

  Robert Schuman legal project:

  The Robert Schuman programme offers financial assistance to national training schemes in Community law for judges and lawyers. The project falls within the ministerial responsibility of the Lord Chancellor.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason a Council directive on minimum standards on procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status has been proposed; and what his policy is on it. [138089]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Treaty establishing the European Community envisages the adoption of minimum standards on procedures for granting or withdrawing refugee status within a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. The importance of such measures was reaffirmed at the Special European Council
  749W
  in Tampere in October 1999. The scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union requires the Commission to submit a proposal for minimum standards on asylum procedures with a view to adoption in April 2001.

  The Commission presented a proposed directive to the Council on 28 September. The intention of the proposed directive is to establish minimum standards for the fairness and efficiency of asylum procedures in all the member states. This should make a significant contribution to promoting the balance of effort between member states in terms of the receipt of asylum seekers.

  The Government's initial view on this proposed directive will be set out in an Explanatory Memorandum which will be deposited shortly.

  Grotius Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on changes planned for the Grotius Programme in the course of the Treaty of Amsterdam. [138083]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Grotius programme, which is concerned with incentives and exchanges for legal practitioners, runs from 1996–2000. Following the Treaty of Amsterdam, which provided for judicial co-operation in the field of civil law to take place under the Treaty establishing the European Community and for judicial co-operation in the field of criminal law to take place under the Treaty on European Union, it will be necessary to split the Grotius programme in future. The Commission has proposed the extension of the Grotius programme in the area of civil law for the period of one year only, to enable consideration of its future and its relationship with other programmes, notably the Robert Schuman programme. In the area of criminal law, the Commission has indicated that it is considering proposing the extension of the Grotius programme for a period of two years.

  Fire Stations
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent advice he has received from H1\4 Inspectorate of Fire Services on proposals to reduce manning in(a) Heswall Fire Station and (b) other fire stations from 24 hour to day time manning. [138424]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Fire Services would not normally be sought until after receipt of an application to reduce a fire authority's establishment under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. The information is as follows:(a) To date we have not received an application from Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority regarding fire cover provision at Heswall fire station.
  (b) There has been only one such section 19 application this year, on which advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Fire Services is awaited. This application was submitted by Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority in relation to Formby fire station.

  Personal Safety
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to facilitate the establishment of a national centre for studies and training in personal safety from crime.[138645]
  750W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are a number of organisations working in this field and the Home Office encourages all initiatives in this area. The Home Office has recently had discussions with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust about how we could assist them with the setting up of their International Personal Safety Centre for the reduction of Crime and Violence against the Person.

  City Status
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in the announcement of the result of the competition for city status to mark the millennium [138508]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At no point was a date set for the announcement of the result of the Millennium city status competition, but as I have indicated on previous occasions we anticipate an announcement by the end of the year.

  ADT v. UK
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was to public funds of(a) defending ADT v. UK, including the legal costs of both sides and (b) the damages awarded. [138463]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The applicant was awarded £20,929.05 damages in respect of the cost of defending criminal proceedings, travel expenses, prosecution costs, loss for items confiscated and destroyed and non-pecuniary losses. In addition, the applicant was awarded £13,771.28 in respect of costs and expenses.

  As regards the Government's legal costs, much of the work involved was carried out by officials and lawyers already employed by Government. We are not therefore able to estimate the total cost of defending the action before the European Court of Human Rights.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislative action he proposes to take following the decision in the case of ADT v. UK. [138464]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government set up the Sex Offences Review in January 1999. Its terms of reference were to make proposals for reform of the law on sex offences which were among other things compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.

  The report of the review is contained in 'Setting the Boundaries'. The review recommended that the offence of gross indecency should be repealed. It was that offence for which ADT was convicted and which, in the circumstances of his conviction, was found to have been a breach of ADT' s private life under Article 8.

  The consultation period finishes on 1 March 2001. Following this the Government will consider legislation for a comprehensive reform of the law on sexual offences, including gross indecency, when parliamentary time allows.
  751W
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what administrative action he intends to take in relation to(a) existing and (b) future charges of gross indecency in the light of the decision in the case of ADT v. UK. [138465]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have made it clear that this area of the law is the subject of recommendations contained in 'Setting the Boundaries'. Until the law is changed it remains in force and enforceable. There is no administrative action which the Home Office can or should take to prevent enforcement of the law.

  However, any decision not to prosecute any individual under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 will be a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service. In determining whether to proceed with a prosecution the CPS will have regard to the public interest and in doing so will take account of the Court's judgment and the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Gambling Review Body
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will implement the recommendations of the Gambling Review Body in full as soon as practicable after its reports. [138719]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Gambling Review Body is due to report next summer. We shall give its report careful consideration, bearing in mind the generally acknowledged need to modernise the laws regulating gambling.

  Armed Robberies
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many armed robberies were committed with(a) licensed pistols, (b) unlicensed pistols, (c) other licensed firearms and (d) other unlicensed firearms, in each of the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 to date.[138689]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of the legal status of firearms used in offences are not generally available, but it is thought that most, if not all, will be illegally held. The numbers of handguns and other firearms used in robberies are as follows, for the most recently available information:

  Firearms used in robberies

  Financial year

  Number of handguns

  Number of other firearms1

  1997–98

  1,811

  1,128

  1998–99

  1,814

  1,159

  1Including supposed and imitation firearms, and air weapons.

  Sapurui Sakalatuala
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Security Service will release files from the inter-war period relating to Sapurui Sakalatuala; and if he will make a statement.[138691]
  752W
  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service is still reviewing and releasing records covering the Second World War and has just made public a fourth tranche of files from this period. The Security Service will, in due course in light of resources, be reviewing its inter-war records in preparation for further releases. Under current plans, I do not expect the Security Service to begin reviewing its inter-war records before the year 2001.

  Policing (Cleveland)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Cleveland Police Authority regarding expenditure on Operation Lancet; and if he will make a statement.[138688]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I will be meeting the Chair of the Police Authority and the Chief Constable at their request on 29 November to discuss various matters related to the policing of Cleveland.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Petrol Costs (Ministerial Cars)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [134935]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 552W.

  Departmental Employees (New Deal)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many individuals his Department has recruited from the New Deal for Young People; [134688]

  (2) how many staff in his Department are employed under the New Deal for Young People. [137956]

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

  Adult and Community Learning Fund
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the Adult and Community Learning Fund, with particular reference to(a) total expenditure, (b) the criteria for scheme selection and (c) the monitoring and accountability of schemes funded from the ACLF.[136307]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The total expenditure on the Adult and Community Learning Fund (ACLF) to date is £11.4 million. A further £8.6 million will be spent between now and March 2002.

  The Fund supports activities in England which take learning into sectors of the community rarely reached by traditional educational institutions. 309 projects have been

  753W
  supported to date. The criteria are set out in a Prospectus which provides guidance to applicants. Projects must be innovative, of good quality and sustainable. They must also involve learners in managing project activities and building partnerships. Funding must not duplicate or extend existing provision or organisational support. At least one community or voluntary group must lead on, or be an equal partner in, bids for funding.

  ACLF projects are managed on my Department's behalf by the Basic Skills Agency (BSA) and the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE), which are accountable to the Department and its auditors. Progress on each project is monitored by BSA or NIACE as part of their contracted role as joint managers of the Fund.

  In his recent Remit Letter to the Learning and Skills Council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State draws the Council's attention to the need to secure, at local level, imaginative and attractive learning opportunities which will draw in people unused to learning, or who see learning in institutions as not for them.

  Student Fees
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will remove parental income as a means of assessing student fees payable; and if he will make a statement.[136979]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 8 November 2000]: No. The current assessment system is working well and ensures that currently about a third of dependent students from lower income families do not make any contribution to tuition fees, and I expect this to rise to some two fifths from September 2001 as a result of a change to the contribution threshold. This is in the context of over 40 per cent. of all students making no contribution to tuition fees under the present system, rising to about 50 per cent. from September 2001. The new student finance arrangements that we introduced share the cost of higher education fairly between students, their families and taxpayers generally, and provide essential resources for investment in universities and colleges.

  Departmental Research Budget
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the budget was for research and consultancy for his Department for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [137304]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 8 November 2000]: Research and consultancy is not generally budgeted for as a discrete item within the Department. Most expenditure of this type is met from wider programme or administrative budgets.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools are without permanent head teachers in (i) England and (ii) Norfolk.[137819]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]: The table shows temporarily filled vacant full-time head teacher posts in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England and Norfolk in January 2000.
  754W

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Nursery, primary and secondary

  England

  Temporarily filled as a percentage of head teachers in post

  2.1

  2.3

  2.1

  Number of posts

  390

  90

  480

  Norfolk

  Temporarily filled as a percentage of head teachers in post

  3.4

  0.0

  2.9

  Number of posts

  13

  0

  13

  Head teachers have a key role in boosting standards in schools. We are establishing a National College for School Leadership to give a focus to school leadership development, and are designing a coherent package of training and development programmes for aspiring, new and serving head teachers.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make extra funds available to fund special needs education in rural areas.[138277]

  Jacqui Smith
  Resources are distributed to local education authorities through Standard Spending Assessments. These are calculated using information about the demographic, economic and social characteristics of an area. This includes a sparsity factor, which would take account of additional transport costs in areas such as Cornwall with dispersed populations, and consequently higher costs of transporting pupils with special educational needs.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer.[137426]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: I fully support the aims of the International Year of Volunteers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and all the Ministers in this Department intend to take part in voluntary activity during 2001. My Department also encourages staff to participate in a wide range of voluntary activities, often during working hours, and will continue to do so.

  Recycled Computers
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the bidding process will commence for the second phase of the Computers Within Reach scheme.[138490]

  Mr. Wills
  We shall be extending the scheme in the areas listed in my answer to my right hon. Friend's earlier questions, of 10 November 2000,Official Report, column 437W. We are currently looking at opportunities for integrating the scheme with other related initiatives in disadvantaged areas, details of which will be given as soon as possible. We are also awaiting the evaluation of the first weeks of the scheme before we make final decisions on next steps.
  755W
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many low cost recycled personal computers have been provided to low income families since 1998; how the recipients have been selected; and what evaluation has been carried out of the programme to date.[138635]

  Mr. Wills
  I announced the commencement of the Computers Within Reach scheme on 25 October 2000 for those on certain benefits who were seeking to gain or retain employment. The first phase of the scheme will provide up to 35,000 recycled PCs in various areas in England until 31 March 2001. Potential applicants have been asked to contact the free telephone helpline 08080 100 900 in the first instance.

  The PCs will be delivered following the applications being processed by the relevant regional contractor. I am writing to all MPs with details of the scheme and the pilot areas to be covered in this first phase. The PCs will be provided in areas where there are locally based groups that made a successful bid to be part of the scheme. The evaluation arrangements are currently being finalised. I will write to my hon. Friend with the outcome of the tender exercise once this has been completed.

  The first phase pilots are located in areas within the following locations:

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Hull

  Leeds

  Knowsley

  Liverpool

  London

  Manchester

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  Sheffield

  City Learning Centres
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library a list of the addresses of City Learning Centres. [138634]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A list of addresses of those City Learning Centres due to open in the financial year 2000–01 has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Further Centres that will open from September 2001 have been allocated to Excellence in Cities areas and partnerships are currently working on detailed plans on where Centres will be sited and how they will operate.

  Internet Safety Guidance
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's Superhighways Safety Pack.[138639]

  Mr. Wills
  Copies of the new version of this comprehensive internet safety guidance have today been placed in the Library. We have produced, and recently updated, the pack for teachers and parents, providing guidance on the wide range of internet safety measures which they can adopt. These range from using "walled gardens" and filtering software, to monitoring and tracking pupil access and providing "user contracts" for pupils, spelling out how they should behave.
  756W
  The pack is also available on the internet at http://safety.ngfl.gov.uk

  Online Learning
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library a list of the addresses of(a) UK online learning centres and (b) ISI support centres.[138643]

  Mr. Wills
  I will write to my hon. Friend with a full list of the successful first phase of UK online centres funded through the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF) by the end of November 2000, along with a list of DTI's UK online for business (formally Information Society Initiative) advisers and their contact details. Copies will also be placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Investors Compensation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the average amount of compensation paid by the ICS in relation to the cases referred to the investors' compensation scheme by the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman in each of the last two years, as a result of an award not having been paid due to the offending company having been struck off the PIA Register;[135271]

  (2) how many decisions made by the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman in each of the last two years in favour of the complainant did not lead to the payment of compensation because the offending company was struck off the PIA Register before payment was made; and of these cases how many were referred to the Investors' Compensation Scheme;[135273]

  (3) what was (a) the average amount of compensation paid and (b) the average amount of compensation awarded in cases where no payment was made due to the offending company having been struck off the Personal Investment Authority Register in relation to decisions made by the PIA Ombudsman in each of the last two years in favour of the complainant.[135272]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The previous history of cases dealt with by ICS is not centrally recorded, including whether they have been previously dealt with by PIAOB.

  The information requested on compensation is not available. Compensation often does not take the form of a cash award to a complainant.

  Census
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the printing of the census forms for Wales and England began.[135154]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  757W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Simon Thomas, dated 15 November 2000:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking when the printing of the census forms for Wales and England began. (135154)
  The contractual arrangements for printing the forms were agreed in February 2000. The contract required printing of the forms for Wales to begin on 27 July. Printing of the Welsh language version of the household forms for Wales subsequently began on that date, followed by the printing of the English language version on 2 August.
  Details of the arrangements for the consultation on the 2001 Census in Wales have been widely publicised. The shape and content of the Census has been formulated in consultation with users through a structure of Advisory Committees, working Groups and topic-related sub-groups, Census News, information papers, the Internet and ad hoc public meetings. The assessment of the resulting business cases for census topics culminated in the Government's proposals set out in the White Paper in March 1999. In Wales in particular, formal consultation is carried out through the Welsh Census Users Network Group at which each of the 22 local government authorities in Wales is represented as well as a range of other public bodies and authorities. Additional bilateral consultation is carried out with the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Language Board.
  In addition to this extensive programme of consultation a major public rehearsal of the 2001 Census was carried out in April 1999, including coverage of around 7,800 households in Gwynedd and 6,900 households in Ceredigion.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion for reply on 30 October regarding the date upon which the printing of the Census forms for Wales commenced.[137210]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have done so today.

  Import Duty
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will increase the limit above which import duty is paid on goods ordered through the intemet, post and telephone.[136982]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 November 2000]: UK policy is not to discriminate in favour of certain types of trade.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families he estimates are eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit but not claiming it.[137615]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimating the number of families currently eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit requires, among other things, detailed survey data for 2000–01. These are not yet available.

  The number of families receiving WFTC at the end of August is provisionally estimated at 1,123,000, compared to 817,000 families who were in receipt of Family Credit in August 1999.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to measure the level of fraud in applications for Working Families Tax Credit.[137389]
  758W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 November 2000]: The Inland Revenue is currently undertaking an exercise to benchmark the level of fraud within Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit. The findings of this exercise will be used by the Inland Revenue to ensure their tax credits compliance work is carried out in the most effective way.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual cost to the Exchequer would be of disregarding the widow's maintenance allowance in respect of the Working Families Tax Credit.[137736]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]: I am not aware of a widow's maintenance allowance.

  EU Budget Lines
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government received itemised expenditure of EU Budget Line B3–301, Information Outlets, for the latest year; what is his policy on the optional targeting of such funds; and if he will identify how much funding went to each recipient, naming the recipients, with particular reference to expenditure in the UK.[138166]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is within the remit of the Commission to decide the criteria for the targeting of such funds.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the European Communities budget lines which the Government are seeking to delete.[138082]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government look for good value for money on all budget lines, and seek to ensure that any spending is within the financial perspective agreed at Berlin in March 1999.

  Special Compliance Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the(a) number and (b) proportion of Inland Revenue personnel working in the Special Compliance Office.[138322]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over the next two years, more than £2.5 million will be added to the budget of Special Compliance Office.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last tax year for which data are available, what was the(a) annual budget of the Inland Revenue Special Compliance Office, and (b) estimated additional tax revenue which its activities generated.[138321]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the year to 31 March 2000, the total budget of Special Compliance Office was £24.3 million. The office brought into charge additional tax, interest and penalties of £371 million during the year. It also concluded criminal proceedings against 40 defendants in respect of revenue-related offences.

  VAT (Places of Worship)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Cm 4917, if he will define places of worship in respect of consideration for a reduction in VAT.[138197]
  759W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: Places of worship are listed religious buildings such as cathedrals, churches, chapels, meeting-houses, synagogues, mosques and temples.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the plans announced in his pre-Budget Statement to reduce VAT on church repairs in the context of EU rules governing VAT.[138738]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are attracted to the idea of offering a reduced rate for the repair of listed buildings which are used as places of worship, such as churches, chapels, synagogues, meeting-houses, temples and mosques. As a first step I have written to the European Commission on 8 November to ask for consideration of early legislative proposals to add repairs, maintenance and improvements to listed places of worship to the list of permissible reduced rates.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the proposals for regeneration in his pre-Budget Report will fulfil the recommendations contained in the Rogers report:"Towards an Urban Renaissance".[138246]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: The pre-Budget Report 2000 announced that the following package of measures to promote urban regeneration would be introduced in Budget 2001:

  (i) complete exemption from stamp duty for all property transactions in Britain's most disadvantaged communities;

  (ii) accelerated payable tax credit for cleaning up contaminated land;

  (iii) immediate tax relief to property owners for the costs of converting redundant space over shops and other commercial premises into flats for letting;

  (iv) a reduced rate of VAT for the cost of converting residential properties into a different number of dwellings;

  (v) an adjustment to the zero rate of VAT to provide relief for the sale of renovated houses that have been empty for 10 years or more.

  Of these proposed measures, the first three respond to specific recommendations made in the Urban Task Force report "Towards an Urban Renaissance", chaired by Lord Rogers. The remaining two move some way towards Lord Rogers's recommendations for changes to VAT. In addition, the Government announced that it would continue to monitor the urban regeneration companies, and consider how a tax relief may help, responding to a further recommendation made in the report.

  Contaminated Land (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax relief he will provide to property investors for the clean up of contaminated land. [138233]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: The scheme announced in the PBR will give accelerated tax relief for the cost of cleaning up contaminated land. Final details will be included in my right hon. Friend's Budget.

  Residential Conversions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will be eligible for tax relief for creating flats over shops; and if there will be an upper limit to such relief in respect of the(a) property and (b) property owners.[138235]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: Under the proposals announced by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget Report, 100 per cent. capital allowances for the costs of converting vacant and under-used space over shops would be available to property owners who create flats for letting. The scheme will include checks to ensure this enhanced relief does not subsidise high-value properties that require no encouragement. It is not proposed to limit the total relief available to a property owner.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated number of flats over shops which will be created by his proposal for capital allowances.[138234]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: The proposed scheme for 100 per cent. capital allowances for flats over shops is expected to support the conversion of over 1,000 flats each year over the next five years.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he has received from the European Commission on his plans to(a) reduce VAT rates on residential conversions and (b) remove VAT on developers renovating and selling houses which have been empty for 10 years or more.[138222]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: Item 9 of Annexe H to the VAT Sixth Directive allows a reduced rate for alteration and conversion work to houses which is done to further a social policy. The removal of VAT from the sale of renovated houses that have been empty for 10 years is a minor adjustment and updating of the existing zero rate. There is therefore no need to seek the Commission's advice on VAT law.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer.[137423]

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

  All Treasury staff are allowed one day's extra leave to undertake voluntary work in a private capacity.

  Tax Returns (Internet)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 412W, on tax returns, if he will make a statement on the pilot of internet VAT returns.[137850]
  761W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: A limited live pilot of internet VAT returns started on 1 March 2000. A number of businesses were invited to participate after registering their interest in the internet VAT return at the early stages of development.

  Initial feedback from businesses in the live pilot has been favourable. Customs are continuing to develop the system with a view to making it more widely available during 2001.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Cm 4917, on what basis he expects October corporation tax receipts to be a guide to corporation tax receipts for the October to March period in fiscal year 2000–01.[138460]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Large companies are now required to pay their corporation tax in quarterly instalments with, during the four year transition period, a subsequent balancing payment. October's receipts of tax were mainly:instalment payments by companies with calendar or financial year accounting periods and these companies should pay similar amounts in January next year; and
  balancing payments by companies with 1999 calendar year accounts and these levels of payments can help estimation of other companies' balancing payments due in the rest of the year.

  Commercial Road Vehicles Vignette
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to issue detailed proposals for the vignette for commercial road vehicles in the United Kingdom; and what the daily charge will be.[138287]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: The Chancellor announced the Government's intention to introduce a 'vignette' as part of his package of positive measures for the haulage industry.

  We will be consulting with representatives from the haulage industry on the introduction of the scheme. Further details will be announced in due course.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the lower earnings limit(a) for crediting towards national insurance benefits and (b) for national insurance contribution payments (i) was in April 1997 and (ii) will be in April 2001; and if he will estimate for each local authority in Tyne and Wear the numbers of employees who will be credited with national insurance contributions, but not paying them in April 2001.[138332]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to Inland Revenue press release "IR1—Income Tax Allowances and National Insurance Contributions".

  I am afraid that it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate for the number of employees in Tyne and Wear who will be credited with national insurance contributions, but not paying them.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual additional revenue raised by his proposal in the 762W
  pre-Budget Report to increase the upper limit on national insurance contributions for employed and self employed.[138622]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the March 1999 Budget the Chancellor announced a large reform of National Insurance and figures were given in table 1.3 of the "March 1999 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report". These estimates were updated in the "March 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report" appendix A2.

  Widowers
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of paying the bereavement allowance to all men widowed between 6 April 1994 and 5 April 2000; and if he will make a statement.[138103]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: The Inland Revenue does not generally hold information on whether men are widowed and therefore any costing is very approximate. We estimate the cost of extending the widow's bereavement allowance to men retrospectively for the tax years 1994–95 to 1999–2000 would be about £180 million.

  The Government recognise that the previous system of tax allowances did not target support fairly on those who needed it most. A new system has now been introduced, which focuses resources on families with children. Most widows and widowers with children under 16 will, from next April, be entitled to the Children's Tax Credit, worth over twice as much as the Widow's Bereavement Allowance. We believe that this will give the right support to those who need it most.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many men were widowed between 6 April 1994 and 5 April 2000 in(a) the UK and (b) each Scottish local authority area.[138102]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: There are around 80,000 men widowed each year in the UK of whom some 7,500 are in Scotland. I regret that it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate for the number of men widowed in each Scottish local authority area.

  Special Advisers (Budget)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what restrictions apply to contact between his special advisers and journalists between publication of the Budget Report 2000 and the 2001 Budget. [136193]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Special advisers carry out their duties in accordance with the terms and conditions of their contract (similar arrangements have applied under successive Governments).

  Departmental Employees (New Deal)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff his Department employs under the New Deal for Young People.[137951]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 13 November 2000,Official Report, columns 551–52W.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be of pensionable age in each of the next 10 years.[138045]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: The most recent actual figures relate to mid-1999. They are given in "Population Trends 101", Table 1.5. The Government Actuary's latest projections of the number of people over state pension age, based on the population at mid-1998, are available on the CD ROM accompanying "National population projections:1998-based" (ONS Series no. 22) or on the GAD website http://www. gad. gov.uk/population/1998/pop98. html.

  Disadvantaged Communities
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Cm 4917, if he will list the most disadvantaged communities which will qualify for tax reliefs under his regeneration proposals.[138232]

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which areas of Merseyside will qualify for exemption from Stamp Duty.[138333]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 November 2000]: The Government are working to ensure that the Stamp Duty measure announced in the pre-Budget Report is targeted at the most disadvantaged areas in all parts of the UK.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 8 November 2000,Official Report, columns 315–27, on the pre-Budget Report, what estimate he has made of the impact of changes in stamp duty to (a) property sales and (b) other economic variables in deprived areas as defined in Table B4 of the document "Building Long Term Prosperity for All"; and if he will make a statement.[138282]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: The Government will work to ensure that the stamp duty measure announced in the pre-Budget Report is targeted at the most disadvantaged areas.

  This is part of a comprehensive package of measures worth £1 billion over five years which will complement and build on measures already in place to revive our most disadvantaged communities.

  Individual Savings Account
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the operation of ISAs.[138701]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A review of the operation of ISAs began work in April this year, and changes arising from the review were announced in the recent Pre-Budget Report. These include extending cash ISAs to 16 and 17-year-olds, increasing the use of electronic business for ISAs, and the alignment of the PEP rules on investments, transfers and administrative procedures with the more flexible ISA rules. Further details can be found in the Inland Revenue Press Release "Encouraging Britain to Save" issued on 8 November.

  Euro
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to Government Departments to date has been of the national euro changeover plan.[138725]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Public sector spending on changeover planning to date is set out in the Treasury's Fourth Report on Euro Preparations, published on 6 November 2000. Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost has been to date of euro information campaigns directed specifically at business.[138732]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1016.

  Personal Computers
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many personal computers have been provided by private sector employers for use at home by their employees, for which a tax allowance has been claimed; and what the value was of the computers provided.[138686]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department received on Petroleum Revenue Tax in relation to the pre-Budget Report.[138515]

  Mr. Timms
  The Treasury has received a number of representations on Petroleum Revenue Tax.

  Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between his plans to abolish the withholding tax on the payment of interest between companies and the Council of Ministers' plans for an EU withholding tax.[138739]

  Mr. Timms
  The Budget proposal to abolish withholding tax on international bonds and simplification represents a helpful simplification of the tax system, as does the proposal in the pre-Budget Report whereby, subject to consultation, the requirement to withhold tax on most intra-UK interest and royalties payments between UK companies within the charge of corporation tax will be abolished from April 2001. They are not directly connected with EU proposals on taxation of savings, on which subject I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave on 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 410W.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his policy is concerning proposals by the Dutch Government for the harmonisation of pension tax systems, to be included in the IGC on institutional reform at Nice;[138734]
  765W
  (2) if he will make a statement on proposals by the European Commission for the harmonisation of fuel taxes to be included at the IGC on institutional reform at Nice;[138733]

  (3) if he will make a statement on plans by the French Presidency to introduce internal market tax harmonisation measures.[138729]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government will insist on retaining unanimity for decisions on taxation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which relocation companies hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil servants; when the contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is.[137192]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no current contracts with specialist companies for staff relocation in the United Kingdom.

  Dependent Territories Citizens
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what entitlement citizens of(a) Gibraltar and (b) Ceuta and Melilla have to benefits available to EU citizens; and if he will make a statement.[137379]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Treaty establishing the European Community applies to Gibraltar as a European Territory for whose external relations the UK as a member state is responsible, subject to various exemptions provided for in the UK's Act of Accession to the Community. Specifically, Gibraltar is not part of the Community Customs Territory and is outside the Treaty rules on the free movement of goods, the Common Commercial Policy, the VAT regime and the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies.

  The EC Treaty applies to Ceuta and Melilla as part of the Spanish metropolitan territory, subject to certain exemptions contained in Spain's Act of Accession to the Community. Ceuta and Melilla are not part of the Community Customs Territory (although goods originating in Ceuta and Melilla have duty-free access to the EC) and are outside the Common Commercial Policy and Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies. VAT is not levied there, but Spain contributes to Community own resources on their behalf.

  Gibraltar and Ceuta and Melilla are entitled to the benefits flowing from the EC Treaty except those arising from parts of the Treaty and subsequent legislation which are not applicable to these territories.

  Visa Applicants (Islamabad)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the current average waiting time in Islamabad is for applicants seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom having married United Kingdom citizens from the point of 766W
  application to the issuing of the visa; and what it was on the same count date in each of the last five years.[137368]

  Mr. Vaz
  At the end of September waiting time in Islamabad for interview for a spouse settlement visa was 18.5 weeks. Waiting times at the same point in the last two years were 40 weeks (1999) and 16 weeks (1998). The monthly data for the years 1995 to 1997 have not been retained. The waiting times at the end of December 1995, 1996 and 1997 were 13.5 weeks (1995), 18 weeks (1996) and 18 weeks (1997). We also know from correspondence with the High Commission that the waiting time for spouse settlement interviews in September 1995 was 18 weeks. All these waiting times are for interview. The time until a decision to issue (or refuse) a visa may be longer, depending on the circumstances of the case. I have today asked Islamabad for weekly information about queue lengths.

  Kazakhstan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss the conclusions of the OSCE reports on the parliamentary and presidential elections in Kazakhstan in 1999, and the issue of freedom and independence of the media, with President Nazarbaev during his forthcoming visit.[137713]

  Mr. Vaz
  We welcome President Nazarbaev's visit to the United Kingdom from 15–18 November 2000. The Secretary of State will discuss progress on democratisation and media freedom with President Nazarbaev during his visit to the United Kingdom.

  European Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bearing the Charter of Fundamental Rights will have on verdicts of the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement.[137965]

  Mr. Vaz
  The EU is already obliged to respect fundamental rights, and the ECJ is responsible for ensuring that this happens. The obligation to respect fundamental rights was first given Treaty status at Maastricht. In deciding how to interpret fundamental rights the ECJ is already, and will remain, free to have regard to relevant material. That may include the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  The Charter will be adopted at Nice as a political declaration. It will not be legally binding. It will create no new powers or tasks for the EU or the ECJ. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 555W.

  European Union Defence Policy
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treaty base for the development in European Union defence policy in respect of(a) CFSP, (b) ESDI, (c) ESDP and (d) CESDP at (i) St. Malo, (ii) Cologne and (iii) Feira.[138209]

  Mr. Vaz
  The acronyms ESDI, ESDP and CESDP have all been used to refer to the same process: the European defence initiative launched by the Prime Minister at
  767W
  Portschach in 1998. This initiative has been taken forward through the St. Malo UK-French Summit and the European Councils of Cologne, Helsinki and Feira. The aims of the initiative remain the same: to strengthen the military capabilities of EU member states and European Allies and to enable the Council of the EU to decide to launch and to conduct a military crisis management operation (a Petersberg task) where the alliance as a whole is not engaged. ESDI more correctly refers to the arrangements within NATO for the alliance to support European-led crisis management.

  Article 2 and Title V of the Treaty on European Union provide the legal base for the EU's CFSP activity, including military crisis management. The Government are satisfied that the Treaty provides a sufficient legal base for the European defence initiative as defined in successive decisions of the European Council.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the inclusion of defence matters in the proposed Treaty of Nice.[138208]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government expect that the European Council at Nice will take decisions on the necessary arrangements to enable the Council of the European Union to decide to launch and to conduct a military crisis management operation (a Petersberg task) where the alliance as a whole is not engaged. The Government are satisfied that the existing Treaty provisions provide a sufficient legal base for the proposals which the French Presidency was mandated to develop by the European Council at Feira.

  Iraq
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total list of holds imposed by the UK on humanitarian goods for Iraq on 1 November.[138457]

  Mr. Hain
  Over US$37 billion has been made available to purchase humanitarian goods under the Oil for Food programme since its inception in 1996. This year alone, Oil for Food revenue is expected to reach more than US$16 billion.

  Figures for 1 November are no longer available. However, as at 13 November the UK had 208 contracts placed on hold, valued at approximately US$0.3 billion, which is less than 1 per cent. of the total value of Oil for Food revenue. The UK, as a responsible member of the UN Iraq Sanctions Committee, scrutinises contracts very carefully to ensure that goods are not supplied to Iraq in violation of Security Council resolutions. Holds are normally lifted after assurances have been received about the end-use or in-country monitoring of these goods. Since early October the UK has lifted holds on contracts valued at $200 million following confirmation that the goods will be subject to specific monitoring within Iraq.

  It is noteworthy that at the end of October Iraq's bureaucracy was holding back the delivery of US$1.1 billion worth of goods already approved by the Sanctions Committee. Detailed information on the status of individual Oil for Food contracts are available from The Office for Iraq Programme's website (http://www.un.org/Dems/oip.html).
  768W
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Union's policy on sanctions against Iraq. [138682]

  Mr. Hain
  The member states of the European Union, in accordance with their international obligations, continue to implement the United Nations sanctions on Iraq imposed by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

  Euro
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the statistical accuracy of recent Eurobarometer opinion surveys concerning attitudes towards the euro. [138737]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office makes no assessment of the statistical accuracy of such polls. The European Commission produces the six-monthly Eurobarometer poll. For details of the surveys research methodology I refer the hon. Member to the office of the European Commission in London.

  IGC
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals by the French Presidency at the IGC on Institutional Reform relating to self-employed people. [138728]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have made it quite clear that it will insist on retaining unanimity for Social Security, including for the categories of people covered by the Social Security provisions.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals from the French Presidency at the IGC on Institutional Reform to extend the coordination of national tax systems.[138730]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have made it quite clear that it will insist on retaining unanimity for decisions on taxation.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposals in the progress report on the IGC relating to the WTO and the conclusion of international trade agreements.[138726]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Presidency's proposals relate principally to the extension of the Common Commercial Policy to include services and intellectual property. This could bring benefits to British industry by improving access to overseas markets, and the Government is therefore looking carefully at the options for change.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposals for the co-ordination of social security systems contained in the progress report on the IGC on Institutional Reform.[138727]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have made quite clear that they will insist on retaining unanimity for social security.
  769W
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals in the Progress report on the IGC on Institutional Reform relating to(a) political parties at the European Union level, (b) the European Court of Justice, (c) the Court of Auditors, (d) the co-operation procedure and (e) the Committee of the Regions. [138722]

  Mr. Vaz
  On the first point, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 513W.

  The Government have made clear its position on IGC issues in its White Paper, and most recently in the Government's response to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on the intergovernmental Conference (published as a Command Paper on Friday 27 October). I refer the hon. Member to these.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposals concerning enhanced cooperation in the Progress Report on the IGC on Institutional Reform, with particular reference to the impact on member states not taking part in enhanced cooperation.[138676]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 557W.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what his policy is on the number of votes to be required for a blocking minority under QMV at the proposed IGC on Institutional Reform;z[138677]

  (2) if he will make a statement on proposals for a double simple majority voting rule to be discussed at the IGC on Institutional Reform. [138678]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government set out their position on vote reweighting in the IGC White Paper that they published in February.

  I refer the hon. Member to this.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals in the Progress report on the IGC on Institutional Reform relating to(a) transport issues and (b) economic and financial cooperation with non-EU countries.[138735]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 238W.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice's recent legal opinion concerning criticism of the EU.[138684]

  Mr. Vaz
  In his Opinion in a case brought by Bernard Connelly against the European Commission, the Advocate-General, Ruiz-Javabo Colomer, concluded that the European Court of Justice should dismiss Mr. Connelly's appeal against the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance had found 770W
  previously that Mr. Connelly was in breach of his obligations as a Commission official, according to his terms of employment, and that his dismissal was therefore justified. Neither the Court of First Instance nor the Advocate-General found that it was illegal to criticise the EU, as it has been claimed in some sections of the press.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards(a) the number of British commissioners, (b) the number of votes allocated to Britain and (c) the number of British judges on the European Court of Justice.[138675]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government set out their position on Commission size and vote reweighting in the IGC White Paper that they published in February. I refer the hon. Member to this.

  Currently each member state nominates a judge for the ECJ. There are no plans to change this.

  Acquis Communautaire
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the volume of acquis communautaire applicant states need to adopt before they can join the EU.[138723]

  Mr. Vaz
  As in all previous enlargements, new members of the EU must be able to implement the acquis communautaire in full on accession. The candidate country's acceptance of the acquis may give rise to technical adjustments, and exceptionally to non-permanent transitional measures. These adjustments and transitional measures are the subject of the accession negotiations currently under way with 12 countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia).

  Ballistic Missile Defence Shield
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on American plans for a ballistic missile defence shield designed to protect Western Europe.[138683]

  Mr. Vaz
  President Clinton announced on 1 September that any decision on the possible deployment of a National Missile Defence system would be deferred to the next US Administration.

  The system the current Administration envisage would protect all of the US, but not Western Europe.

  French Presidency Proposals
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the French Presidency's proposals for(a) a European food safety authority and (b) the harmonisation of working hours in the transport industry.[138680]

  Mr. Vaz
  (a) A proposal for a European Food Authority forms one part of the European Commission's proposed Regulation on general food law adopted on 8 November. The UK supports the establishment of such an Authority and will be considering this proposal carefully with wide public consultation. The French

  771W
  Presidency will be seeking preliminary views on the European Food Authority proposal in an orientation debate at the Internal Market Council on 30 November.

  (b) Proposals concerning the organisation of working time for mobile workers in the road transport sector were first published by the Commission in November 1998. Since then, negotiations in the Council have been slow and difficult and several issues have still to be resolved. The French Presidency hope to reach a Common Position at the Transport Council on 20–21 December.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department is taking to assist former inhabitants of Diego Garcia to return to all parts of the islands.[138489]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 511W.

  HIV/AIDS
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to respond to the request from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights for a report on the UK Government's activities concerning HIV/AIDS and human rights.[138561]

  Mr. Hain
  The HIV/AIDS pandemic is one of the most serious threats to health in modern times. Globally, nearly 34 million people live with HIV/AIDS. And, for many, it is not just their health that suffers but also their economic and social rights.

  That is why we see HIV/AIDS as an absolute priority. We are intensifying our support for more effective national and regional action to tackle HIV/AIDS; increasing support for vaccine development and microbicides to prevent infection; and collaborating with national governments, the private sector, civil society, researchers, UNAIDS, UNICEF and WHO in ensuring the most effective global response to the pandemic.

  In responding to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights we shall of course highlight these and our other efforts. I expect to issue this response in the near future, once we, in conjunction with DFID, have compiled the necessary information.

  Homosexual Rights
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to include reference to homosexual rights in the 'Good Governance and Human Rights' section of his Department's publication 'Focus International, Britain's Overseas Territories'.[138534]

  Mr. Battle
  Focus International briefings are occasional publications on topics in which Britain has a particular interest. The July 2000 briefing on Overseas Territories was produced in direct response to Overseas and UK public interest in the territories arising from the publication of the White Paper on Overseas Territories in 772W
  March 1999. It included a reference to our requirement for Overseas Territories to revise legislation to decriminalise consensual homosexual acts in private between adults.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide a schedule of the types of legal cases that are eligible for legal aid.[138272]

  Mr. Lock
  Public funding (formerly legal aid) is available, subject to eligibility criteria, for all civil cases in England and Wales unless specifically excluded by schedule 2 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Legal aid is available for all criminal cases which are serious enough to meet the interests of justice criteria set out in section 22(2) of the Legal Aid Act 1988.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the policy adopted by the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure effective prosecution in cases of domestic violence.[137167]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service regards violence in the domestic context as a serious matter and will prosecute wherever it is proper to do so.

  It is committed to working with others in the criminal justice system to achieve effective prosecutions in this difficult area.

  The Crown Prosecutors will consider the full range of prosecution options whether or not the victim is willing to attend the trial as a witness.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Solicitor-General what guidance he gives to the Crown Prosecution Service on consultation with victims on decisions about whether to prosecute.[137168]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Code for Crown Prosecutors was reissued last month. It sets out among other things the relationship between the CPS, victims and the public interest. The Code explains that the CPS prosecutes on behalf of the public at large and not just in the interests of any one individual.

  The Code at paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8 makes it clear that Crown Prosecutors should always take into account the consequences for the victim of the decision whether or not to prosecute, and any views expressed by the victim or the victim's family as that is part of the public interest.

  Prosecutors should already carry this out in appropriate cases, but additional guidance is being considered to improve this process.
  773W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service.[137165]

  The Solicitor-General
  The significance of the Human Rights Act on the work of the CPS was recognised at an early stage, and a high priority was given to ensure the CPS was well prepared for the implementation of the Act on 2 October 2000.

  In consultation with other prosecuting agencies and leading external human rights experts, the CPS developed a comprehensive training course for CPS prosecutors. The training programme reached nearly 2,500 prosecutors and selected caseworkers before 2 October 2000.

  This training programme and the continued guidance and advice that CPS staff receive has ensured that cases giving rise to human rights issues have been dealt with in a professional and effective manner. We had expected that human rights problems would be raised in ordinary cases, and that they would be dealt with in the ordinary way. This has proved to be the case.

  The Human Rights Act has meant that the courts are considering many new arguments. A number of cases raising human rights points are already going to the appeal courts. Where such cases have an impact on the criminal justice system as a whole and need to be litigated and resolved urgently they may be fast tracked to the appeal courts.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Solicitor-General what arrangements he has put in place for reviewing the work of the CPS Inspectorate; and how he measures the effectiveness of the Inspectorate.[137161]

  The Solicitor-General
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I routinely meet the Chief Inspector to discuss the work of the Inspectorate and the issues emerging. We receive and consider the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector together with reports of each Area inspection and thematic review undertaken. An Advisory Board is at present being established to ensure that the Inspectorate activity is targeted on those matters which most influence the performance of the CPS itself and the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as a whole.

  Criminal Libel
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Solicitor-General what impact incorporation of the European convention on Human Rights into UK law has had on his policy on permitting prosecutions for criminal libel; and if he will make a statement.[137169]

  The Solicitor-General
  CPS prosecution policy is contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The Code outlines the two-stage process in the decision to prosecute. The first stage is the evidential test, which states there must be sufficient evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction". The second stage is the public interest test. The CPS will only start or continue when the case has passed both tests. The Code also states that each case must be considered on its own facts and merits.
  774W
  The revised Code, which was launched on 11 October 2000, has been amended to reflect the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Code states
  Crown Prosecutors must apply the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights in accordance with the Act.

  Cases involving criminal libel will be considered in accordance with the principles outlined in the Code.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Solicitor-General when he notified the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament that he did not intend to refer the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.[138278]

  The Solicitor-General
  An official in the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers wrote to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament on 22 September 2000 to notify him that I did not intend to refer the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Bill to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 33(1) of the Scotland Act 1998.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of National Lottery grants has been spent on the Dome during 2000 to date.[135577]

  Janet Anderson
  Between 1 January 2000 and 31 October 2000, £139 million of Lottery money was paid to the New Millennium Experience Company. This amounts to 10.4 per cent. of the £1,340.5 million which has been paid to all grant recipients during the same period.

  Lottery Funding (The Olympics)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the effect of National Lottery funding on Britain's Olympic performance.[134822]

  Kate Hoey
  The performance of the British Team in Sydney was the best showing since the 1920 Games. This was achieved through the focus, determination and talent of our athletes, harnessed and given a chance by the Lottery funding and other support that they and their coaches receive. Over £80 million has been paid to athletes and their sports from the National Lottery since 1997.

  I have met with the Performance Directors of the Olympic Sports, together with the British Olympic Association, to discuss ways of building on the success of Sydney and I shall shortly be having a similar meeting with the Chief Executives of the sports governing bodies.

  Fitness Industry
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the economic contribution of the fitness industry, consisting of private health and fitness clubs, public sports and leisure facilities, to the economy.[137044]
  775W
  Kate Hoey
  The Government recognise the contribution that the fitness industry makes to the overall economy and the wider health benefits of increasing participation. There are a number of different independent estimates of the specific economic benefits of the fitness and leisure industry based on estimates of the economic benefits of sport as a whole. However, these estimates tend not to be sensitive enough to give a reliable estimate of expenditure within specific sectors. I understand the Leisure Industries Research Centre at Sheffield Hallam University is currently developing a new model which aims to provide a more accurate picture of the economic impacts of different sectors of sport, including the health and fitness markets. Sheffield Hallam University is intending to publish the first results from this work shortly.

  Free Television Licences (Scotland)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications for free television licences for pensioners aged 75 years and over have been(a) made and (b) granted in (i) Glasgow, Pollok, (ii) the city of Glasgow and (iii) Scotland; and what each figure represents as a percentage of the eligible groups in each case.[137770]

  Janet Anderson
  The information requested is not available. TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of applications received and free licences issued. Television licences cover households rather than individuals and there is no accurate information, by area, on the number of households eligible for the concession. However, estimates of the over-75 population based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,200 people aged 75 or over in the Glasgow, Pollok constituency, 47,500 in the City of Glasgow and 327,000 in Scotland.

  Athletics Stadium
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his latest estimate is of the total cost of building an athletics stadium and related development at Picketts Lock.[137839]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]: The English Sports Council has allocated £1.3 million from the Sports Lottery Fund for detailed feasibility work on the Lee Valley Stadium project. Accurate estimates of the overall project costs will be available once this work has been completed. An initial technical study for a concept athletics stadium capable of hosting the 2005 World Athletics Championships and becoming the long-term home for the athletics in the UK, has been prepared by Drivers Jonas, on behalf of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and UK Athletics. This paper exercise suggests that the cost of such a stadium could be around £95 million, but more accurate figures will be available in due course from the detailed feasibility study.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if, following receipt of the BBC's consultation paper 'A Digital Curriculum', he will 776W
  undertake a public consultation on its proposals; and what criteria he will adopt in deciding whether to give his approval to the BBC's proposals.[138550]

  Janet Anderson
  The BBC has recently carried out a public consultation on its proposed digital curriculum service. If, in the light of the consultation exercise, the Corporation decides that it wishes to proceed with such a service, my right hon. Friend's approval will be required. The Department would at that stage publish the BBC's request and invite representations. Details of the Department's consultation and the criteria we will use in assessing BBC public service proposals are set out in the guidelines "BBC Public Services: Approvals", copies of which were placed in the Library of the House on 21 June. The guidelines are currently being revised and we aim to publish the final version shortly.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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.[137698]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department with statutory duties relating to Scotland are:

  Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites

  British Library

  British Tourist Authority

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Millennium Commission

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  National Lottery Charities Board

  National Lottery Commission

  New Millennium Experience Company

  New Opportunities Fund

  Registrar of Public Lending Right

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  Theatres Trust

  UK Sports Council

  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 the "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.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  New Deal for Young People
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people are employed in his Department under the New Deal for Young People;[136480]
  777W
  (2) how many staff are employed by his Department under the New Deal for Young People.[137963]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office in his answer on 13 October 2000,Official Report,column 551W.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total cost from 30 June to 30 September of the Saville Inquiry into the events in Londonderry on 30 January 1972; and what sums were spent in that period on the inquiry broken down by(a) salaries of staff, (b) travel and subsistence,(c) accommodation, (d) hearing/witness costs, (e) fees to solicitors, representing those killed, (f) solicitors representing others,(g)banisters representing those killed,(h)banisters representing others, (i) IT/communications and (j) miscellaneous, including general office expenditure and also provide the totals of each heading and the total costs since this inquiry began.[136556]

  Mr. Ingram
  My Department's expenditure on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry is summarised in the table for the period 1 July to 30 September 2000. The figures for moneys paid to solicitors and banisters cannot be readily provided separately, nor can the payments for their professional services be separated from other expenses. However these payments have been split between those to lawyers representing families and those to other lawyers, including Counsel to the Inquiry.

  £

  Spend for period 1 July to 30 September 2000

  Spend since 1997–98 to 30 September 2000

  Salaries

  290,676

  2,069,659

  Travel and subsistence

  92,743

  538,391

  Accommodation

  174,696

  1,937,631

  Hearing/Witness Costs

  208,142

  1,462,955

  Payments to lawyers representing families of the dead or wounded

  1,118,711

  4,170,791

  Payments to other lawyers, including Counsel to the Inquiry

  291,368

  11,149,614

  IT/Communications

  1,555,032

  7,064,818

  Miscellaneous including general office expenditure

  84,959

  1,177,659

  Total

  3,816,327

  29.571,518

WALES

  Reservoirs (Wales)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of water was held in reservoirs in Wales immediately prior to the heavy rainfall in the second half of October.[138562]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  That is an operational matter for the Environment Agency and water supply companies. I understand that the Environment Agency Wales will be
  778W
  producing a report on recent flooding in Wales for the National Assembly for Wales and this will include information on reservoir levels.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Poultry Farming
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with poultry farmers concerning the integrated pollution prevention and control directive.[137145]

  Mr. Morley
  My ministerial colleagues in MAFF have discussed IPPC issues with representatives of the poultry sector as part of our regular discussions on the situation in the industry. Also my officials regularly meet the poultry industry and the Environment Agency to discuss the implementation of the Directive.

  Climate Change
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what strategic measures he is taking to allow for agricultural changes induced by climate change. [137146]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department has carried out a detailed analysis of the likely impact of climate change on agriculture. Results are not conclusive but the recent extreme weather means that we must assess long-term affect carefully. Further research is underway.

  BSE
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that scientific advice to Ministers relating to BSE is published.[137148]

  Ms Quin
  Scientific advice to Ministers relating to BSE is provided by SEAC. Public Summaries of the Committee's deliberations including advice and recommendations to Ministers are published after every meeting and placed on the MAFF and DH websites.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the potential incidence of BSE in sheep.[137154]

  Ms Quin
  BSE has not been found in sheep except under experimental circumstances. Research has shown that in sheep BSE is similar to scrapie, the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy that has been present in British sheep for hundreds of years. MAFF is currently funding experiments to examine some 235 cases of scrapie for evidence of infection with the agent of BSE.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to improve communication and co-ordination between his Department and other Government Departments and agencies on issues relating to BSE.[137157]

  Ms Quin
  MAFF works closely with other Government Departments and agencies on BSE issues. Departments and agencies meet monthly to review BSE issues. Separate meetings are held as necessary on specific topics.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what wildlife conservation measures he is proposing in connection with the review of the common fisheries policy.[137149]

  Mr. Morley
  We believe that it is important to continue to integrate environmental considerations into fisheries management. The Commission have already indicated that reduction in the bycatch of cetaceans is a priority.

  Livestock Farming (Northumberland)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the prospects for livestock farming in Northumberland. [137150]

  Ms Quin
  The Government announced in September 1999 and March 2000 substantial aid to the livestock industry—on top of the £1 billion in normal subsidy payments made to UK livestock producers each year.

  £1.6 billion over seven years will also be made available under the England Rural Development Programme and with natural advantages such as an abundance of grass, good breeding stock and a wealth of technical expertise at their disposal, the Government believe livestock farmers—including those in Northumberland—should have a successful future.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase the area of farmed land subject to countryside stewardship agreements.[137151]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister announced a substantial increase in the Countryside Stewardship budget last December. As part of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), £500 million is being allocated to the Scheme over the next seven years. During this period, MAFF aims to add 525,000 hectares of land to the 210,000 hectares already covered by the Scheme.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase expenditure on the Countryside Stewardship scheme. [137131]

  Mr. Morley
  Our plans for a major expansion of the Stewardship budget are well known. As part of the England Rural Development Programme, £500 million is being allocated to the Countryside Stewardship Scheme over the next seven years to 2006–07. This means that there will be around £16 million available each year for new agreements and we will be able to offer more than double the number of agreements offered in previous years.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help his Department provides to farmers seeking to convert to organic production.[137152]
  780W
  Mr. Morley
  The Organic Farming Scheme provides conversion aid over a five year period to farmers in England. The budget for the Scheme for the period 1999–2000 to 2006–07 is some £140 million.

  In addition, the Organic Conversion Information Service (OCIS) funded by MAFF provides free advice to potential organic farmers.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many successful applications have been made to the organic farming scheme since May 1997; and how many were made in the previous five years.[137147]

  Mr. Morley
  Aid for conversion to organic farming has been provided since 1994, first under the Organic Aid Scheme and from April 1999 under the Organic Fanning Scheme. There were 158 successful aid applications prior to April 1997 and 1,567 successful applications since that date.

  Arable Farming
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forecasts he has made for the economic prospects of the arable sector over the coming year.[137153]

  Ms Quin
  Forecasts of farm incomes in the United Kingdom, for the year ending February 2001, including incomes on cereals farms and general cropping farms, will be published at the end of January 2001. More detailed information will be available in the next edition of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom" which will be published in March 2001. There is no doubt, however, that UK arable farmers face very difficult trading conditions which is why my right hon. Friend the Minister has announced that a further £34 million in agrimonetary compensation is to be paid to arable farmers, subject to European Commission approval. The extra money will provide valuable assistance to the arable sector at an exceptionally difficult time.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with supermarkets about their relationships with suppliers of horticultural products.[137158]

  Ms Quin
  Supply chain relationships are a theme of the Agricultural Forum, where Ministers meet key figures from all points in the food chain including retailers and horticultural producers, among others. The Forum last met on 6 July and will meet again on 23 November, when the food chain will be one of the key issues on the agenda.

  As part of the Government's Action Plan for Farming, the major retailers, facilitated by the IGD, have developed a voluntary code of best practice in commercial relationships with trading partners. The Competition Commission has also recommended that a Code of Practice should be established which would put relations between supermarkets and their suppliers on a clearer and more predictable basis. Supermarkets with more than 8 per cent. of the market would have to give legally binding undertakings to comply with the Code. My right
  781W
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked the Director-General of Fair Trading to take this forward.

  Illegal Fishing
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to combat the illegal landing of fish in the UK. [137159]

  Mr. Morley
  The Fisheries Departments in the UK spend over £24 million a year on monitoring, control and surveillance. A number of steps have been taken to strengthen enforcement including the introduction of satellite monitoring, prior notification of landings and designated port arrangements for larger vessels and the implementation of more rigorous controls over the landing and sale of fish agreed by the Council of Ministers in 1998.

  Flooding (River Roding)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the flooding of the River Roding.[137155]

  Mr. Morley
  I visited the area on 1 November and sympathise greatly with all those affected. In common with elsewhere in the Country, the Environment Agency issued timely flood warnings and co-operated with the emergency services and local authorities, in this case the London Borough of Redbridge, to provide all possible assistance. The Agency has been asked to report on the flooding throughout the Country once the immediate effects of the flooding have been dealt with.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the Agricultural Wages Board has had on current rates of pay in the horticulture sector.[137133]

  Ms Quin
  The Agriculture Wages Board last increased minimum rates of pay for full time standard and casual workers, including those in the horticulture sector, in June of this year. The Government also announced that the Agriculture Wages Board would continue to operate for at least another five years.

  Rural Development Plan
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what role the North West Regional Development Agency is playing in the implementation of the Rural Development Plan for England.[137156]

  Mr. Morley
  The North West Regional Development Agency is a member of the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) Regional Programming Group (RPG) for the North West. RPGs for each region have a strategic role in guiding the implementation of the regionally targeted schemes in accordance with the aspiration and goals in the Regional Chapters of the ERDP.

  Advisory Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the(a) task forces,
  782W
  (b) action teams, (c) policy reviews and (d) other temporary advisory bodies with external members currently in existence within his Department; and on what date each body (i) was set up and (ii) is expected to terminate.[131460]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office on 27 July 2000,Official Report, column 799W.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list each group that is responsible to his Department, with significant and plural membership from outside the Civil Service, and to which the Nolan rules on non-departmental public bodies do not apply; and for each such group if it(a) is a private company, (b) is a charity, (c) has no formal legal basis and (d) has some other legal basis, giving details;[131173]

  (2) if he will list the reports submitted to his Department, by bodies that were created after May 1997 and that include significant and plural membership from outside the Civil Service, stating in each case the body writing the report, the date the report was submitted, how many recommendations were made, the number of those recommendations that have been implemented to date and the number of recommendations that have been rejected; and if he will make a statement.[133571]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, 27 July 2000,Official Report, column 799W.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the first central list of information that was published on 11 January 2000. Copies of the list are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The detailed information requested about the number of recommendations made and the number rejected is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate costs.

  Organic Imports
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are made on imported foods labelled as organic to ensure that they do not include residues which would not be allowed in UK-produced organic foods.[135673]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: The authentication of organic foods is achieved on the basis of production standards rather than residues checks. Under Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 all food produced within the EU for sale as organic must comply with the production requirements of the Regulation and be produced by an operator certified by a recognised organic certification body and subject to annual inspection by them.

  In the case of imports from outside the EU, the European Commission has listed six countries which have demonstrated to the Commission that they have equivalent standards and controls: Argentina, Australia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel and Switzerland. Imports may take place freely, although the imports must be registered with an organic certification body. For other countries

  783W
  outside the EU, registered EU importers may make application to the authorities in their member state providing full details of the standards and control procedures to be used. An authorisation to import will be issued only if it can be shown that these are equivalent to the EC Regulation. The UK Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) is the body that undertakes the issue of such authorisations in the UK.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2000,Official Report, column 176W, on relocating civil servants, which relocation companies hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil servants; when these contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value is of each contract.[137095]

  Mr. Morley
  No relocation companies hold contracts with my Department. Contractors are invited to tender on an ad-hoc basis when the need arises.

  Flooding (Insurance)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make funds available to local authorities to compensate individuals whose homes have been flooded but who were not insured.[138687]

  Mr. Morley
  On 4 November the Government announced significant improvements to the Bellwin Scheme to assist local authorities in dealing with the current flooding. However, such help does not extend to individuals or businesses affected by flooding as it is an insurable risk.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many certificates issued by the Compensation Recovery Unit have resulted in payments received; and what is the total of those payments; [136432]

  (2) how much money has been recovered from damages awarded to miners by the Compensation Recovery Unit; [136433]

  (3) what was the original estimated amount claimed by the Compensation Recovery Unit from the damages awarded to those miners whose cases the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney brought to his and his Department's attention; and what is the latest estimate claimed by the Compensation Recovery Unit in these cases.[136431]

  Mr. Bayley
  Since the current compensation recovery scheme came into effect during the 1996–97 financial year, 3,898,582 certificates have been issued, and £684,430,905 has been recovered.

  The total amount recovered to date by the Compensation Recovery Unit from damages awarded to miners by the Department of Trade and Industry is £14,868,340.07.
  784W

  The breakdown of the certificates issued and amounts recovered

  Financial year

  Certificates issued

  Benefits recovered (£)

  1997–98

  720,546

  166,906,114

  1998–99

  1,265,104

  201,468,600

  1999–2000

  1,232,304

  202,105,188

  1 April 2000 to 31 August 2000

  680,628

  113,951,003

  Total

  3,898,582

  684,430,905

  It should be noted that, first, more than one certificate may be issued in relation to a given recovery, and, second, because payments may be received some time after the Compensation Recovery Unit issues a certificate, payments received during a given financial year may relate to certificates issued during the previous financial year. The figures for certificates issued and benefits recovered are therefore not necessarily coterminous. In respect of the five cases brought by my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department in February of this year, both the original estimated amount and the latest estimated amount are shown in the following table. For reasons of confidentiality, the identity of particular cases has to remain anonymous.

  Original certificate

  Latest certificate

  Cases

  (£)

  Date of issue

  (£)

  Date of issue

  1

  21,787.59

  8 January 2000

  0

  27 October 1999

  2

  21,707.54

  16 November 1999

  6.38

  18 October 2000

  3

  24,238.75

  24 July 1997

  22.02

  2 October 2000

  4

  14.302.01

  21 December 1999

  413.08

  6 June 2000

  5

  5,858.35

  27 October 1999

  674.46

  8 August 2000

  Ministerial Directions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury of 23 October 2000,Official Report, columns 73-76W, on ministerial directions, if he will place in the Library the text and supporting documentation of the directions made by Ministers in his Department in 1998 and 1999; and if he will make a statement.[137295]

  Mr. Rooker
  In accordance with the rules of Government accounting, the Comptroller and Auditor General has been notified of all ministerial directions.

  We have considered this request 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.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the local authorities in Scotland which have been inspected by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, together with the dates when(a) these inspections began and (b) reports were issued.[137775]
  785W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Local authority

  Start date

  Publication date

  East Dunbartonshire

  19 January 1998

  18 March 1999

  Inverclyde

  4 May 1998

  12 February 1999

  East Lothian

  18 May 1998

  18 March 1999

  South Ayrshire

  6 July 1998

  18 March 1999

  Dundee

  2 November 1998

  1 July 1999

  Angus

  28 June 1999

  16 May 2000

  Borders

  5 July 1999

  22 June 2000

  Stirling

  30 August 1999

  22 June 2000

  Edinburgh

  30 November 1999

  2 November 2000

  Notes:

  1. The start date shown is when the local authority is contacted with a request for information to assist with future planning of the inspection. The inspection start dates for inspections begun earlier than 1999 have been calculated as records did not hold actual start dates.

  2. The current Benefit Fraud Inspectorate programme includes another two Scottish local authorities which are currently being inspected and a further four inspections of Scottish authorities that are due to be carried out by autumn 2001.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those reports by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate which have had sections completely blanked out.[137726]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]The information is in the list, which gives all the reports that have been published so far by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, where a paragraph or more has been blanked out.

  It should be noted that when the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate publishes reports it blanks out material which would be of assistance to fraudsters, unnecessarily identifies individuals, or is confidential. All reports so far have had some material blanked out, except the Securing Child Support (Child Support Agency) report published in July 1999.

  Local Authority Reports

  Blackpool

  East Dunbartonshire

  Eastbourne

  Broxboume

  Teesdale

  Burnley

  Leicester

  Croydon

  East Lothian

  Elmbridge

  Oldham

  Thanet

  Tower Hamlets

  South Ayrshire

  Telford and Wrekin

  Trafford

  Gateshead

  East Devon

  Stoke on Trent

  Kirklees

  Dundee

  Richmond upon Thames

  Swansea

  Oxford

  Bournemouth

  Lichfield

  Macclesfield

  786W

  Angus

  Borders

  Epsom

  Berwick

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Braintree

  Camden

  Tower Hamlets

  Croydon

  Sandwell

  West Wiltshire

  Powys

  Wigan

  Shrewsbury

  Norwich

  York

  Calderdale

  Rotherham

  Ellesmere Port

  St. Helens

  South Lakes

  Babergh

  Barnet

  Northampton

  Sunderland

  Gloucester

  Rochford

  Derbyshire Dales

  Swale

  Hart

  Blyth Valley

  Allerdale

  Southwark

  Congleton

  Neath and Port Talbot

  Brighton and Hove

  Stirling

  Eden

  Lancaster

  Harrow

  Nottingham

  Rochford

  Bristol

  Westminster

  Agency Reports

  BA: Area Directorate 3 (London South) Contributions Agency

  Vaccine Damage Payment Act
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made in the rules for eligibility for payments under the Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979 in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.[137776]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Vaccine Damage Payment (VDP) Act 1979 provides a single, tax-free payment for people who have suffered severe mental and/or physical disablement of 80 per cent. or more as a result of vaccination against one or a group of specified diseases following a claim made within six years of the date of vaccination or of a child reaching the age of two whichever is the later. The only changes to the eligibility rules which have been made since 1979 are the addition of mumps in April 1990 and haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) in May 1995 to the list of specified diseases.
  787W
  On 27 June 2000,Official Report, columns 719–20, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced a number of changes to the VDP scheme. In addition to increasing the level of the one-off payment for £40,000 to £100,000, these changes included proposals to amend the time limits for claiming a payment to age 21 in the case of children, and to reduce the disability threshold from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further plans he has to increase the take-up of the minimum income guarantee.[135755]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are determined to ensure that pensioners on low incomes claim what they are entitled to. The minimum income guarantee take-up campaign is still in progress.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners he estimates are(a) eligible for and (b) claiming the Minimum Income Guarantee for each parliamentary constituency in Wales. [136646]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is only possible to answer part(b) of the hon. Member's question.

  Minimum Income Guarantee claimants by parliamentary constituency, May 2000

  Thousand

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of claimants

  Aberavon

  2.4

  Alyn and Deeside

  1.8

  Blaenau Gwent

  2.6

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  1.8

  Bridgend

  2.1

  Caernarfon

  2.0

  Caerphilly

  2.8

  Cardiff, Central

  2.5

  Cardiff, North

  1.5

  Cardiff, South and Penarth

  3.7

  Cardiff, West

  2.7

  East Carmarthen and Dinefwr

  2.4

  West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire

  2.4

  Ceredigion

  1.1

  Clwyd, South

  2.3

  Clwyd, West

  3.0

  Conwy

  2.5

  Cynon Valley

  2.2

  Delyn

  2.2

  Gower

  2.2

  Islwyn

  2.3

  Llanelli

  3.4

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  1.6

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  2.4

  Monmouth

  1.7

  Montgomeryshire

  1.4

  Neath

  3.1

  Newport, East

  1.9

  Newport, West

  2.5

  Ogmore

  1.6

  Pontypridd

  1.9

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2.2

  Rhondda

  3.2

  Swansea, East

  3.0

  Swansea, West

  3.5

  Torfaen

  2.4

  Vale of Clwyd

  2.7

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2.3

  788W

  Minimum Income Guarantee claimants by parliamentary constituency, May 2000

  Thousand

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of claimants

  Wrexham

  2.3

  Ynys Mon

  2.2

  Notes:

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

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  3. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where the claimant and/or their partner are aged 60 or over.

  4. Cases have been allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 version 1 of the Postcode Director. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 2000

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 573W, if he will list the percentage of each five year age group above the age of 60 years who are in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee, broken down by gender.[137387]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 November 20001]The information is in the table.

  Minimum Income Guarantee pensioners aged 60 or over by age, gender and as a percentage of the population in the relevant age group, Great Britain, May 2000

  Age

  Number (Thousand)

  Percentage

  All claimants

  1,615

  13.6

  All males

  60–641

  184

  13.5

  65–69

  93

  7.7

  70–74

  72

  7.0

  75–79

  61

  7.4

  80 or over

  112

  16.0

  All females

  60–641

  122

  8.6

  65–69

  119

  9.0

  70–74

  141

  11.3

  75–79

  193

  16.3

  80 or over

  517

  33.3

  160–64 age band includes claimants aged under 60 where there is a partner aged 60 or over.

  Notes:

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

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Pensioners are defined as where the claimant, and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  4. "Percentage of the population" is based on ONS population estimates for mid-term 1999, and represents Income Support claimants in each age band as a proportion of the population of the same age and gender.

  Sources:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 2000.

  Population estimates unit—ONS mid-term estimates for 1999.
  789W
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement regarding the level of complexity of the form that needs to be completed by pensioners wishing to claim the Minimum Income Guarantee and its impact on the numbers of people making a claim.[137617]

  Mr. Rooker
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has said in his statement on 9 November 2000,Official Report, columns 451-55, the Department is examining measures which will reduce the complexity of the current system and encourage pensioners to claim their correct benefit entitlement.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a geographical breakdown of the number of pensioners who are estimated to be entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee but do not claim it. [138311]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the rate of Minimum Income Guarantee per week from April 2001.[138432]

  Mr. Rooker
  In April 2001, the Minimum Income Guarantee will be set at £92.15 for single pensioners and £140.55 for couples.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate, making no allowance for behavioural change, of how many pensioner households will benefit from the Minimum Income Guarantee in 2050.[138349]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 November 2000]: Making no allowance for behavioural change, the figure remains at one in four—the same as given in the Pensions Green Paper "Partnership in Pensions" (Cm 4179).

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retired people who qualify for payment of the Minimum Income Guarantee are receiving it.[138522]

  Mr. Rooker
  Some 2 million pensioners either as singles or couples receive the Minimum Income Guarantee. Figures for those who might be entitled but are not claiming were based on a 1 per cent. sample. We shall have a better estimate of those entitled but not claiming when the present take-up campaign is concluded, during which we are making direct contact with 2.3 million pensioners.

  "Voices"
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spent on advertising space in the recent Government publication, "Voices". [135584]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The total cost of advertising space was £5,477.85 including VAT. In addition we spent £1,395.90 on design and production.

  "Voices" magazine represents a good opportunity for us to make women aware of information available on a number of issues that may affect them. The pack that women are sent when they respond to the advert contains
  790W
  information about: pension options; changes to the state pension age and Inherited SERPS; help available for new mothers and support in times of bereavement.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the income ratio is between the top fifth and the bottom fifth of pensioners; and what it would be if the link between the basic pension and average earnings had been retained.[136046]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1998–99, the ratio of average (median) incomes in the top fifth compared to the bottom fifth of the pensioners' income distribution was 3.1 for single pensioners and 3.5 for pensioner couples. The other information requested is not available.

  Notes:

  1. pensioners are defined as single people aged over state pension age (65 for men, 60 for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over state pension age.

  2. Income is defined as net income before housing costs. The income distribution has been calculated separately for single pensioners and pensioner couples.

  Source:
  The Pensioners' Income Series 1998–99, published on 26 October 2000.
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 122–29W, on pensioner incomes, if he will provide estimates on the same basis for 1998–99.[138030]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables.

  Pensioner units' median gross income excluding means-tested benefits, by age and an marital status, 1998–99

  Marital Status

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75–79

  Age 80+

  Single male pensioners

  n/a

  133

  124

  114

  112

  Single female

  pensioners

  123

  114

  102

  100

  99

  Pensioner couples

  n/a

  268

  233

  192

  182

  Notes:

  1. All amounts are in £ per week at July 1998 prices. They are rounded to the nearest £1, although estimates are not necessarily accurate to this level.

  2. Estimates are for pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined as a single (non-cohabiting) person over state pension age (65 years or above for men and 60 years or above for women), or a couple (married or cohabiting) where the man, defined as the head, is over state pension age. Estimates for pensioner couples are broken down by the age of the man.

  3. Estimates marked 'n/a' are not applicable. Single men and couples are only defined as pensioner units if the man is aged 65 years or above.

  4. Means-tested benefits are defined as Income Support, Family Credit, Council Tax Benefit, Housing Benefit and Social Fund Grants.

  5. Levels of means-tested benefit may be particularly affected by mis-reporting by survey respondents, as it is thought that receipt of State Retirement Pension and receipt of Income Support are often confused in the FRS.

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series dataset, based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1998–99.
  791W

  Numbers of pensioner units by age and marital status, 1998–99

  Marital Status

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75–79

  Age 80+

  Single male

  pensioners

  n/a

  200,000

  250,000

  210,000

  280,000

  Single female

  pensioners

  370,000

  560,000

  690,000

  740,000

  880,000

  Pensioner

  couples

  n/a

  1,010,000

  810,000

  520,000

  330,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000 pensioner units

  2. Estimates are for pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined as a single (non-cohabiting) person over state pension age (65 years or above for men and 60 years or above for women), or a couple (married or cohabiting) where the man, defined as the head, is over state pension age. Estimates for pensioner couples are broken down by the age of the man.

  3. Estimates marked 'n/a' are not applicable. Single men and couples are only defined as pensioner units if the man is aged 65 years or above.

  4. Estimates are not controlled to independent population estimates by the age bands used.

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series dataset, based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1998–99.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have been newly awarded(a) Income Support and (b) the Minimum Income Guarantee in each quarter since 1997.[138309]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Minimum Income Guarantee pensioner claims, 1997 to 2000

  Quarter

  New claims

  1997

  February

  49,000

  May

  64,000

  August

  52,000

  November

  47,000

  1998

  February

  49,000

  May

  50,000

  August

  48,000

  November

  49,000

  1999

  February

  50,000

  May

  64,000

  August

  56,000

  November

  52,000

  2000

  February

  44,000

  May

  66,000

  Notes:

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

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. As inquiries are taken at a point in time, no account can be taken of claimants who flow on and then off again, and visa versa, between the dates of the inquiry. Therefore, the numbers will underestimate the true level of inflows and outflows although the net combined effect will be correct.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiries, February 1997 to May 2000.
  792W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Slough are eligible for(a) the Winter Fuel Allowance, (b) a free television licence to over 75-year-olds and (c) the Minimum Income Guarantee; and if he will make a statement.[138717]

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

  Statistics on pensioners in Slough, May 2000

  Thousand

  Category

  Number

  Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) pensioners

  2.6

  Pensioners over 75

  5.5

  Winter Fuel Payments total claimants paid

  13.4

  Notes:

  1. All except Winter Fuel Payment data are based on 5 per cent. samples, therefore subject to sampling error.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  3. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 Version 1 of the Postcode Directory supplied by ONS. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

  4. MIG Pensioners are defined as Income Support benefit units where either the claimant and/or the partner is aged 60 or over.

  5. Number of pensioner households who will receive free TV licences is not directly known, but from the statistical samples it is possible to produce data on the number of pensioners receiving one or a combination of Retirement Pension, MIG, Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance by parliamentary constituency and are aged 75 or over.

  Sources:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 2000 Statistical samples held by ASD Information Centre, May 2000 Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuel Payment 1999–2000 exercise

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Chatham and Aylesford are eligible for the(a) winter fuel allowance, (b) free television licence for over 75-year-olds and (c) minimum income guarantee; and if he will make a statement. [138720]

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

  Statistics on pensioners in Chatham and Aylesford, May 2000

  Thousand

  Category

  Number

  Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) pensioners

  1.6

  Pensioners over 75

  5.0

  Winter Fuel Payments total claimants paid

  12.8

  Notes:

  1. All except Winter Fuel Payment data are based on 5 per cent. samples, therefore subject to sampling error.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  3. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 Version 1 of the Postcode Directory supplied by ONS. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

  4. MIG Pensioners are defined as Income Support benefit units where either the claimant and/or the partner is aged 60 or over.

  793W

  5. Number of pensioner households who will receive free TV licences is not directly known, but from the statistical samples it is possible to produce data on the number of pensioners receiving one or a combination of Retirement Pension, MIG, Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance by parliamentary constituency and are aged 75 or over.

  Sources:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 2000

  Statistical samples held by ASD Information Centre, May 2000

  Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuel Payment 1999–2000 exercise

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Sittingbourne and Sheppey are eligible for(a) winter fuel allowance, (b) free television licence for over 75-year- olds and (c) minimum income guarantee; and if he will make a statement. [138718]

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

  Statistics on pensioners in Sittingbourne and Sheppey,in May 2000

  Category

  Number(Thousand)

  Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) pensioners

  2.1

  Pensioners over 75

  5.9

  Winter fuel payments total claimants paid

  14.7

  Notes:

  1. All except Winter Fuel Payment data are based on 5 per cent. samples, therefore subject to sampling error.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  3. Cases are allocated to each Parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 Version 1 of the Postcode Directory supplied by ONS. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

  4. MIG Pensioners are defined as Income Support benefit units where either the claimant and/or the partner is aged 60 or over.

  5. Number of pensioner households who will receive free TV licences is not directly known, but from the statistical samples it is possible to produce data on the number of pensioners receiving one or a combination of Retirement Pension, MIG, Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance by Parliamentary constituency and are aged 75 or over.

  Sources:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 2000.

  Statistical samples held by ASD Information Centre—May 2000 Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuels Payment 1999–2000 exercise.

  Payroll Administration
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the costs of administering the payroll in his Department and associated agencies in the last 12 months for which figures are available.[135995]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 November 2000]: The annual cost of administering the Department's integrated pay, personnel and expenses system was £8.3 million 1999–2000. This will reduce to £4.9 million per annum from January 2001 due to restructuring of payroll and expenses services as part of the Department drive to refocus resources on the front-line services.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security(1) what the level of the average payment made to date is to pensioners to make up for income lost as a result of the NIRS2 computer problems, broken down into(a) outstanding benefit payments and (b) compensation; [137516]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that pensioners who may have received a lower income than they are entitled to as a result of the NIRS2 computer problems are informed of their correct entitlement;[137514]

  (3) which benefits, apart from state pensions, are still affected by the problems with NIRS2; and how many claimants of each benefit are still awaiting their correct benefit entitlement as a result.[137515]

  Mr. Rooker
  The contract for NIRS2 was signed in 1996 and there have been problems with the system from the start, which we are trying to resolve.

  Pensioners who have been affected by the NIRS2 problems and who are entitled to compensation under the Departmental Special Payments Scheme receive an average amount of arrears of £377 and an average amount of compensation of £11.77.

  To receive compensation under the scheme, all the following conditions must be satisfied. These are that the:

  final rate of pension was put into payment more than eight months after the date from which the pension is payable,

  amount of arrears due is at least £100,

  amount of compensation payable is at least £10.

  Any change to a pensioner's National Insurance account that affects the rate of pension in payment is notified automatically to the Benefit Agency. This allows both the new rate and any arrears of pension to be paid.

  Claims for Widows Benefit, Incapacity Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance are also affected by the NIRS2 problems. At 15 September 200, Benefits Agency offices had 12,402 Incapacity Benefit claims waiting to be reviewed and 2,255 Jobseeker's Allowance claims. The exact number of Widows Benefit claims waiting to be reviewed is not known but the combined total of Widows Benefit and Retirement Pension claims outstanding at 15 September was 96,776.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the number of pensioners who are currently receiving incorrect payments in respect of(a) the state retirement pension and (b) SERPS that have been caused by problems with the NIRS2 computer system;[138250]

  (2) if he will estimate the average number of newly entitled pensioners who are receiving incorrect payments in respect of (a) the state retirement pension and(b) SERPS that are caused by problems with the NIRS2 computer system;[138251]

  (3) if he will estimate the average weekly (a) underpayment and (b) overpayment in respect of (i) the state retirement pension and (ii) SERPS caused by problems with the NIRS2 computer system at the latest date for which figures are available.[138252]
  795W
  Mr. Rooker
  The contract for NIRS2 was signed in 1996 and there have been problems with the system from the start which we are trying to resolve.

  The number of pensioners not receiving their full rate of pension and the number of newly entitled pensioners who do not receive their full rate of pension in time for their first pension pay day specifically because of NIRS2 problems is not available.

  Separate figures are not held for SERPS, which is a component of the overall State Retirement Pension. At 30 September 2000, NIRS2 problems had caused 128,000 pensioners to be underpaid a total of £43.5 million. At 31 August 2000, NIRS2 problems had caused 5,300 pensioners to be overpaid a total of £920,000. The average underpayment is £340 and the average overpayment £174.

  Widowers
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the implications of the Crossland case for the claims of widowers for equality of treatment.[138316]

  Angela Eagle
  The ECHR case of Christopher Crossland, which was resolved by friendly settlement, concerned only the Widows Bereavement (Tax) Allowance, and therefore has no implications for Widows Benefits.

  In introducing Bereavement Benefits from 9 April 2001, we will, for the first time, introduce specific benefits for widowers on the death of their spouse. These benefits will be available equally to men and women.

  Fathers who are widowed before these benefits are introduced will be able to claim Widowed Parent's Allowance from 9 April 2001 as long as they satisfy the qualifying conditions.

  State Pensions Liabilities (EU)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on EU and British state pensions liabilities.[138736]

  Mr. Rooker
  UK state pension liabilities are a matter for the UK Government. EU state pension liabilities are a matter for the individual member states.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has for the body that will administer the pension credit to share data relevant to the pension credit with(a) the Benefits Agency, (b) local authorities, (c) banks and building societies, (d) pension providers and (e) the Inland Revenue;[138505]
  796W
  (2) what plans the Inland Revenue has for data-sharing with local authorities and the Benefits Agency on the pension credit.[138502]

  Mr. Rooker
  We will consider carefully administration issues as part of our detailed programme to take forward the pension credit. As part of this, we will endeavour to reduce barriers to the claims process.

SCOTLAND

  Graduate Unemployment
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many, and what percentage of, first degree full-time graduates from higher education institutions in Scotland were unemployed six months after graduation in the last year for which figures are available.[137777]

  Dr. Reid
  Higher Education in Scotland is a devolved matter.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the President of the Council how many questions have been(a) tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead since 23 October and (b) given holding answers.[138503]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The following information has been provided by the House of Commons Library (POLIS database) and covers the period from 23 October to 14 November:

  (a) Questions tabled:51

  (b) Questions which have received a holding reply:1

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  EU Employment Directive
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Council how many letters have been received by the Government alleging that there was a threat to religious freedom posed by the EU directive on employment agreed between the Governments of the EU on 17 October.[135064]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department has received no such letters.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities gave on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 39W.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Winter Fuel Payments
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether winter fuel allowances in respect of past winters have now been paid to all men between the ages of 60 and 65 entitled to them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, winter fuel payments in respect of previous years cannot be paid automatically but have to he claimed. However, such claims are not subject to any time limits. To date we have received around 950,000 claims from men for previous years; of those, 930,000 have been successful. An information campaign which began in April advises existing and potential customers of the changes.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but what percentage of men between the ages of 60 and 65 entitled to such payments have still not received any winter fuel payments for any winter? What has been the administrative costs of making payments to them or of making provision for payments to them?
Last week, the noble Baroness said, in regard to pensions generally, that winter fuel payments will start from next Monday. In view of the Government's record on failing to make payments during the winter, is the noble Baroness aware that people are not interested in the date from which those payments will be paid but rather are interested in the date by which they will be paid? By which date does she expect all winter fuel payments to be made?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there are a number of questions there. First, payments for those receiving £200 who are over the age of 65 will have started going out this Monday and that should be completed within the next four weeks. In the week following that, we expect to complete the claims that we have received so far for those who are under the age of 65; that is, men between 60 and 65. The reason that more payments have not been made is that the claims themselves have come in late. We had expected to complete the exercise by September but we have not done so because of the lateness of applications.
We cannot be absolutely sure about the number of people eligible. We thought that perhaps 1.9 million people might be eligible and we have received just under 1 million claims. But the basic test is that somebody must have been ordinarily resident in the
340
UK on the qualifying week, which was the third week in September. Therefore, we need people to contact us, because three years ago they may not have been ordinarily resident or they may have had a household formation different from that which they now have and that may affect the payments. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's questions.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that severely disabled people under 60 are just as vulnerable to the cold and are just as unable to pay for proper heating of their homes as any old-age pensioner? So in logic and in justice, why cannot the Government extend that winter fuel payment to those people as well?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, very many disabled people are over the age of 60 and will be receiving the winter fuel payment by virtue of that. But we have been subject to pressure from my noble friend to extend the winter fuel payment to disabled people, and I have been subject to pressure to extend it to people with young children or people with large families.
We do not have any present intention to extend the group of people to whom the winter fuel payment is paid beyond those who are currently eligible to it. As my noble friend will be aware, disabled people have received significant additional payments, including those referred to in the Pre-Budget Statement, which will help them properly to meet their additional costs and needs for fuel.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is there no feeling for men above the age of 65?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I may misunderstand my noble friend, but anybody over the age of 65 who is in receipt of a retirement pension automatically receives the winter fuel allowance. The Question refers to men between the ages of 60 and 65. After the European Court ruling, the Government either had to equalise the payment for women at 65 or for men at 60. As we did not wish to discriminate against women who had already been receiving the payment, we thought that we should equalise at 60.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, given that there are so many hundreds of thousands of people waiting for their allowance from last year, was it not misleading of the Chancellor to suggest that a cheque was already in the post in respect of the £50 increase this year? Can we therefore be sure that that £50 increase will actually reach the people who have been promised it, in view of the Government's record of failing to get the money to pensioners in the past?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry; I had hoped that I had answered that when I was trying to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Those people who are already 65 or who are already receiving benefit will receive the £200 payment starting as of this Monday and running for the next four weeks. That has been made very clear.

341
The problem in relation to men aged between 60 and 65 who are claiming for the first time is that their claims are coming in according to their activity, if I can put it that way. We can respond only when we receive the claims. Of the 950,000 claims that we have received, 930,000 have been successful and only 30,000 claims are still waiting to be paid. So I do not believe that the noble Lord's question was properly informed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the DSS hold any medical information on the comparative importance of fuel, insulation and nutrition in lowering the high figure of excess winter deaths? If it does not, will it try to discover some between now and the next uprating Statement?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have some information on what contributes to what are regarded as the excess deaths—I am sorry; that is an ugly phrase—of pensioners due to hypothermia, which are in the region of about 50,000 per year. We know that pensioners make up about 20 per cent of the population and that 50 per cent are fuel poor by virtue of the fact that their houses are poorly insulated; they have relatively low incomes; they need higher standards of heating; and—an important consideration—they tend to under-occupy in that very often one pensioner lives alone in a rather large house which he or she cannot afford to heat. That is why we have made those winter fuel payments universal to pensioners.

Asylum Seekers: Information
3.12 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the MORI survey for the Reader's Digest, whether they have any plans to improve the standard of information available to the public about asylum seekers and refugees in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government recognise the need to provide balanced and honest information on asylum issues. Home Office Ministers and the department take all available opportunities to do that, to put the information in its proper context, and to challenge misinformation or misinterpretation. All of us—the press, politicians and others—have a duty to conduct the debate about asylum and immigration in an accurate and responsible way.
We have a strong commitment to raise the standard of information available to the public. The continuing development of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's website is one example. It is scheduled to be relaunched in December with new pages on asylum.
We also recently published our strategy for integrating refugees into the United Kingdom entitled Full and equal citizens. The strategy sets out the
342
Government's view on ways to enable those recognised as refugees to become full members of our society and to fulfil the undoubted potential that they have for their own benefit and for that of society as a whole.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he confirm the UNHCR figures produced in February this year that, within the EU in terms of the number of asylum applications in proportion to population, we were twelfth in 1998 and ninth in 1999? Therefore, does he agree that in relation to the figures we do not need to explain why we attract a flood of asylum seekers, but that we should consider whether we receive our share?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that the figures mentioned by the noble Earl are broadly accurate. We should explain to everyone the contribution that those who seek asylum here can make to our society and we should do all we can to ensure that they are well integrated into a comfortable, multi-racial society that is at ease with itself. I believe that to be the wise strategy and that is exactly the strategy that the Government are pursuing.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that plans are in hand to increase the quality of information to asylum seekers, bearing in mind that there are cases of asylum seekers in the north-east of England being called for interview in Croydon at 10 o'clock in the morning?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that information. If he wants to draw to my attention specific difficulties that asylum seekers have experienced, I shall be grateful to receive them. We always seek new and better ways to inform asylum seekers of their rights and responsibilities. For that reason I am extremely pleased that we have launched our website, a copy of the front page of which I have here. It is designed for and targeted to those who advise and to those who seek advice in equal measure. I believe that it will be a useful addition to the work that we undertake.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as there are so many bogus asylum seekers and so many bogus refugees, should not all parties, including the Liberal Democrats, give full support to the Home Secretary in his efforts to stop such rackets?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we in the Government take a very dim view of any type of racketeering. The racketeering that has taken place in relation to the movement of human beings across the European continent is particularly reprehensible and has had tragic and fatal consequences. It is in everyone's interests that we oppose that. Equally, we must recognise the rights of those who quite properly seek asylum in our country. We have a long and proud

343
tradition in that respect of which I am proud, as are the Government. I believe that we should all be proud of that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, during the proceedings of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, many Members from all sides of your Lordships' House expressed concern about the way in which the voucher scheme would operate? Given that a review is currently under way, can the Minister ensure that consideration will be given to the way in which the vouchers are tendered? At the moment no change can be given even when small sums are involved, which can have an adverse effect on people who live on tiny amounts of money? Will the Minister also tell the House how much it costs to operate the voucher scheme and whether it gives us value for money?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am content that the scheme provides value for money. As the noble Lord is aware, currently we are conducting a review of the implementation of the voucher scheme, which will take some time, but it will be completed in April next year. If the noble Lord knows of specific problems that individual asylum seekers have experienced when using vouchers, I shall be grateful to hear of them. We are dependent on people bringing forward such information in order to conduct a proper and effective review.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that no amount of ministerial pedagogy will allay public concern over such issues unless combined with the correct policies? Therefore, is he encouraged by the recent poll carried out on behalf of the Rowntree Reform Trust that suggests that our policies are about right? For example, only 13 per cent of the public believe that people who want to come here just to escape poverty in their own country should be allowed entry. Equally, only 14 per cent consider that entry should be refused for people who have a well-founded fear of death and torture.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that interesting report has been drawn to my attention. The noble Lord has provided me with the background data. We should all take encouragement from its findings. My hope is that those findings will broadly be supported by all sides of your Lordships' House. They seem to match up to what the Government are trying to achieve and provide us with a valuable platform on which to promote greater integration. It is good for those seeking asylum here and good for our community as a whole.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the website that he mentioned. Can he confirm that the figures on the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website demonstrate that in the three months to 30th September this year there were 9 per cent fewer asylum seekers compared with last year, but that 14 per cent
344
more of them finished up in detention on 30th September compared with the same date in 1999? When will the Government make progress in meeting the recommendation of the Chief Inspector of Prisons and many others that asylum seekers should not be kept in detention? Can the Minister assure the House that when Aldington and Harmsworth are completed they will not simply add to the total number in detention?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am familiar with most of the statistics to which the noble Lord refers and I do not quibble with them. Oakington is making a valuable contribution to the way in which we manage this particular problem, and we have received very few complaints about its operation. I believe that when the other two centres are established they will enable us properly to conduct a fast-track procedure in the interests of those who seek asylum, in particular those with families. The system is working well and I am confident that when it expands it will continue to do so and will provide value for money and good quality accommodation.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the question of heightening public awareness was raised at a meeting between the Prime Minister and Home Secretary and Bishops and other church leaders. Does the Minister agree that the information of which he speaks eloquently—we should like to hear more—should be about why this is a worldwide problem rather than that it is a problem? One in 120 people on this globe are homeless, which surely indicates that we should be looking in the direction of "why" as well as "that".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate speaks with great knowledge and wisdom on this matter. We need to raise public awareness, and much more should be done. After all, we are a caring and compassionate society, and this is a shared value of which we should be rightly proud and to which we all want to subscribe. However, a degree of proselytising goes with it, and the Government share that common objective.

Traffic Calming Measures: Effects on Ambulances
3.22 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne:
What is the estimated cost to the London Ambulance Service of the wear and tear caused by the traffic calming measures now in place in many London streets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, it is not possible to identify the specific cost of repairs to the potential wear and tear caused by traffic calming measures. There may be some impact on the

345
London Ambulance Service, but that needs to be seen within the context of a drive to reduce both the frequency and severity of traffic accidents, with clear benefits to the public and the health service as a whole.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not opposed to traffic calming measures in principle, but is it not self-evident that these bumps in the road, some of which are very severe, will cause considerable additional wear and tear to ambulances and other vehicles, not to mention discomfort to the unfortunate patients inside them? Therefore, is it not a good idea to look again at the extent to which these measures are put in place, particularly the height to which they are built?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a balance must be struck. Road humps are arguably the most effective method to reduce vehicle speed, and when they are used to slow traffic to 20 mph or less they result in a 60 per cent reduction in accidents. That has a beneficial impact on the health service as a whole. Local authorities are required to consult ambulance services when they propose to install road humps. I believe that the best approach to this issue is to encourage the closest engagement between ambulance services and local authorities so that the benefits of road humps, where appropriate, are effected and issues which concern ambulance services—for example, the impact of road humps on their ability to respond to 999 calls—are very much considered.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I share the admiration for the London Ambulance Service, but if the DETR's assessment of the cost of one road death as being in excess of £1 million is accurate, does my noble friend agree that that puts into context the more marginal cost of the damage to ambulances from road humps?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is right. If road humps reduce the number of people who are injured or killed as a result of road accidents, that must be a gain for society as a whole. Equally, I do not believe that we can overlook the impact which road humps can sometimes have on the ability of ambulances to respond to emergencies. For that reason, I believe that the best approach is to have close consultation and discussion between ambulance services and local authorities when the latter wish to install road humps.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister have any statistics which compare motorcycle and car accidents? Does the noble Lord share my experience that motorcycles drive flat out between traffic calming measures and in many cases cause accidents?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the statistics for London during the period January to June 1999 reveal the following fatalities: 72 pedestrians, five pedal cyclists, 28 people riding powered two-wheelers,
346
29 car occupants, one taxi occupant and one bus or coach occupant. It is difficult to conclude much from those statistics. However, in considering road safety strategy, whether or not motorcyclists drive safely must be a factor to be borne in mind.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if people observed a 20-mph speed limit there would be no need to spend money on road humps, and patients in ambulances could get to hospital without any discomfort?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is undoubtedly true. Unfortunately, members of the public disappoint us in not obeying speed limits. Therefore, traffic calming measures are appropriate in many parts of the country. We need to ensure that traffic calming measures, including road humps, are placed sensitively and that emergency services, such as ambulance services, are fully consulted.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said that he was not averse to road humps. Is the Minister aware that I have a great aversion to road humps and traffic calming measures, which I believe are thoroughly dangerous? People are thrown about in the back of taxis and cars as well as in ambulances. Is the noble Lord also aware that some traffic calming measures, particularly in villages, consist of extending the roadside kerb into the middle of the road, with a piece in the middle of the road extended back, so that one goes along like a snake, which can be extremely dangerous in foggy conditions?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl is perhaps not the most progressive Member of your Lordships' House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister should see me in a car going over a road hump!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is the whole problem.

Flu Vaccine: Availability
3.28 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
What confidence they have that an adequate supply of anti-flu vaccine will be available to the National Health Service by the end of November.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, by the end of November we expect all of the nearly 11 million doses ordered to have been delivered. This is enough to exceed our target of a 60 per cent uptake in people aged 65 and over and achieve a substantial rise in uptake among those at risk.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat optimistic assessment of future

347
supplies. Given that there were supply difficulties early on, can the Minister confirm that the shortage of vaccine has been caused by Ministers failing to tell the vaccine companies of the extension of the programme for the over-65s in time to boost production?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not accept that that is the true position. We very much regret the problems in deliveries. However, my understanding is that the problem was caused by one manufacturer, Solvay. That company encountered problems in growing a strain of the vaccine which led to delay in some deliveries. We hope that by the end of this month most of the problems will have been overcome. The latest evidence I have to hand is that by the end of October we had achieved 46 per cent, which is well on the way to the target of 60 per cent.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister blamed a particular drug company for failure to satisfy demand for the vaccine. However, will not 11 million doses still be inadequate to meet public demand and did not the Government order the vaccines far too late this year? Will the Minister undertake next year to review the dosage as a matter of urgency and ensure that supplies are ordered early in the year as opposed to in May, as was the case this year?
Lord. Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, each year in which we develop the flu vaccine programme we need to review its success and any problems which arise. Noble Lords will be aware that the 60 per cent target which we accepted for this year was based on a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. That is an independent statutory committee on which we rely for advice.
I regret that there have been shortages in some GPs' surgeries, but I am satisfied that that will be put right by the end of the month. I am also satisfied that the campaign is leading to a good take-up.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister says that supplies will be available. Has he spoken to any GPs about the problem? Is he aware that they are concerned that many of the vulnerable people who visited their GPs in October but were unable to have the vaccine will not return to the surgeries? Some GPs have been promised a bonus if they succeed in giving the vaccine to 60 per cent of the target group. However, as some people will not return to receive the vaccine, there is no way in which the target can be met. Is the department examining that issue?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have spoken to a number of practitioners about the issues facing them in relation to the flu vaccine. It is a matter of regret if members of the public visited GPs' surgeries but were unable to receive the vaccine. However, I believe that through the effective communications GPs have with their patients, and through the general
348
campaigns which we have been running, those who were not successful first time round will be encouraged to return and receive the vaccination.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as there appears to be time, I want to ask the Minister another question. When the matter was discussed after the last flu epidemic at the beginning of this year, it was suggested that the vaccine might be available to everyone working in hospitals and NHS services because many of them were suffering from flu and unable to nurse others. Has anything been done about that this year? If not, can something be clone next year?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Baroness that we took that suggestion to heart. We made it clear to all NHS employers that they had to offer immunisation to all staff involved in the delivery of care or support to patients.
Alongside that, social service employers were also asked to consider offering immunisation to all staff involved. That is taking place and a considerable number of NHS and social service staff affected are taking advantage of the flu vaccine. This is the first year in which we have made such a concerted attempt and we shall monitor the success in uptake in order to see what lessons can be learnt. However, I am satisfied that this year we are better prepared in relation to the flu vaccine than has ever been the case.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will be able to broaden my knowledge. I understand that there are different types of flu. How do the Government or anyone else know which vaccine to produce?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, intelligence about flu is obtained from a variety of sources, including the World Health Organisation. The flu vaccines currently contain versions of three flu viruses: Influenza A(H3N2), Influenza A(H1N1), and Influenza B. Arising from that, this year's recommended vaccine strains are an A/Moscow/1099- like strain; an A/New Caledonia/20/99-like strain; and a B/Beijing/184/93-like strain.

Urban White Paper
3.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the White Paper, Our Towns and Cities: the Future. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have today published a White Paper on the future of our towns and cities. It is accompanied by two documents: The State of the English Cities and Living in Urban

349
England: Attitudes and Aspirations. These set out the supporting analysis. Copies have been placed in the Library and we shall shortly be publishing our rural White Paper.
"A common message runs through these documents. They are about people, places and prosperity. We want to create sustainable communities in which everyone, no matter where they live, can enjoy a good quality of life—communities in which economic prosperity and social justice go hand in hand.
"I am sure the House will agree that we have some of the best towns and cities in the world. We have famous historical and cultural centres; dynamic commercial areas; pleasant suburbs; and seats of learning that command respect the world over.
"The previous urban White Paper was produced by the previous Labour Government more than two decades ago. It focused narrowly on inner-city areas. We now understand the need for a much broader approach that takes in all urban areas.
"Much has happened since that urban White Paper. Cities are powerful engines of growth. But in the early 1980s many of them were hit hard by economic changes. The approach then regarded economic behaviour as detached from its social context and in the years that followed many areas suffered from neglect; poor management; inadequate public services; lack of investment; and a culture of short-termism. Our aim is to reverse that legacy of decline and bring about a lasting urban renaissance.
"There are signs of hope. As our Attitudes and Aspirations survey shows, 85 per cent of people are satisfied with the areas where they live; the rate at which people are leaving our cities is slowing down; and people are moving back into our city centres.
"We face big challenges. People and jobs have been leaving our great cities. People are increasingly living in smaller households or alone, with the result that many more households will need to be accommodated over the next 25 years. Some neighbourhoods suffer from a poor quality of life and a lack of opportunity. Economic performance in some areas is weak, with a knock-on effect on the surrounding region.
"Over the past 20 years, out-of-town shopping centres have taken the heart out of some of our urban areas; 30,000 hectares of our green belt have been built over; and playing fields have been sold off for short-term profit without regard for the health of the communities they served.
"On coming to office, we took immediate action to alleviate the worst problems and began laying the foundations for the long-term strategy which we are now bringing together in the White Paper. We merged the Departments of the Environment and of Transport to encourage a more joined-up approach to solving problems. We got hundreds of thousands of young people back to work with the New Deal. We provided an extra £5 billion to begin tackling the
350
£19 billion housing repair backlog we inherited. We produced the integrated transport White Paper and the £180 billion 10-year plan to rectify decades of under-investment in our transport infrastructure. We began tackling the problems in our most deprived communities through the £800 million New Deal for Communities and the Social Exclusion Unit. Three hundred and fifty million pounds over three years have been committed to regenerate coalfield communities decimated by the previous government's policies.
"Modernising local government has been a priority. We have legislation to make councils more efficient and more accountable to local people. We established the regional development agencies to drive forward economic growth and regeneration in the regions. We are modernising the planning system and have set a new target of getting 60 per cent of new housing on developed land. The quality of construction is improving following John Egan's report, Rethinking Construction. We set up the Urban Task Force under Lord Rogers to look at the causes of decline in our urban areas and recommend practical ways to bring people back into our towns and cities.
"The White Paper builds on this groundwork. It sets out a long-term strategy that will bring lasting benefits to all who live in our towns and cities—a strategy which recognises, in Lord Rogers' words, that
`people make cities, but cities make citizens'.
"There are four key components of our strategy: improving the quality of life through a partnership with local people; sustainable communities in attractive, well-kept towns and cities; economic growth and shared prosperity in all urban areas; and good quality services.
"I shall deal first with quality of life. In this White Paper, we commit ourselves to work in partnership with all concerned to make all areas 'places for people'. It is not just a matter of bricks and mortar. People need jobs, a decent home, good public services and an attractive and safe environment. To be successful, plans need to be shaped by local people for local people.
"A clear message from the regeneration projects over the past 20 years is that local people must be fully engaged from the outset. All too often this has not been the case.
"Local authorities have a central role here. A good council is one that listens to, leads and builds up the local community. We want councils to work through local strategic partnerships and to involve the community, service providers, business and voluntary organisations in producing community strategies. These should set out an action plan to improve their town or city as outlined in the White Paper.
"Secondly, clearly, we want sustainable communities living in attractive, well-kept towns and cities, which use space and buildings well, and which are cleaner and less congested. My right

351
honourable friend the Chancellor announced a £1 billion tax incentive package last week to promote the urban renaissance. As a result, more investment will be attracted into disadvantaged areas by the removal of stamp duty from all property transactions in those areas; the re-use of brownfield land will be encouraged through the provision of accelerated tax credits for cleaning up contaminated land; and more homes will be provided as a result of the 100 per cent capital allowances for creating 'flats over shops' and VAT reforms to encourage the conversion of properties for residential use.
"The new urban regeneration companies we set up last year are beginning the process of transforming parts of Liverpool, east Manchester and Sheffield. We plan 12 more to tackle the hardest hit local areas in every region. One can often tell the health of an area by the quality of its public realm, particularly its parks, play areas and open spaces. These are the lungs of our towns and cities. We have set up a comprehensive programme including demonstration projects and an extended Green Flag awards scheme—like the Blue Flags scheme for beaches—to encourage and recognise excellence.
"Planning has a fundamental role to play. I can announce today that, in response to Lord Rogers' report, we will conduct a fundamental review of planning policy guidance note 1—General Policy and Principles—to put the urban renaissance at the heart of the planning system.
"Simplifying compulsory purchase will make it quicker and easier to unlock land and fairer to everyone involved. There will be new guidance and, ultimately, legislation.
"There is a shortage of people with the necessary range of skills to drive forward the urban renaissance. We are therefore setting up regional centres of excellence to improve skills and training in each region. The first two will be in the North West and London. In addition, we will also start a programme of international secondments to learn from the best in the world.
"Our town centres will be stronger. We will protect them from new out-of-town schemes. We will improve them through the town improvement schemes with local funding as proposed in the local government finance green paper.
"The millennium communities at Greenwich and Allerton Bywater have shown what good design can achieve. The Greenwich millennium village will be an attractive, mixed tenure development, with homes within walking distance of shops, employment and services, and with good open spaces. Above all, it will be environmentally sustainable, using 80 per cent less energy and 30 per cent less water than a similar conventional development. We will build five more millennium communities in different parts of the country.
"Our new English Cities Fund is designed to encourage the maximum growth in private investment in priority areas. This is vital if we are to
352
secure the widespread regeneration we seek. The fund will bring up to £250 million into new mixed-use projects.
"The third component is creating the conditions for economic growth and shared prosperity in all towns and cities. We want to see more wealth generated and social justice side by side. Growing disparities and exclusion from our increasing, national prosperity are unacceptable. If towns and cities are to be successful economically they need effective support and a clear regional lead. We have therefore given the regional development agencies more money and much more freedom to use those funds to best effect for the people of their region.
"Access to investment capital is also vital to economic growth. That is why the Chancellor announced last week that we would be consulting on a new community investment tax credit to encourage private enterprise in under-invested communities. We will also work closely with the venture capital industry to set up the first community development venture fund to support new businesses in disadvantaged areas.
"Although under this Government there are a million more people in jobs, there is a mismatch between the jobs that are available and the skills of those seeking work. We need to ensure that local people have the skills businesses are seeking. We are therefore setting up the new learning and skills council with a budget of £5.5 billion a year—up £600 million. This will bring together funding for education and training to ensure a coherent approach that benefits both learners and employers. In this way we hope to encourage life-long learning and to reduce the skills mismatch.
"Any efficient, modern city requires a good transport system. That is why the 10-year plan for transport emphasises improving bus services and commuter railways and why it will fund up to 25 new light rail lines.
"The fourth component is good quality services. By 2003–04 there will be £139 billion a year for key services: health, education, transport., housing, criminal justice as well as culture, leisure and sport. That is £33 billion more than now. It amounts to an average annual real increase of nearly 7 per cent a year for the next three years. This extra money will be backed by tough targets to ensure that we see substantial improvements—with the greatest change in the most deprived areas.
"We have set ourselves the target of making sure that all social housing is of a decent standard within the next 10 years. We are providing the resources needed to make this possible.
"Providing homes for key workers is essential if we are to have good quality services in our major conurbations. We have allocated £250 million over the next three years to help key workers buy homes. We will shortly be setting out the details following on from the housing Green Paper.

353
"We are raising educational standards by expanding the Excellence in Cities and Sure Start programmes; by extending free education for three year-olds; and by attracting more people into higher education through the Excellence Challenge. Only today my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced that performance in the first Excellence in Cities areas has improved much faster than elsewhere.
"As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear earlier this week, your health should not depend on where you live. We are improving health services and reducing inequalities through a major expansion of investment in the health service.
"We have set tough targets for reducing crime and are backing this with an enhanced crime reduction programme, additional funding for the police, and a 10-year drugs strategy.
"We recognise that the most deprived areas need extra help and we are determined to narrow the gap between them and the rest of the country. That is why we have set up a Neighbourhood Renewal Fund of £800 million and will shortly be setting our action plan for neighbourhood renewal.
"There have been many attempts to change our towns and cities. Too often they have been partial and limited, looking at buildings or the economy in isolation, often forgetting people. This White Paper is broad in its scope and long term in its perspective. We deal with towns and cities struggling to recover from decline as well as those where the pressures of growth need to be carefully managed. We have set out the way to achieve this and have provided the money to back it up. But government on their own cannot deliver. We will lead and enable regional and local partners to transform our towns and cities. We will get decisions taken at the right level and transfer real power from Whitehall to Whitechapel.
"Lord Rogers called for an urban policy board to track progress in implementing our proposals. We will put urban issues at the heart of government by setting up a new Cabinet Committee. This will be advised by a new group, bringing together community, academic, professional, private and business interests. We will be accountable. The Cabinet Committee will prepare for an urban summit in 2002 which will take stock of progress. We will also publish a new 'State of the Cities Report' in 2005.
"I recently visited a deprived pre-war estate in my constituency. There was litter, graffiti, empty houses and a general air of decay, but a strong sense of community. I met a woman who had lived there all her life. She said, 'I love living here, but I don't want to go on living like this, John'. We must not fail people like her.
"This White Paper sets out our long-term strategy. We cannot deliver on our own. So I am calling on local authorities, business, planners and
354
developers, voluntary and community groups, and, above all, local people to work together to bring about an urban renaissance.
"In short, this White Paper is about giving people more say over shaping their future; making sure that people can live in attractive and well-kept towns and cities; creating and sharing prosperity; and ensuring that we have places with good quality services which meet people's needs. It is a comprehensive strategy, the first for nearly a quarter of a century. It represents a commitment by the Government to put people first, and to ease the pressure on the countryside by attracting people back into our towns. I commend this White Paper to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend. The White Paper is welcome in many ways. In particular, it is welcome for its recognition that solving the problems of urban areas requires the participation of so many different, separate and diverse bodies, all a part of our community and all required to work together for success.
I join in the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, for his very stimulating and interesting report on urban renewal. He brought a fresh eye and a modern look to what is in fact a very old problem. I well remember a study carried out in Essex in the late 1960s on urban regeneration which looked particularly at housing densities. In those days—a long time ago—it was recognised and officially recommended that for inner urban areas the maximum height anyone ever needed to go to maximise housing densities was five or six floors. I welcome the Secretary of State's acceptance of that philosophy. He has recognised that, for humane housing, terraces have a good deal to commend them.
The fact of the matter is that this planning White Paper is very well planned. We have seen three-and-a-half years of relative inaction in this field. Now, as we head towards another election, the Government have realised that they need to have a great deal hanging out in front for the public to see. Therefore, we have had promises of expenditure, many of them long-term strategies which the Government themselves may not survive long enough to implement. That is a reality. The White Paper is well planned and I congratulate the Government on that. But whether that will influence the public, who have seen some delay in bringing forward these proposals, remains to be seen.
Another point needs to be made—the Minister will recognise this one. We need to be extremely careful when we set out to measure output and pretend that measurements of expenditure are measurements of output. We have heard promises of large increases in investment over time. Where the money supply to an organisation is expanded very rapidly—the Minister who, like me, deals with local government will

355
recognise this point—there is need for extreme care if one is to avoid inefficiencies in the use of that resource. We have spent a great deal of time arguing across the Dispatch Boxes over how to get best value out of local government. The same principles that apply there will unquestionably apply in the application of resources to improve our urban communities.
I note that there is to be a review of PPG1, particularly with regard to compulsory purchase. On page 58, the White Paper mentions both Leicester and Medway as being examples of authorities which are already using their powers successfully to regenerate communities. The White Paper refers to stimulating the regional development agencies into doing more. If communities are already acting successfully in this field—and they are—I am not absolutely convinced that we need to change the procedures for compulsory purchase or confuse many of the issues by introducing the regional development agencies into this area.
Local government at large will welcome the recognition in the White Paper that it has a large part to play, both through the planning process and through the services it provides. Local government has a strong influence on the ethos and success of its communities. That applies whether the community happens to be London, under its mayor, one of the metropolitan boroughs, a county or an ordinary town. Good communities with active participation make good towns. There is nothing like people coming together to pull the community forward. Of course, there have always been areas with intractable problems. That is particularly the case in inner city areas.
Housing is expensive because people can afford it. That may be a statement of the blindingly obvious, but if people could not afford houses, prices would not be where they are. But there are acute problems for essential workers in city centre areas. It is disturbing to read in the latest edition of Housing Today that the cost of new building is threatening housing associations' ability to provide social housing. It is a problem to which there is no easy answer.
A great deal could be done. But substandard and unoccupied housing in inner city areas will continue to be a problem for as long as green field development has a VAT privileged position over repairs to, and renewal of, inner city property. That is a long-standing problem which we have raised and debated on a number of occasions. It is not mentioned in the White Paper. That is a matter of regret.
Nonetheless, the White Paper is welcome. It will not he an absolute solution but it will certainly stimulate action. If it does that, and if our communities respond to that stimulation, I have no doubt that in a few years' time many communities will be in a much better position than they are today.
3.57 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on the White Paper made in another place by his right honourable friend. We welcome the vision outlined in the paper. To be honest,
356
who would not? Our vision is one of towns, cities and suburbs offering a high quality life and opportunities for all, and not just the few. Our vision is one of attractive and well-kept towns and cites, places that are environmentally sustainable, and of people sharing in the prosperity. It is described as a new vision. Many of us have been waiting for a long time to see that vision realised in our towns and cities. In many places some of the vision has been realised.
As recognised in this House and in another place, we owe a lot to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, not only for bringing to our attention the urgency of taking action in our urban areas but also for bringing forward fresh thoughts and new ideas. The challenge is to make it happen. To make the vision become a reality, several steps need to be taken. Various levels of government will need powers to enable them to carry out certain tasks and they will also need resources. Incentives will be important in encouraging people to do what is required of them. Furthermore, realistic targets will have to be set if the Government's vision is to be realised. I shall say more on that subject in a few moments.
On the question of powers, the Government say that they want to look carefully at planning law. That is welcome. The White Paper—I have not had enough time to read all of it and some of the answers to my questions may well be in the document—states that the Government will look at planning law and that they will set up a commission or other body to do that. Perhaps the Minister could indicate the timescale here, because this is an urgent matter; indeed it is even more urgent now than when the Government came to power three and a half years ago.
Perhaps I may turn to resources. I should have liked to see in the White Paper an indication that the Government recognise that there are many different pots of money for which councils and others may bid and secure. I hope that the new Cabinet committee to be set up by the Government will examine ways of rationalising these procedures. Having too many pots of money on offer is not an efficient way to progress matters.
Another important area for which additional resources are needed is addressing the problem of the condition of our housing stock. I have not yet had a chance to read the relevant sections, but there appears to be little in the White Paper as regards what will be done in this area. It is an urgent matter and, indeed, it is one that we have discussed in this House on previous occasions. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the position. At the same time, can the Minister tell the House how much new money will be involved? Some of us harbour suspicions that we are told several times about allocations of the same money. Perhaps the Minister will confirm the position as regards new money.
Can the Minister also tell the House how the Government plan to help local authorities to meet their extra responsibilities, in particular their financial commitments? In this House and in the other place, we are fond of placing extra duties on local authorities—

357
I, too, have supported legislation of that kind—but the authorities do not always have access to the necessary resources to implement those duties.
I shall turn now to incentives. We welcome some of the incentives which were announced by the Chancellor last week because they will help to progress some of these policy initiatives. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I am disappointed that we have heard only silence on the harmonisation of VAT and on the matter of a tax on greenfield development. I shall refer to another tax matter that affects local authorities. The White Paper mentions the possibility of holding a consultation on the question of a local tax for certain areas. Perhaps the Minister could expand on that part of the Statement and indicate whether a timescale has yet been planned.
I should have liked to see more emphasis placed on the need for sustainability, in particular as regards increasing the energy efficiency of buildings—I acknowledge that this was mentioned briefly—and the proper use of other resources, such as water. Furthermore, will targets be set on improving the atmosphere within our cities? Much talk has taken place on setting targets for transport, but the need to get people out of their cars, thus improving the air we have to breathe, is also a matter of great importance.
Perhaps I may conclude by returning to the issue of targets. Have the Government put in place targets as regards how many houses will be brought up to a reasonable standard; how many empty homes they wish to do away with; bringing back into use property over shops; and how many people can be persuaded not to use their cars? If there is to be a Cabinet committee that will report to an urban summit, how will it be able to tell us what it has managed to achieve over the years if targets are not set at the beginning?
We welcome the joined-up nature of the White Paper. We now want to see joined-up thinking in terms of finance and in terms of sustainability. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of the questions that I have put to him this afternoon.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on the Opposition Front Benches, both for the general welcome they have extended to this report as well as for their thanks for the work carried out by my noble friend and colleague Lord Rogers of Riverside. This White Paper has drawn much of its direction and inspiration from that work.
I would also endorse the indication given by the noble Lord at the beginning of his remarks; namely, that if we are going to deliver in this field, it is extremely important to establish a substantial degree of working together, both at the local level and between national bodies and local authorities. That applies in particular to local government itself. I am therefore pleased to be able to say that local government bodies of all political complexions,
358
through the Local Government Association, have welcomed the report and now look forward to working together to deliver those aspects of the White Paper which fall within the jurisdiction of local authorities. Furthermore, they will take the lead in their local communities. The development of community strategies at local authority level will form an important delivery mechanism for all the areas covered by this White Paper.
The noble Lord referred to a number of matters. He mentioned our approach to housing and housing densities. It is certainly the case that we recognise that the pressure on housing—as a result of the changing demographic structure of households—means that we shall need to provide more of the kind of high-quality terraced Victorian and Georgian housing which has given so many such a good quality of life. We need to be able to match those standards of housing over the coming century. The only way in which we shall square the need to regenerate our urban areas with the need to restrict development on greenfield sites and thus impingement on our rural areas is to have sensible targets for housing and sensible approaches to the kind of housing of which local authorities and their planning systems will approve.
I also agree with the noble Lord that expenditure is not an output, it is an input. We are concerned that we should establish clear measurements of the output that we shall achieve over the coming period and that the very substantial expenditure which we shall invest in services in urban areas yields the kind of results we wish to see. Some actions have already produced good results. Indeed, I would quarrel with the noble Lord on his mild, but nevertheless slight note of dissent when he referred to the "relative inaction" of the past three years. As regards the financing of urban services, the improvement of transport systems through local transport planning, increased investment in affordable housing and money allocated to local housing authorities to improve their own housing stock in the area of social housing, all of these have already yielded significant results in terms of increased jobs available in our cities, in improved housing and in reductions in crime. All of those improvements are measurable for the future. To that end, we shall seek equally measurable and clear results gained as a result of the increased expenditure and changes to a more strategic approach which is being adopted in the White Paper.
The noble Lord referred to the importance of enabling essential workers to live in our inner cities. It is vital that the approach to housing—some of which will be covered in more detail when we announce the action shortly to follow the publication of the White Paper—meets this need. We have already set ourselves the target of bringing all social housing up to a decent standard and of helping home ownership through schemes such as the "home buy" scheme and, more important, the new "starter home" initiative. Such schemes will assist key workers in areas of high housing demand. I agree that it is extremely important to ensure that key workers who support our cities and provide the services that we need are able to live within them.

359
The noble Lord was slightly disparaging about the need to re-examine the whole area of compulsory purchase. No doubt he will agree that there is a certain amount of archaic difficulty attached to the current compulsory purchase regime which often restricts desirable developments. These arrangements need to be reviewed; indeed, much of the legislation goes back to the 1840s. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of that—not that he was personally around to see it, but on occasion it seems as though he could have been, given his long career in local government. This matter needs to be addressed.
On a more serious note, the noble Lord attacked the role of the regional development agencies. By and large, RDAs have been welcomed by the business community and by those who seek the regeneration of our urban areas as well as some of our rural areas. The role of the RDAs is to act as catalysts. That is a vitally important component in the development of economic prosperity. I hope that the main Opposition party will reconsider its somewhat outdated opposition to the existence of the RDAs. They are performing a great service. In this context, as in others, they will continue to deliver many of our economic aims.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred to the question of balance in the VAT regime between greenfield and brownfield sites. I am aware of the arguments on this front and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, but the package put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week provides a targeted rather than blanket favouring of developments and conversions within urban areas. The combination of measures introduced in the Pre-Budget Statement—the exemption from stamp duty, the accelerated payable tax credits, the 100 per cent allowance for creating flats over shops for letting and the package of VAT reforms to encourage additional conversions—is a much more targeted approach. It will help develop brownfield sites and thereby reduce the pressure for building within our countryside and in the non-urban areas. It is a co-ordinated approach across urban areas which will also benefit rural areas. We shall be issuing our rural policy White Paper before the end of the month.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to resources. There are substantial references to resources; I shall mention one area. An extra £33 billion has been announced relating to services in urban areas and there is the £1 billion package from the Chancellor. But, of course, some is still to come through the review of local government finance, which will, I hope, have a comprehensive "single pot" approach to give local authorities more flexibility to meet their own aims within local areas.
There are references to how we will improve the planning system, both here and more generally, and there will be both national targets—as there are already in relation to transport and air quality, for example, to improve the quality of life in our cities—and local authority targets. All of this will need to be addressed and reported on in time for the urban summit in 2002.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, for about seven years as a Minister in the previous government, I was privileged to be a sponsor Minister for Cleveland and Teesside, where vast acres of polluted land were converted successfully in a very good regeneration programme. That regeneration programme can be repeated in the—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the fact that the 20 minutes is supposed to be for Back-Benchers to ask questions and make brief comments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am certainly not aware that anyone on this Bench can be prevented from speaking in a debate such as this. Unless I am prevented by the whole House or by the Clerk, I should like to finish my point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Companion is very clear: it refers to Back-Benchers. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not a Back-Bencher.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am speaking from the Privy Council Bench.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, page 17 of the White Paper refers to Blackburn and Ipswich as being "smaller towns". Do the Government understand that some of us are a little alarmed that large towns such as Blackburn and Ipswich can be described as "smaller towns". Throughout the north of England—in the North-East, Yorkshire and East Lancashire where I live—there are many towns with populations as low as 10,000 people which have real inner urban area-type problems and deprivation. Will the Government guarantee that, for the first time, small towns with such problems will get a fair share of resources?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am happy to acknowledge the noble Lord's point. Compared with many of the towns which will benefit from the approach in the White Paper, Ipswich and Blackburn will look like very large towns indeed. I am happy to tell him that we recognise the significance of all towns in this context. Every town and city is different. The LGA statement today said that it was delighted that the Government have ruled out the "one size fits all" solution. This approach will meet the problems and ambitions of the towns in the part of the country to which the noble Lord referred. I should also mention that within the rural policy White Paper we will deal specifically with the issue of market towns.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the challenge of leadership in urban areas, particularly in metropolitan areas. I warmly welcome what has been said about the role of local authorities and I acknowledge the importance of the contributions of regional development agencies. But

361
for many of our metropolitan areas, where some of the greatest challenges for urban regeneration exist, the core city is a very small proportion of the total functional area. No one in their right mind would argue for a reorganisation of local government in those areas, or simply think that regional government—were it to come—would itself be an answer to that. The functions and issues lie at sub-regional level. The challenge perhaps seems to be how one encourages local authorities, the private sector and the voluntary sector to work on problems which are wider than the individual local authority without having structural change. I am therefore particularly interested in the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about trying to find appropriate incentives to promote that kind of joint working.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that many of these problems will need to be addressed at levels higher than the individual local authority and lower, at ward level and below. Having a comprehensive approach and flexibility over funding ensures that we are able to encourage co-operation between local authorities and across local authority boundaries. Again I emphasise—particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—the importance of the role of the RDAs in helping to engender this kind of sub-regional co-operation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I welcome the general thrust of the White Paper. Perhaps I may press the Minister to return to the issue of housing. First, I should like to ask him about the use of the compulsory purchase powers, to which he alluded earlier, and whether they will be used particularly in the context of empty houses, which can be such a blight on so many areas. The Minister will be aware that in many urban areas they become a breeding ground for vermin; they are tinder boxes and sometimes become places from which drugs are sold. Often they stand empty for many years on end, much to the frustration of the people living in those areas. The cancer then spreads through the whole of the terrace and then through the whole of the estate. It is probably one of the most pressing needs. Will the compulsory purchase powers be used particularly to tackle that problem?
Perhaps the Minister will also say a word about ownership of property. Does he agree that one of the great success stories of the past 30 years has been the dismantling of the municipal empires and the giving of power to tenants? Does he further agree that that revolution needs to be continued with a radical handing-over of power to the tenants by giving them control through housing co-operatives or through personal home ownership? That is the best way of giving people a real stake in their community.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first point, I recognise precisely the kind of situation he referred to in some of our inner cities. It is important that local authorities and developers can put together packages which are not inhibited by a failure to
362
acquire the ownership of derelict and often abused properties. The holistic approach that we are encouraging will help in that direction.
So far as concerns compulsory purchase, we are engaging in a review and, as I indicated, because of the slightly archaic nature of the legislation in this area, that review may require us to bring before your Lordships legislation to improve the powers to the extent that the noble Lord wishes.
As to ownership of housing, I partly agree with him. I certainly believe that giving power and responsibility to all forms of tenure—whether it be to owners, tenants in the social housing sector or tenants in the private sector—is very important. If we take responsibility, we take pride. Taking responsibility for the future of where we live makes a great difference. I believe that that can be achieved under all forms of housing tenure—local authorities, housing associations, the private sector and owner occupiers. Some of the decisions on the exact mix of housing ownership and housing tenure are best kept to a local level.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, last weekend, when I was dusting my books, I came upon the national plan of Lord George-Brown. It was full of aspirations, part of which concerned urban renewal. But that did not happen. As the Minister quite rightly praises local government, perhaps I may ask him, first, whether he thinks that local government will welcome the prospect of elected local regional councils—or is that particular aspect now put on the back burner? Secondly, if he is to look at compulsory purchase powers, will he look at the French model, which is considerably more generous to those who are being compulsory purchased and therefore tends to encourage them to co-operate a lot quicker? Finally, in relation to regional transport, is the Minister able to tell the House the exact proposals for the privatisation of London Underground, for which we have waited for three and a half years? Have they now been agreed by the Government, so that they no longer have White Paper status but have some finality to them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston has frequently explained the situation in regard to the PPP for London Underground, with which we are proceeding. Contractual arrangements will be announced when appropriate.
As regards the noble Lord's earlier questions, regional assemblies have by and large been welcomed on the voluntary basis on which they are established at the moment by local government. In some parts of the country there is a clear desire for an elected regional assembly. We have indicated that we shall establish such regional assemblies as and when there is a clear demand in the regions for them. As I say, the view differs in different parts of the country. There is substantial demand in the North East and to some extent in the North West, but less so elsewhere.

363
In relation to the French system of compulsory purchase, and indeed planning in total, we are taking into account a number of aspects of European models in the planning and compulsory purchase area of our review. So watch this space!
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I am delighted to see the White Paper, although, as mentioned, there has not been time to study it closely. Will the Minister commend the relentless and long-standing efforts of Tower Hamlets and other councils to regenerate their areas in extremely difficult circumstances over the past 20 years? Will he do so, however, with one reservation; namely, that the ethnic minority communities were not able to take a strong lead in any of the quangos set up as a result of some of those initiatives? Will the Minister assure the House that he intends to take seriously and redress that issue? Will he give a further assurance that, wherever urban renewal takes place in a new manner, the ethnic minority communities will not just be pandered to in terms of taking part, but that steps will be taken to ensure leadership from those communities, so that they, as well as the rest of the country, will be able to experience the sought-for urban renaissance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is important that the communities in our inner cities, many of which are of multiple ethnic origin and background, must be fully involved if we are to deliver a better quality of life for the city as a whole. It is important that all the schemes, whether they are backed nationally, or whether they are produced at local level, as I hope most will be, engage the ethnic minority communities. I recognise both the efforts of Tower Hamlets and the problems within that area which is one of the most deprived in this country. I hope that we shall see the full engagement of the whole community in helping to redress the situation.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords—
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I think there is time for both noble Lords. Perhaps we should hear the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, followed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of London's greatest assets is the River Thames? The Thames is much cleaner than it was, and much of the development in Docklands has been very successful. The Minister can presumably give some credit to the previous administration for both those aspects. Why, on page 134 of the White Paper in the section on London, is there no mention of the River Thames? Is the Minister aware, to take just one example, that at this very moment, between Vauxhall Bridge and Chelsea Bridge on the north side of the Thames, new private palaces are being built on the river front that will shut off access to the river for the
364
next 100 years? Will the Minister consider encouraging the Mayor of London to use the compulsory purchase powers to open up the River Thames to the people?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord's final point. I accept that the Thames is a major asset for London and Londoners. It is not mentioned specifically in the London part of the White Paper. I am riot sure that the Trent is mentioned specifically either, or any other river. The problem in regard to some developments on the Thames is this: under the GLC, new developments had to provide for access to the river if they abutted it. That provision was dropped as a result of the abolition of the GLC and those powers reverted to the riparian boroughs. The developments to which the noble Lord refers, although large, are not large enough to fall within the powers of the Mayor of London. I believe that all are a matter for Westminster City Council and, I am informed on good authority, for Kensington and Chelsea council. That is where the responsibility in planning terms initially lies.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister recognise as being among the most important beneficiaries of the White Paper the family I visited in bed-and-breakfast accommodation last week? They had been living there for 12 months, depending on take-away food; there were four children aged from one to 11, and the five year-old was waking up in the night with nightmares and showing other signs of high anxiety as a result of those living conditions? Does the Minister recognise that family as typical of the families who will benefit from the outcome of the White Paper?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope so. Clearly, in many of our cities, London in particular, homelessness and lack of appropriate housing for families and especially for young people is one of the blights of our cities. It is to be hoped that the developments foreshadowed and the resources allocated in the White Paper and our other policies will address that problem. The Statement that is to follow the housing policy Green Paper will also be relevant.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the report is of real importance and that it should be debated at greater length? Does my noble friend accept that we are justified in hoping that a considerable amount of attention will be given in that debate to the need to avoid eating into the green belt when in many cases there is a perfectly reasonable alternative? My noble friend has mentioned brownfield development. There have been many good developments on brownfield sites, and more are needed. I think, for example, of the site near to my home. A few years ago it was a burning colliery spoilheap; last summer I counted 11 species of butterflies on it. That is the kind of transformation that is needed in many other areas. Does my noble friend accept that greater public attention might encourage that kind of necessary development?

365
Perhaps I may ask one other question. Our towns are frequently built along rivers, in many cases for vital historical reasons. But planners do not seem always to have paid much attention to the rising tides and the effect of climate change. Can we ensure that future development, unlike a great deal of development over the past 20 years, will take proper account of that phenomenon?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on my noble friend's second point, the events of the past few weeks have indicated that sometimes, despite the recommendations of the Environment Agency, planning permission has been granted by local authorities for developments vulnerable to flooding. If climate change has the effect that now seems apparent and floods become more frequent, that will increasingly be a problem. I hope, therefore, that attention will be paid to that. The House will know of the additional resources announced by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with the immediate situation.
So far as concerns the green belt and greenfield sites, it is important that we connect the proposals in the White Paper to encourage development on brownfield sites in our cities and towns with the need to reduce pressure on the countryside. I was gratified to see, in relation to the announcement by the Chancellor last week of fiscal incentives, that the spokesman for the Council for Rural England said that he very much welcomed the package of measures harnessing the tax system to breathe new life into our cities, which at the same time was bringing great benefits and helping to save thousands of acres of England's countryside. That juxtaposition needs to be seen as part of this strategy.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in adding my welcome for the White Paper, perhaps I may express the hope that the improvement of the condition of existing housing will figure very largely in its implementation—a point made by my noble friend Lady Maddock and by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. As the noble Lord will be aware, successive house condition surveys have shown that something like 20 per cent of the housing in this country is either substandard or requires major renovation and repair. This issue is very closely related to the problem of fuel poverty that will be considered shortly on the Third Reading of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill. Can I hope that the targeting to which my noble friend referred will also be applied to that issue and that, in the next house condition survey, we shall see a real dent being made in the number of substandard houses in Britain today?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that the allocations given to local government of £5 billion for improvements in the housing stock, which apply to social housing, their own stock and to owner occupied stock, will help to make a serious attack on the backlog of poor housing and lack of repairs as regards existing housing stock. As to fuel
366
efficiency, the noble Lord will know better than most people the range of measures that the Government are undertaking, the incentive and the framework for which are very much reflected in the warm homes Bill that we shall shortly be considering and upon which he has had a considerable influence. Those schemes will improve the quality of housing as well as tackling the fuel poverty of their inhabitants.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister give the House an assurance about the problem of the disposal of playing fields by some local authorities to developers? My noble friend will recall that this matter was referred to a few weeks ago when it was revealed that this undesirable practice was continuing, notwithstanding the change of government in May 1997.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise this problem; indeed, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred to it in his Statement as being one of the contributory factors to reducing the quality of life in many urban areas. We do impose a stricter regime than had been the case prior to this Government coming into office. Nevertheless, some selling off of playing fields seems to be continuing. This matter needs to be seriously considered by local authorities, and the owners of those playing fields, if they are to make a serious contribution towards the quality of life in our inner cities. The Government are determined to play their part in that process.

City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [H.L.]
4.33 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of yesterday be now considered; and that the promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further 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 Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Monday 27th November;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro firma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

367
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acqaint them therewith.

Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
4.34 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Definitive maps and statements and restricted byways]:
Lord Luke Lord Luke moved amendment No. 164:
Page 75, line 40, at end insert—
(" . In section 147(5) of the Highways Act 1980 (power to authorise erection of stiles, etc on footpath or bridleway), after "forestry" there is inserted "or for the breeding or keeping of horses".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is simply about extending Section 147 of the Highways Act 1980 to include land used for the breeding and keeping of horses. We are extremely grateful to the Government, who have clearly listened to our representations on the subject. Indeed, government Amendment No. 196K, which is grouped with our two amendments, absolutely answers our question. We are most grateful.
Amendment No. 165 would extend the existing powers to erect barriers and would allow the erection of bollards and other works to prevent unlawful use of a footpath or bridleway. We are equally grateful to the Government for their Amendment No. 198, which deals with the problem. However, I have a few questions for the Minister. In particular, can the noble Lord say what kind of barrier should be erected? I am most in favour of the "Kent gate"; in other words, upright stakes that are put into the ground at such a distance on either side of a track that could be negotiated safely by a horse and buggy—and, obviously, anything narrower—but which would create a pathway that was too narrow and too high to allow any powered vehicle to pass. I shall be most grateful if the Minister can comment on that point.
We are still concerned that it will be difficult for owners to show that there are sufficient safety grounds to persuade authorities to use the powers granted under Amendment No. 198 to erect barriers. In particular, will any instances of unlawful use be enough to justify the implementation of those powers? Further, what guidance will the Government give to local authorities to encourage them to use these new powers? It should not be forgotten that we are talking about unlawful vehicular use and that these bridleways
368
are vulnerable to thieves using 4x4 vehicles. We should do our best to ensure that that does not happen in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the Government for the concession they have made. My one worry concerns the word "bollard". Naturally if one is crossing a fence round a field there will be a stile, a kissing gate or something similar. However, a bollard on a route causes me some concern because the unexpected happens in the countryside. If there is an accident or an aircraft crash, one needs to get emergency vehicles along a route as quickly as possible. A bollard is an immovable object, concreted in the ground. We should try to encourage the use of gates that can be easily opened and shut. Gates are more advantageous than bollards in the countryside. It may be easier to ride one's bicycle round a bollard, but in an emergency it could be a damned nuisance.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward an amendment to address the nuisance of unlawful vehicular use of paths or ways that we discussed on a previous occasion. Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 165 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, seeks to address that problem. I hope that the Minister will clarify the issue raised by paragraph (a) of the amendment. One can reasonably only have stiles on footpaths and gates on bridleways—footpaths and bridleways are mentioned in the government amendment—because surely a stile on a bridleway is an obstruction for a horse unless the horse and rider were capable of jumping over it. However, it would be unsafe and unreasonable to expect them to do so. I hope that the Government will clarify that their intention is not that further obstacles should be placed on bridleways.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, on Amendment No. 164 and on our Amendment No. 196K. I do not think that I need add anything to that. I believe that I can give all noble Lords the reassurances they seek. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked whether the Bill, as it will be amended, will cover what I think are sometimes called separated barriers. I think he was talking about Kent gates. It will cover barriers, rails, fences, posts—we do not use the word "bollard"—or anything which acts as an obstruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, was concerned about access for emergency vehicles. That will be taken into consideration as regards the kind of obstruction that is erected. A concreted-in bollard which obstructed an ambulance would be undesirable. That can be overcome by having obstructions which are capable of being removed by the emergency services, as used frequently in urban areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked whether it was intended that stiles should be used on footpaths and gates on bridleways. There is no restriction here. Any of those obstructions

369
could be used on footpaths or bridleways, as appropriate. If the bridleway were to be used by horses, it would be inappropriate to erect a stile. I do not disagree with the noble Baroness; I simply say that the restriction she appears to think is implied in our amendment does not exist.
I return to the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, about unlawful use. We are talking here about measures to safeguard, for example, pedestrians or horse riders from the dangers posed by vehicular traffic. Therefore we are talking about the protection of the public. Indirectly, the measure could be used to prevent unlawful use of the routes we are discussing because it would make it unlawful to drive a motor vehicle on a bridleway. I hope that that reassures the noble Earl, Lord Peel, with regard to the crime aspect that he mentioned as it is intended to reassure him.
Earl Peel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I seek a point of clarification; for example, a path or a track might be used persistently by a vehicle illegally but there is no danger to the public and the track in question may not lead anywhere other than on to a circular route. However, such use may result in wear and tear on the track with the owner or occupier having to meet the cost out of his own pocket. Will the noble Lord assure the House that a barrier could be erected in those circumstances?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot conceive of a case where a right of way of the kind we are discussing could be used by motor vehicles without a risk of danger to the public. Therefore, the conditions we are discussing would apply. However, we can debate that issue when we discuss other aspects of these amendments.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he confident that the erection of stiles would not run contrary to the spirit or the letter of recent disability discrimination legislation? Stiles would comprise difficult obstacles to negotiate for some categories of user.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the authority responsible for the obstruction would have to consider whether it was reasonable. The authority would be bound by the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. I cannot imagine that the Disability Discrimination Act is intended to provide access for disabled people to all non-vehicular rights of way, but I am sure that the authority would have to take it into account.
Lord Luke: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did he answer the question about guidance to local authorities to encourage them to use these new powers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the powers are available and local authorities have access to them.
370
If it is necessary to produce guidance I am sure that we shall be willing to do so, but I do not think that I want to commit us to more public expenditure if, as I think, there will be widespread popular support for these measures.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am a little dissatisfied with the answer to Amendment No. 165. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 165 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 166:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

  EXTINGUISHMENT OF UNRECORDED RIGHTS OF WAY
  (" .—(1) Any public right to use a way with mechanically propelled vehicles that—

  (a) existed before 1st January 1949;

  (b) is not over a trunk, classified, principal or special road;

  (c) is over a way that does not appear at the cut-off date on the definitive map as a byway open to all traffic; and

  (d) is not shown to have been exercised by the public at any point between the commencement of this Part and the cut-off date,

  shall be extinguished immediately after the cut-off date.
  (2) Any owner or lessee of premises adjoining or adjacent to a way over which public rights have been extinguished under subsection (1) above shall, so far as is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment and occupation of the premises, have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic over the way.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I again thank the Minister for agreeing to meet myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, following our discussions in Committee. In Committee I believe that the noble Lord referred to my amendment as a "brave" attempt. We have subsequently met the Minister and have tried to improve it, but this is a difficult problem.
  Amendment No. 166 is my revised version of what was Amendment No. 360A. The proposed new clause has four tests in paragraphs (a) to (d) that need to be satisfied for vehicular rights (only for mechanically propelled vehicles) to be extinguished. The extinguishment applies only to rights pre-1949 over effectively unclassified ways that do not appear on the definitive map and which are not used. A way would only have to fail on one of the criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d) to preserve the right of the public to drive on the route.
  Much of the debate in Committee concerned the misconception that all ways not recorded as byways open to all traffic (BOATs) would be extinguished. That is not the case with this amendment, nor was it with the previous amendment. The only routes over which vehicular rights were extinguished would be minor, unclassified ways that were not used and did not appear on the definitive map as BOATs.
  Noble Lords also seemed concerned that the public's right to use vehicles over each route would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That is the case now for vehicular routes that are used by the public but do not appear on the definitive map.
  There is not now a mountain of claims against the public's right to use such roads, so why should there be in the future? In theory all such ways could be challenged but the cost sanctions which exist for losers in the civil cases guard against spurious claims. If the amendment were accepted, it is unlikely that routes used by the public would be challenged.
  I corrected a drafting error by changing "or" to "and". The amendment provides that only rights in mechanically propelled vehicles in existence before 1949 would be extinguished. I hope that that clarifies the matter. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward the amendment. It gives us another opportunity to debate the vexed issue of vehicular use of rights of way. Perhaps noble Lords will bear with me for a short moment, I should like to take a short stroll down the byways of history.
  In 1705 Lord Justice Coke laid down a three-fold classification of public highways: packways (now bridleways), footways and cartways. We no longer use the expression "cartway". However, we still call part of a road a carriageway. For many years the inhabitants of parishes maintained the highways as best they could. It was at the end of the 19th century that rural district councils began to take responsibility for highways maintenance. They began to survey the routes. At that time the routes began to be lost; they were never put on to surveyors' maps.
  The Countryside Act 1949 described something called a RUPP—a route to be used as a path and bridleway but over which there might be vehicular rights. The 1968 Act allowed local authorities to take into account suitability when deciding whether such vehicular rights would exist. Unfortunately, that power was removed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Therefore, the current position is that byway status will be established if documentary evidence can be produced to suggest that it was once a cartway. We now have the situation that the old use of a route by horse and cart today translates into the right of 4x4 vehicles and quadbikes to use those rights of way.
  It is time to grasp the nettle and decide what these routes are for. Walkers and riders prefer not to be confronted by vehicles. For most of us, the joy of walking off the highway is precisely because it forms an escape from vehicles. Along many sunken lanes, the presence of many high banks makes escape impossible if walkers, horses and vehicles coincide. Many of those lanes have become valuable habitats which are threatened by vehicular use.
  Of course, a local authority faced with evidence of vehicular rights can use Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 to remove those rights. Alternatively, it can use the traffic regulation order procedure to ban vehicles. Local authorities can and do make widespread use of these. But in Suffolk, the county I know best, of the 221 RUPPs which were reclassified, 84 became byways. We still have 265 left to deal with. Those will become restricted byways under this
  372
  legislation but they could still be subject to claims for vehicular use. In addition, in Suffolk alone another 179 byways have come into being through the claims process. It is not uncommon for people researching claims for footpaths to discover old vehicular rights. Given that this is the scale of the problem in one county, it reaches magnificent proportions when applied over the whole country. Does it really make sense for local authorities to have to deal with hundreds if not thousands of individual cases either by magistrates' courts closure or traffic regulation orders when we could deal with the matter through primary legislation?
  In principle, I have difficulty accepting the removal of rights for a whole category of user. But in this case I am well on the way to being convinced that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has much to commend it. It preserves the ancient rights of use by horse and cart. The only rights removed are modern rights for vehicles which did not exist when the routes originally came into being. It keeps in place the routes already on the definitive map and takes into account those routes which are currently not on the map but are used by vehicles as an informal part of the rural highway network.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say with deep respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I doubt whether subsection (2) is necessary. Under the common law that right will continue to exist anyway.
  Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I shall catch up with the horse and cart in a moment or two! However, as we are coming to a large number of government amendments, I wish to put on record that I believe those amendments will greatly improve what was already a very good Bill. I mention that as we debate the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness.
  I support the proposal. It is a little complicated but it is a modest proposal. We are extinguishing pre-1949 rights for motorised traffic over the minor unclassified ways which are not used and which do not appear on the definitive map as a byway open to all traffic. The individual cases exist in perhaps reasonable numbers in the country. But an overall decision establishing clarity about the use by mechanically propelled vehicles on these types of ways is desirable when we have primary legislation before us.
  I support the proposal. It could be a little icing on top of the very good cake which the Government have given us in this part of the Bill.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my speaking notes say that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has made another valiant attempt. However, since she reminded me that I used the word "brave" previously, I shall stick to that. Of course we recognise what is a real problem: how to deal with vehicular rights of way which are completely unrecorded on a definitive map at the cut-off date.
  We acknowledged in Committee that the Government are not anxious to promote inappropriate motorised vehicular use in the

  373
  countryside—to put it mildly. We want to prevent inappropriate motorised vehicular use as the government amendments we have just debated make entirely clear. But we cannot accept that Amendment No. 166 overcomes the problem of how to distinguish between byways open to all traffic which are required to be recorded on definitive maps and the vast lengths of other unclassified roads in England and Wales which are not. The amendment refers to trunk, classified, principal or special roads but not to unclassified roads.
  Byways open to all traffic are defined by Section 66(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act not only in relation to the vehicular rights over them which they have in common with unclassified roads but also by reference to their character as highways which are likely to be used more by horseriders or walkers. In order to put this into context, I should say that of all the rights of way which exist in this country only about 2 per cent are, or will be, byways open to all traffic; and 3 per cent will be roads used as public paths. The remainder will be footways or bridleways. Although I yield to the knowledge of Suffolk of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in the country as a whole it is a small minority problem.
  Amendment No. 166 seeks to resolve the problem by disregarding the distinction between byways open to all traffic and other unclassified roads and provides, as a safeguard, that motorised vehicular rights over an unclassified road would be extinguished only at the cut-off date if those rights are not shown to have been exercised by the public at any point between commencement and that date. We note that paragraphs (c) and (d) are negative conditions. However, this would require prudent administration in order to safeguard a major part of the road network—in other words, the unclassified roads which are roads, not rights of way, not intended mainly to be used by horseriders or walkers; they are roads. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, says that she does not want a case-by-case investigation. But that is what the amendment would require. The amendment is weighted in favour of wholesale extinguishment because extinguishment would occur unless someone showed that there had been public use; for example, the amendment would apply to all unclassified roads in inner London, despite the fact that definitive maps do not cover that area. Clause 51 excepts certain categories of highway from the cut-off date provisions.
  The amendment would not expressly require evidence of use to be provided before the cut-off date. I am grateful for that. However, it stipulates that extinguishment would occur on that date if no use had been shown to have occurred. That could result in all motorised vehicular rights over all the thousands of miles of unclassified roads in England and Wales being extinguished at the cut-off date if they had not by then been shown to have been exercised. In other words, silence could mean extinguishment. A massive amount of work would be necessary before the cut-off date to preserve public vehicular rights of way over roads that are essential for local traffic.
  374
  The amendment provides no mechanism for deciding how or when it should be shown that vehicular rights had been used. Unclassified roads make up more than 50 per cent of the road network in England and Wales. I am afraid that the approach in the amendment does not make sense, much as we would like to agree with it.**
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that she did not want a case-by-case examination, but that would be necessary under the amendment. The use of all the 113,000 miles of unclassified roads would have to be investigated, although that would not be required at the cut-off date. It is not clear from the amendment whether vehicular rights over the roads would be extinguished in the mean time. Rights of way are either extinguished or they are not; there is no half-way house.
  I am sorry. I want to agree to the amendment, but it would be an unsatisfactory and bureaucratic way of dealing with its apparent primary aim: to prevent people producing evidence after the cut-off date of long-forgotten vehicular rights. The magistrates' courts have the power, on application by a highways authority, to extinguish vehicular rights of way if they appear to be unnecessary. It would be open to an authority to seek an order without any need for further legislation.
  I repeat that I am sorry that I cannot agree to the amendment, because I know that the noble Baroness means well. However, the Bill provides a mechanism for dealing with the problem that she has rightly identified.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have been "brave" and now "valiant", but unfortunately I am still at the wrong end of the wicket. I think that our cricketers are doing better than me. In all seriousness, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, and others who have spoken in support of the amendment.
  I have one or two questions for the Minister. He said that my amendment was unsuitable and would not cover the problems that I have identified. He also said that the Bill addressed those problems later. Later clauses address different problems relating to 4x4 vehicles, but they do not overcome the problem that the amendment is designed to deal with. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to tell me whether the Government will think about the problem further. If I cannot come up with a good suggestion, perhaps the Government can, as they have much more expertise and back-up at their disposal than we do. I should be happy to hear from him again before I decide what to do.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a perfectly proper question. The issue is dealt with in Amendment No. 193A. If we have not satisfied the noble Baroness by the end of that debate, we shall have to talk about it again before Third Reading.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am being careful because we are on Report. I thank the Minister for that

  375
  comment, but I did not think that Amendment No. 193A, which I am looking forward to debating, covered what I am trying to cover in this amendment. The slight problem is that if I leave it until we debate Amendment No. 193A, I shall not be able to come back to this one. That is why I want to press the Minister to agree that he will at least think about the problem before I have to make my decision.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, can I try Amendment No. 194B?
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I think that I am being outbowled. It is early in the day. I see that a message has just come to the Minister. Perhaps I should wait a minute.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have anything to add. We can debate the issue later. I should be very sorry if we were to part company on the amendment, because it would not achieve what the noble Baroness wants.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I understand where the Minister is coming from. Pending our later debates on the issue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 6 [Amendments relating to creation, stopping up and diversion of highways]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 167:
  Page 76, line 11, at end insert—
  (". In section 26 of the 1980 Act (compulsory powers for creation of footpaths and bridleways) after subsection (3) there is inserted —
  "(3A) The considerations to which—

  (a) the Secretary of State is to have regard in determining whether or not to confirm or make a public path creation order, and

  (b) a local authority is to have regard in determining whether or not to confirm such an order as an unopposed order,

  include any material provision of a rights of way improvement plan prepared by any local highway authority whose area includes land over which the proposed footpath or bridleway would be created."").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 172 and 173. The amendments arise from commitments that we gave in Committee to consider amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, which were designed to ensure that decisions on individual orders closing or diverting footpaths and bridleways under Sections 118 and 119 of the Highways Act 1980 would be taken in the context of the area's rights of way improvement plan. We agree with that objective and believe that the same principle should apply to orders made under Section 26 of the 1980 Act creating footpaths and bridleways.
  The amendments relate to orders made by local authorities, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. An order made by a local authority cannot take effect until it is confirmed. A local authority may confirm its own order if it is
  376
  unopposed, but only the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may confirm opposed orders. The amendments would require that, when deciding whether or not to confirm an order, a confirming authority should have regard to arty material provision of a rights of way improvement plan for the area that includes land over which a footpath or bridleway would be created, extinguished or, in the case of a diversion, created and extinguished. The three amendments deal with each of those three cases.
  Orders made by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales do not require confirmation. They are published first in draft and made only after any objections have been considered. The amendments would also require the Secretary of State or the Assembly to have regard to the rights of way improvement plan or plans for the area before making an order, just as they would be required to do before confirming one.
  On a technical point, it might help the House if I add that it is not necessary to make express provision for the making of closure or diversion orders, because Section 120(3)(b) of the 1980 Act provides for that, when taken with Amendments Nos. 172 and 173. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, could an improvement plan include not only the granting of a new right of way, but also the abolition of an old one?
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I warmly welcome the amendments, which the Government have tabled in response to amendments that we tabled in Committee. We were concerned that the improvement plans should genuinely improve the rights of way network. The Bill should leave no gaps that would allow the network to be diminished. That would go against common sense, but if a loophole were left it could happen. The amendments considerably strengthen Part II.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support. The answer o the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is, yes, plans could cover extinguishment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 168:
  Page 76, line 32, at end insert—
  ("1A. In section 31 of the 1980 Act (dedication of way as highway presumed after public use for 20 years), in subsection (6), in each of paragraphs (i) and (ii) for "six" there is substituted "ten".
  1B. After section 31 of the 1980 Act there is inserted—

  EXTINGUISHMENT OF UNRECORDED RIGHTS OF WAY

    Register of maps, statements and declarations.
    31A.—(1) The appropriate council shall keep, in such manner as may be prescribed, a register containing such information as may be prescribed with respect to maps and statements deposited and declarations lodged with that council under section 31(6) above.
    (2) Regulations may make provision for the register to be kept in two or more parts, each part containing such information as may be prescribed with respect to such maps, statements and declarations.
    (3) Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which an entry relating to a map, statement or declaration, or anything relating to it, is to be removed from the register or from any part of it.
    (4) Every register kept under this section shall be available for inspection free of charge at all reasonable hours.
    (5) In this section—
    "appropriate council" has the same meaning as in section 31(6) above;
    "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;
    "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State."").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 168 arises from a commitment that we gave in Committee to consider an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. That amendment was aimed at streamlining the processes under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 whereby a landowner may, through the deposit of various documents, rebut the presumption that he intended to dedicate a way as a highway as a result of the public having used the way for 20 years without interruption.
    An owner may deposit a map and a statement showing all the ways on his land which he admits are dedicated as highways. Declarations are required every six years thereafter to the effect that no additional ways have been dedicated over the land. This amendment would increase the period for making declarations from six to 10 years. It would also require local authorities to keep a register of maps, statements and declarations and make them available free of charge for inspection by the public.
    The requirement in relation to registers is broadly in line with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. However, it differs in some respects. The noble Baroness's amendment would have required that a combined map and statement be deposited when land changed hands and would have removed the requirement for subsequent declarations to be made at regular intervals.
    We believe that those changes would have undermined the notion of deemed dedication. The procedures set out in Section 31(6) are designed to protect a landowner's interests while, at the same time, taking account of the public interest served by the concept of deemed dedication. That balance would be altered significantly if a single deposit of a map and statement by a landowner were to remain valid until the land changed hands; for example, in our view, it would soon become standard conveyancing practice for maps and statements to be deposited on the transfer of the land. It is also clear that land may be held for many years beyond a person's natural life by a company or trust and therefore not change hands.
    There are also other ways in which a landowner can make his intention clear. He can, for example, put up a notice to that effect, he can lock a gate or he can close off a way for one day a year. A landowner is not obliged to follow the procedures set out in Section 31(6) of the 1980 Act.
    When we discussed this matter in Committee, we made it clear that we would be prepared to agree to a reduction in bureaucracy. I believe that the amendment achieves that, but not to an extent which would undermine the concept of deemed dedication. We believe that, by extending the period for making declarations to 10 years, any burden on landowners would be significantly reduced while ensuring that Section 31 continues to do what it was designed to do. I beg to move.
    Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Government are keen to reduce bureaucracy. Why should not the statement and the statutory declaration be on the same document? Is it necessary to have all those documents?
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, at first I also wondered about that. However, it would probably be more rather than less cumbersome to require everything to be in one document. The section requires only an initial deposit of a map showing the ways which the landowner admits are rights of way over his land, and a statement relating to the map. After that, he has only to make periodic declarations that no additional ways have been dedicated. That is simpler than requiring the map and the statement to be deposited every six or, if this amendment is accepted, every 10 years. In other words, rather than resubmit the whole statement, the landowner would show only the changes. We consider that to be less onerous than the requirement for a combination of map and statement.
    Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for accepting the arguments that we put forward in Committee. He referred to additional parts of our original amendment which the Government obviously considered but decided not to include. I am grateful and support the amendment.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 169 to 171 not moved.]
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 172 to 174:
    Page 76, line 38, at end insert—
    ("2A. In section 118 of the 1980 Act (stopping up of footpaths and bridleways) after subsection (6) there is inserted—
    "(6A) The considerations to which—

    (a) the Secretary of State is to have regard in determining whether or not to confirm a public path extinguishment order, and

    (b) a council is to have regard in determining whether or not to confirm such an order as an unopposed order,

    include any material provision of a rights of way improvement plan prepared by any local highway authority whose area includes land over which the order would extinguish a public right of way."").
    Page 80, line 20, at end insert—
    ("(5) After subsection (6) there is inserted—
    "(6A) The considerations to which—

    (a) the Secretary of State is to have regard in determining whether or not to confirm a public path diversion order, and

    (b) a council is to have regard in determining whether or not to confirm such an order as an unopposed order,

    include any material provision of a rights of way improvement plan prepared by any local highway authority whose area includes land over which the order would create or extinguish a public right of way."").
    Page 83, line 20, leave out ("as") and insert ("for the purpose").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    5.15 p.m.
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 175:
    Page 86, line 26, leave out ("subject to subsection (4) below,").
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 175, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 176. Amendment No. 175 corrects a minor error in the provisions relating to SSSI diversion orders which was drawn to our attention in Committee by an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that the condition attached to the exercise of the order power in new Section 119D(3) of the Highways Act contains a typographical error. On further reflection, we also agree with him that it is otiose. Accordingly, Amendment No. 175 removes it and provides for drafting which is consistent with new Section 119B of the Highways Act, also found in Schedule 6 to the Bill.
    Amendment No. 176 arises from our commitment to consider a further amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, relating to the requirements in new Section 119E for English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to give advance notice of their intention to apply for an SSSI diversion order. It was always our intention to include land managers in the regulations prescribing which persons should be notified. However, we agree that that should be made clear on the face of the Bill.
    Amendment No. 176 would require the conservation bodies to give any owner, lessee or occupier of land over which the right of ways runs, or over which the diverted line would run, 14 days' notice of an application for an order. That would be in addition to the provisions in Schedule 6 to the Highways Act which the Bill applies to SSSI diversions and which require a highway authority making an order to notify owners, occupiers, lessees and others of the opportunity to make representations or objections. I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for these amendments. I am delighted that the Government have moved in that direction.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 176:
    Page 88, line 25, leave out ("such") and insert—
    ("any owner, lessee or occupier of land over which the proposed order would create or extinguish a public right of way;
    (aa) to such other").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 177:
    Page 97, line 24, leave out ("the footpath or bridleway") and insert ("—

    (a) so much of the footpath or bridleway as passes over that land, and

    (b) so far as is requisite for effecting that diversion, so much of the footpath or bridleway as passes over other land occupied by him.").

    The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 177, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 178, 179 and 181.
    Amendment No. 177 is designed to bring new Sect ion 135A into line with a provision in Section 135 of the Highways Act which prevents a temporary diversion made under that section affecting the line of a footpath or bridleway on land not occupied by the person who benefits from the diversion. The aim is to prevent an occupier of other land being land-locked by such a diversion. Under Section 135, the temporary diversions which may be authorised in relation to engineering operations are authorised by an order made by a local authority. The new provisions do not require an order to be made and we believe that such a restriction is all the more appropriate.
    Amendment No. 178, which is more substantive, arises from our commitment to consider an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. That amendment would have extended the maximum period for which a temporary diversion under new Section 135A may be made from five days to 28 days a year. We accept that five days may not provide the degree of flexibility which new Section 135A aims to give to land managers. On the other hand, we believe that 28 days would be too long. After all, an occupier is not required to obtain prior approval before diverting a footpath or bridleway under those provisions. Therefore, Amendment No. 178 seeks to extend the period to 14 days. We believe that to be appropriate for a provision of this nature.
    Amendment No. 179 would ensure that it was not possible to divert a footpath or a bridleway on to another highway which was inappropriate or unsafe for walkers or horseriders to use. Amendment No. 181 to Section 344 of the Highways Act 1980 would prevent new Sections 135A and 135B taking effect in the Isles of Scilly except by order of the Secretary of State after consultation with the Council of the Isles. That would treat the Scilly Isles in the same way as related provisions in the Highways Act including Section 135. I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: My Lords, once again I welcome these amendments and thank the noble Lord.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 178 to 181:
    Page 97, line 33, leave out ("five") and insert ("fourteen"). Page 97, line 48, at end insert—

    ("b) to divert a footpath onto a highway other than a footpath or bridleway, or

    (c) to divert a bridleway onto a highway other than a bridleway.").

    Page 99, line 44, leave out ("road hump") and insert ("road-ferry").
    Page 100, line 10, at end insert—
    ("17A. In section 344 of the 1980 Act (application to Isles of Scilly) in subsection (2)(a) after "135," there is inserted "135A, 135B,".").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 57 [Rights of way improvement plans]:
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 181A:
    Page 35, line 39, after ("for") insert ("exercise and other forms of").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 in my name and to Amendments Nos. 183 and 187.
    The government amendments arise from a lengthy and very useful debate on amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, during Committee stage. A major theme of that debate was the important contribution which regular exercise can make to people's health. It was clear that there was widespread support for these measures and for a reference to exercise as one of the matters which local highways authorities would be required to assess when discussing their rights of way improvement plans.
    We have reflected on the views expressed and agree that there is a case for amending the clause so that we give added emphasis to exercise as a form of open-air recreation. Amendment No. 181A requires local authorities to include in their rights of way improvement plans an assessment of the opportunities to provide for exercise. It has been tabled in order to clarify the intention that, among the opportunities for open-air recreation, exercise should be given additional emphasis. As that contributes to the health of the nation, I hope that it meets the main point behind the noble Lord's earlier amendment.
    Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 also arise in part from an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. They bring cycle tracks within the ambit of rights of way improvement plans. These do not currently fall within the definition. Cycle tracks can make an important contribution to the recreational value of local rights of way and we accept that generally they should be covered by rights of way improvement plans. Amendment No. 185 would exclude cycle tracks which form part of, or run alongside, made-up carriageways. That is consistent with the Bill's approach to footpaths which are defined by definitions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I beg to move.
    Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I very much welcome the fact that the Government have decided to respond to the fairly strongly expressed feeling on all sides in
    382
    Committee that there should be reference in the Bill to the importance of adequate opportunities for exercise as one of the matters which local authorities should consider when preparing their rights of way plans. I also welcome the fact that the Government have made clear that cycle tracks constitute one kind of the rights of way which have to be considered in those plans. Both changes reflect the strongly held views of the House that there is a need and a demand from the public to consider the rights of way network in the context of the needs of the 21st century. I support Amendments Nos. 181A and 185 to 187. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 183.
    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we, too, felt very strongly at Committee stage that cycle tracks should be included because without them there would be no possiblility of looking at a reasonable multi-use approach. We welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward their own amendment.
    I wonder whether the amendment concerning cycle tracks is more narrowly drawn than our Amendment No. 187. Would fewer cycle tracks be included in the government amendment? I suspect that that might be the case. Nevertheless, we are very happy that the Government have brought forward their amendment on the subject.
    Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support these amendments. We had a very full discussion which I shall not go over again. Can the Minister tell me why the Government have resiled from Amendment No. 368AA of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and myself, which gave greater flexibility? Perhaps there is good reason for that. I shall be grateful for an explanation.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is referring to public health in the noble Lord's original amendment. That is clearly a wider concept than exercise. It is probably too wide to expect a local highways authority to assess all the implications for public health in the context of looking at its rights of way plan. We felt it better to focus on exercise as a form of open-air recreation rather than deal with the wider issue of public health which includes many more issues for consideration.
    As regards Amendment No. 187, I believe that the noble Baroness's amendment would include more cycle tracks. We would wish to exclude those that run alongside a made-up carriageway under certain conditions. We would wish specifically to exclude them as we are excluding footpaths which use the made-up carriageway. That is the explanation as to why we believe that our amendment is better.
    I have found another piece of information regarding the noble Baroness's earlier amendment, which relates to the existence of an extinguishment order. It may be that the existence of such an agreement is something which the confirming authority would be sensible to consider as the Act requires. There would be a range of

    383
    such factors which it would need to take into account, depending on the circumstances. If we picked out the existence of an extinguishment order specfically, there could arise the suggestion that other considerations should be taken into account. We believe that the authority would have to act reasonably. Were such an order in place, it would need to be taken into account along with other possible legal qualifications of the position. If we spell out one aspect and not others, we could find ourselves with a problem. That is why we did not think it right to include that part of the noble Baroness's amendment.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 182 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
    [Amendment No.183 not moved.]
    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 184:
    Page 35, line 40, at end insert—
    ("() the extent to which the network may be organised to provide walkers, horse riders and cyclists with the maximum opportunity to pursue their recreation off highways used by mechanically propelled vehicles,").
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we believe that, as drafted, the Bill tends to leave a gap in the matters that need to be examined as regards the way in which the rights of way improvement plan is published. We have just debated the fact that the Government have seen fit to bring exercise on to the face of the Bill. But taking it along a footpath or cycle track at the edge of a carriageway would not fulfil the aspirations which were mentioned in Committee; namely, the opportunity to pursue walking, riding and cycling away from the noise and fumes of the motor car. That is why, even at this late stage, I have retabled an amendment which places considerable emphasis on the off-road opportunities which should be offered to people. I believe that we may debate that further on Amendment No. 188 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I regard my amendment as paving the way for the sort of debate which may arise on that amendment. I beg to move.
    5.30 p.m.
    Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I support the amendment. It would be very sad if we were to leave Clause 57 without it focusing in any way on vulnerable traffic such as horse riders who are increasingly involved in accidents on the highway. At present, there is a missed opportunity in the Bill. An amendment of this sort would focus local highway authorities' attention on the need to provide for what is a growing number of people who will, in the future, be more and more vulnerable. Even at this stage, I hope that the
    384
    Minister will feel it right to include something of that sort in the purposes which the local highway authorities must consider.
    Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness's amendment. I am not entirely sure that this issue will arise on my next amendment. I believe that the provisions of this amendment are very important.
    Lord Greaves: My Lords, briefly, I add an additional point to those matters raised by my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, which I fully support.
    This amendment includes the words "maximum opportunity". There is still considerable doubt among people using rights of way and organisations representing walkers and horse riders about the purposes of rights of way improvement plans and what the word "improvement" really means. There is real concern that in some places highways authorities may take the opportunity of "rationalising' and we end up with a network which is thought to provide sufficient opportunities in relation to what people nowadays want but, nevertheless, will result in quite a reduction in the number of paths and bridleways available. The words "maximum opportunity" written into the Bill would be a useful counter to that possible tendency.
    Baroness Byford: My Lords, I add my support for the amendment. I suspect that the Government may say that it is not technically correct, but I hope not. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, raised a very important point in relation to horse riders who use the roads. It applies too in relation to cyclists but I am thinking of horse riders in particular. Horse riding is an increasingly popular sport these days and much of the riding is done by very young people in comparatively difficult circumstances on some of our roads. I speak as a parent when I say that I am sure we should all wish to ensure that those youngsters are off the road as much as possible.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Amendment No. 184 would require local highway authorities, when preparing rights of way improvement plans, to assess the extent to which their local rights of way network could be organised to maximise the recreational opportunities for walkers, horse riders and cyclists away from routes used by mechanically propelled vehicles. Those are admirable objectives.
    Rights of way networks are made up mainly of routes— principally, footpaths and bridleways—not normally used by motor vehicles. The assessments which local highway authorities will be required to undertake in preparing their improvement plans are meant to take account of the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public as a whole. They are also meant to assess the extent to which rights of way provide opportunities for open-air recreation.
    I certainly agree with all noble Lords who have spoken that there are good reasons why walkers, horse riders, cyclists and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles would generally prefer not to share rights of way with

    385
    motorised vehicles. Indeed, that has been the theme throughout virtually all our debates today. Issues of safety, as well as noise and other factors, arise. Having said that, not all walkers like sharing with cyclists or horse riders. There can be conflicts between these as well as between other groups. However, the important point is that we believe that the objectives of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, can be met without amending the Bill.
    In practice, most users are likely to be walkers, cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles. I said on an earlier amendment that byways open to all traffic are only 2 per cent of all rights of way. Roads used as public paths, which are the foundation for the new category of restricted byways, make up a further 3 per cent. Footways and bridleways make up 95 per cent of the rights of way in England and Wales.
    One of the key questions for local highway authorities to consider in preparing the plans will be the case for creating new rights of way. That is the emphasis, I am sure, that there will be in the plans and that is what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wants. He is quite right. Sections 25 and 26 of the Highways Act 1980 provide express powers to create footpaths and bridleways by agreement or order. It would be possible to extend those powers to restricted byways, again excluding motorised vehicles, by the regulation-making power in Clause 49. We shall be looking sympathetically at that when we come to make the regulations. However, there is no similar specific power to create byways open to all traffic which can be used by motorised vehicles and I want to make it clear that we do not intend to introduce one.
    So, in practice, the patterns of use and the powers available to local authorities to create new rights of way already favour non-motorised users. There will be scope to cover the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in the statutory guidance on improvement plans to be issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.
    We are keen to avoid adding to the list of matters on the face of the Bill which local highway authorities are required to consider because of the risk of distorting the assessment process in favour of one or more particular interests. I hope that I have shown that all the objectives which the noble Baroness has in proposing the amendment exist already and that it would be undesirable to encourage further additions to Clause 57.
    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am afraid that I must disappoint the Minister. I do not feel that he has demonstrated that because there is a difference between my amendment and what is on the face of the Bill. Clause 57(2)(a) refers to,
    "the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public",
    but it does not specify that that should be off-road.
    Nor does the clause strengthen the local authority's arm when it wishes to make, perhaps with a local landowner, an unpopular move in trying to link, as in
    386
    my county, two bridleway networks which are separated by about 100 yards of busy main roads. I believe that my amendment would strengthen local authorities in justifying making maximum off-road opportunity. I hope that the Government may think again on this matter between now and Third Reading because I shall return to it at that stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 185 and 186:
    Page 36, line 11, at end insert—
    (""cycle track"—

    (a) means a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say, a right of way on pedal cycles (other than pedal cycles which are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1988) with or without a right of way on foot; but

    (b) does not include a way in or by the side of a highway consisting of or comprising a made-up carriageway (within the meaning of the 1980 Act);").

    Page 36, line 17, after ("footpaths,") insert ("cycle tracks,").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 187 not moved.]
    Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 188:
    After Clause 57, insert the following new clause—

  DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN NEW "INTEGRAL ROUTES" AS ROUTES TO BE DEVELOPED AS A WHOLE
  (".—(1) For the purposes of this section a route is a route of any shape not more than ten miles in length beginning and ending at the same point and open to the public for one or more of the following purposes—

  (a) walking,

  (b) wheelchair access,

  (c) cycling,

  (d) riding on horseback,

  but not for use by mechanically propelled vehicles.
  (2) In any case where a highway authority initiates a scheme to provide a new route in its area which will involve two or more of the actions listed in subsection (4) below, it may declare that the scheme is to be treated under the provisions of this section as a route to be developed as a whole (an "integral route").
  (3) In any case where a highway authority makes a declaration under subsection (2) above that a proposed new route is to be promoted as an integral route the following provisions shall apply—

  (a) in making a determination as to whether or not to approve any applications for any of the actions listed in subsection (4) below in respect of any part of the route, the authority or the magistrates' court, as the case may be, shall base their decisions on the relevant considerations set out in the 1980 Act, taking into account the benefits and disadvantages to the public of the new route as a whole;

  (b) where the authority or the magistrates' court, as the case may be, makes a determination against any one or more of the applications relating to the integral route, the highway authority shall forthwith withdraw all applications which have been submitted for the purpose of creating the route;

  387

  (c) if as a result of a reference to a determination by the Secretary of State one or more of the applications relating to the route is rejected, the Authority shall forthwith withdraw all applications which have been submitted for the purpose of creating the route.

  (4) The actions referred to in subsection (2) above are—

  (a) the creation of a footpath or bridleway under section 25 or 26 of the 1980 Act;

  (b) the dedication of a highway under section 30 or 31 of the 1980 Act;

  (c) the stopping up or diversion of a highway under section 116. 117, 118 or 120 of the 1980 Act;

  (d) the diversion of a footpath or bridleway under section 119 or 120 of the 1980 Act.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is an improved version of my Amendment No. 419 moved in Committee. In a sense, it is still mainly a probing amendment.
  If it be true that this country deserves, and the public want, a rights of way network which suits the needs of the people in the 21st century, then it follows, in my view, that we need a legal structure which enables us to get from where we are to where we shall want to be, as indicated by the proposed highway authority improvement plans.
  In debate in Committee the Minister said:
  "We believe that the existing legislation provides adequately for the kind of schemes that the noble Lord … has described".— [Official Report, 9/10/00; col. 141.]
  Those are schemes where changes to two or more rights of way are necessary to create a new route for walkers or cyclists which is more convenient than the existing route. I give the example of where a walk or cycle track can be made of suitable length, beginning and ending near where people live.
  In saying that, I admit that up to a point the Minister is right. The law as it stands makes it possible to achieve such changes, but the costs, delays and uncertainties involved in the present legal structure are such that very few such schemes are promulgated by highway authorities; a few are, but the majority are not.
  Another reason why highway authorities do not promulgate such schemes is that they have no obligation to do so, although they have a permissive power to do so. Some authorities have been criticised by the Commissioner for Local Administration for using resources to implement such schemes at the expense of other schemes that are mandatory. The commissioner did not, as I believe was suggested in Committee, question the value of such schemes per se but the inappropriateness of authorities using scarce funds for permissive schemes to fulfil their statutory obligations.
  If, over time, the Government want to create a right of way network worthy of the 21st century they will have to do one of two things: either they will have to make the improvement of the network a statutory obligation on authorities and provide the money with which to carry that out under the present law, or they will have to change the law so that, while it still
  388
  protects the interests of user groups and of land managers, it is simpler and less expensive to apply. I know which alternative I would choose. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I have great sympathy for the amendment. As noble Lords may be aware, for about six years I chaired a rights of way committee in Suffolk where we made great efforts to develop circular routes. We now have about 70 available in the county. Some of those schemes were quite easy to put together but others have been difficult. The noble Lord is right when he says that cash-strapped local authorities sometimes simply give up when it appears to be difficult. I do not believe that we should berate them for that as they have to decide on the best ways in which to use public money, and it is public money that would be used for developing such routes.
  On a positive note, I mention the Parish Paths Partnership, formerly funded by the Countryside Commission and now funded by the Countryside Agency. That is a scheme under which grants are given to individual parishes to carry out improvements to their rights of way networks. The work includes promoted routes and the production of a leaflet. The routes have to be kept clear and they have to be well signed. In this case, problems with landowners tend to be minimised because schemes are promoted by local people rather than by anonymous council officials. This is an excellent initiative that has given some good results.
  I am concerned that in general terms Countryside Agency funding for rights of way work and countryside work in general is falling because increasingly the focus is turning to what we may call socio-economic work. We should be careful because in many cases the Countryside Agency is the only body with sufficient funds to carry out this kind of work.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in Committee we had a good debate on this subject, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, although a number of other noble Lords spoke, including the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. Even I was tempted to remind the Committee that immediately before the war London Transport used to publish a series of threepenny booklets of circular walks within easy reach of London by using London Transport. My parents' family used those booklets, so I am entirely sympathetic to this matter.
  The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, wants to overcome any obstacles to the routes being created, as we all do. They could possibly be overcome by making this a duty on local authorities; they could be overcome by forcing landlords whose land obstructs the creation of a route to create a right of way, but I do not believe that that would be practicable. Indeed, the amendment does not seek to do that. It ensures that all applications for the orders or agreements forming parts of a route are considered by the order-making authority as a whole so that if one is rejected, it follows

  389
  that all the other applications are withdrawn. That does not achieve his objective or the objective of us all any more than the existing situation. Of course, we have sympathy for what he wants to achieve, but the issues are more intractable than would be implied by his amendment.
  It would not be appropriate to require local authorities to create new schemes, any more than it would be to require them to divert or close rights of way. It must be for the authorities, whether Suffolk County Council or any other authority, to exercise their discretion on the use of their powers and the allocation of resources. The duty to prepare improvement plans which is in the Bill should focus their minds.
  Existing legislation under the 1980 Highways Act allows the consideration of public path creation or diversion orders to be taken concurrently with extinguishment orders. The extent to which a creation or a diversion order is made in association with an extinguishment order would, if confirmed, provide an alternative path or way to that proposed for closure and may be taken into consideration in the determination of the extinguishment order. I believe that complicated relationship is at the heart of what we are talking about. Account should, of course, be taken of the convenience of the alternative path compared with the one which would be extinguished.
  The key point is that proposals relating to public rights of way will result from the assessment that Clause 57 requires local highway authorities to undertake when preparing improvement plans. They must assess the extent to which local rights of way meet not just the present needs of the public, but also likely future needs of the public and the opportunities that local rights of way provide for open-air recreation, the enjoyment of the authority's area and exercise. They will be expected to consider the availability of and the potential for provision of routes suitable for the purposes provided for in the amendment.
  In Committee I gave an assurance, which I repeat now, that we intend the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State to contain clear and adequate advice to authorities that they should, where appropriate, address circular recreational routes in the preparation of their rights of way improvement plans.
  I agree about the importance of encouraging more co-operation between different parties on rights of way issues. There are many landowners who are willing to do so and we hope that the new rights of way improvement plans will act as a catalyst in that respect. Regrettably, a small minority of landowners, by no means representative of the vast majority, are less willing to tolerate people exercising public rights of way over their land and the Bill contains provisions for dealing with them. We shall debate that matter in the next group of amendments.
  I hope that it will be accepted that within the limits of what we can require local authorities to do, and do by agreement with landowners, we have gone as far as
  390
  we can. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for saying that this is a probing amendment and for moving it in that sense.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Sometimes it is the duty of your Lordships' House to bully the Government and sometimes to nudge them—and this is a nudge. I am pleased to hear what the Minister said in relation to guidelines, which may be important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 58 [Rights of way improvement plans: supplemental]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 189:
  Page 36, line 36, at end insert—
  ("(da) any local access forum established for their area or any part of it;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 60 [Enforcement of duty to prevent obstruction]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 190:
  Page 38, line 35, leave out ("56(4)") and insert ("56").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 61 [Power to order offender to remove obstruction]:
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 190A:
  Page 42, line 18, at end insert—
  ("() Where the offender refuses to comply with the court order, the magistrate may instruct that the obstruction be removed forthwith and the cost recovered from the offender.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I need not detain the House because we debated the matter in Committee. However, I make no apologies for raising this important issue again. It seems to us on these Benches ridiculous that an individual can be prosecuted in a magistrates' court for obstruction of the highway, can pay a fine and then do nothing to remove the obstruction. If the perpetrator is prepared to keep paying a fine, there is nothing the magistrates' court can do about it. Our amendment allows the magistrates' court the power to remove the obstruction and recover the cost from the offender.
  We are about to debate the unlawful use of public rights of way. That is based on a widespread view in the House that the status of a route as on the definitive map should be upheld. If that principle applies to vehicular use, it must equally apply to obstruction. We cannot continue with the position in which someone can buy his way out of complying with the law. I beg to move.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, while I heard what the noble Baroness said, I am a little concerned about the amendment. It assumes that we know who the offender is and implies that he is probably the landowner. I believe that we could run into difficulties if the offender were someone dumping rubbish such as old cars or cans, the driver of cement mixer tipping out on the way home and so forth.

  391
  It is a serious sanction and we must know who is guilty of placing the obstruction. Assuming that it is not the landlord, someone must work out who will pay.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the position. The court will already have identified the offender because our amendment states:
  "Where the offender refuses to comply with the court order".
  The magistrates' court will know who the person is and have proved that he is guilty. I wonder whether in the light of that explanation the noble Lord feels differently about the amendment.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, yes.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment, particularly in the light of the qualification explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The perpetrator will have been identified. However, I do not believe that the amendment addresses the situation in the most appropriate way. We are dealing with an offence of failing to comply with an order to remove an obstruction with a view to making it a continuing offence for which there would be fines on each day after a first conviction. That would be a powerful incentive to a convicted person to remove an obstruction.
  However, I take the point that the authority may want to remove the obstruction provided it had the power to recover its costs. Authorities have a general power in law to remove obstructions from the highway but do not in every case have the power to recover costs.
  If it is acceptable to the noble Baroness, I shall look at bringing forward an amendment at the final stage of the Bill which will provide for such a power and meet the objective of her amendment.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and am pleased that he understands my concern about this serious issue. I look forward to seeing what is proposed when we meet again next week. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 7 [Driving of mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on roads]:
  Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath moved Amendment No. 191:
  Page 105, line 21, at end insert ("for which the court may order the confiscation of the vehicle in question").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 191 I shall try not to detain the House too long. The problem of the illegal and improper use of off-the-road vehicles is serious. It is often a compounded nuisance to a large number of people who can frequently hear vehicles loudly because they are not fitted with proper silencers. They are also damaging. That point which was illustrated only this
  392
  week in a telling photograph in the Yorkshire Post which showed the damage done to areas which many people want to enjoy.
  I recently spoke to a couple of off-the-road motor cyclists. The first one said, "The police cannot catch me", and the second said, "If they did, I'd only get my wrists slapped". I quote them exactly. I do not want to see young people fined heavily or put in detention. As a former, fairly experienced South Yorkshire schoolmaster, my response would be that the most sensible action would be to take the vehicle from them.
  That is not a novel idea. In the other place, I was involved with a number of Bills which sought to tackle countryside crimes. They gave the courts the power to confiscate anything used in the commission of an offence. That would have included the motor vehicles of long-distance travelling badger-diggers. I understand that although no vehicle has been confiscated in England, the Scottish courts have occasionally ordered the confiscation of vehicles. When dealing in particular with young offenders, it is better to confiscate rather than to place them under an obligation to pay a fine which they cannot afford. I should like the Government to consider the proposal most carefully.
  They may be saving some lives. I recently made the point that many young people have been killed or maimed riding motor cycles. I shall give an illustration which shows the difficult task the police have in responding to the problem. Recently a youth and a little girl, neither wearing a helmet, left the open land on which they were being a nuisance, went on to the public highway, were chased by a police car and turned off on to very rough land. The police car made no attempt to follow them because it may have enhanced the risk. No police officer wants to see young people killed or maimed.
  However, those two young people were at great risk of death or serious injury and that case can be mirrored at least 100 times. There have been four or five deaths in South Yorkshire, the latest only a couple of months ago. Such individual tragedies ought not to happen, but they are caused by those who are either being a great nuisance to their neighbours or are causing considerable damage to the environment. I beg to move.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 194C. I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said. Noble Lords will know that I am concerned about the lack of sanctions throughout the Bill on many fronts and I believe that this sanction could prove valuable, as clearly outlined by the noble Lord. We do not believe that vehicles should be allowed off the highway and leaving out the lines of the Bill which we have suggested tidily achieves that.
  Perhaps I may be cheeky enough to make a few comments about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. I would support it as a compromise, but for many reasons I believe that motor vehicles travelling off the road are dangerous—

  393
  and not least because of the points made by the noble Lord. When vehicles return to the road they do considerable damage. Vehicles which leave the road, even if they go over land beside the highway, will drive over drains and areas that are clearly unsuitable for them. When a vehicle which has been off the road and across country, even on verges or nearby fields, returns to the highway it brings with it a good deal of mud and rubbish, and it may also have sustained damage. However, for a distance of a few yards, or even a mile, it will make the highway dangerous for other users.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. Many years ago when I was a member of the Countryside Commission, that body constantly wrestled with the problem of vehicles on the Ridgeway. Again and again, the police told us that if we could persuade the Government to make orders they would not be able to enforce them satisfactorily because there would be no appropriate sanctions. I believe that this amendment provides an appropriate sanction. The person in question would be so reluctant to have this measure applied to him that it would be a very real deterrent. This is a sensible approach to a very real problem.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment for a further reason. To provide that any land within 15 yards of a road is a place where people can, in effect, create a right of way for their vehicles is to open up a tremendous amount of land which one normally seeks to protect. I would have thought that the Government should seriously consider accepting the amendment.
  Lord Monro of Langholm: I also support the amendment. To pursue the point about deterrence raised by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, I cannot imagine a greater deterrent to a 17 or 18 year-old lad than the loss of his motorcycle. This has been a very effective measure in dealing with poachers in Scotland; not only rods, reels and all the salmon in the boot but also the motorcar can be confiscated. That has been a very big deterrent in stopping poachers. Perhaps in this context we are considering similar people who use four-wheel-drive vehicles where they should not. I believe that to deal only with four-wheel-drive vehicles narrows it too much. If it referred simply to motor vehicles it would cover both motorcycles and even two-wheel-drive vehicles with four wheels. It is important that we accurately define what we seek to ban. We should support this amendment and, if necessary, adjust the drafting to ensure that we catch all the people we wish to.
  Lord Monson: I also support the amendments. En passant, I am delighted that both the Bill as published and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, refer to imperial measures and not wretched metres.
  Lord Buxton of Alsa: I also support the amendment, which I believe would have solved a real life drama in
  394
  which I was involved last month, about which I wrote to the Minister. There is a heritage walk, which is a glorified footpath, right through the middle of my local nature reserve. To my amazement, I heard a noise like thunder which was created by three young men on motorcycles on a proper footpath which was half a mile from the road. It was the most appalling noise that I had ever heard. They were dressed in black leather and wore orange helmets and all the rest of it. When I pointed out the circumstances to them they became very belligerent. Fortunately, I had with me a lady guest who nudged me in the ribs and said, "For God sake, back off", because they were undoubtedly about to throw me, at the tender age of 83, into the river. This amendment might well have stopped that behaviour.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, given the fact that when we see the rural White Paper shortly the Government will, we believe, support the return of tranquillity and peace to the countryside, I am interested in their response to these amendments. For consistency, I believe that in particular they should support Amendment No. 191. The matter has already been to court and the person concerned has been found guilty of the offence. It is another attempt, which we support, to deal with persistent offenders about whose guilt there can be no question. The amendment may also prevent the introduction of unnecessary bylaws. If there are other mechanisms to deal with these matters we prefer that they should be used.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two separate issues here: first, the penalties under Amendment No. 191; secondly, the distance off a public road under Amendments Nos. 194C and 195. As far as concerns penalties, there are precedents. Section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 empowers the court to make an order of forfeiture of property, including a motor vehicle. That is comparable with the powers which a schoolmaster from South Yorkshire may have over his pupils and, presumably, also his staff. I do not know what a headmaster may do. These powers are available for certain road traffic offences but, broadly, only those which are punishable by imprisonment. I do not know whether for this particular traffic offence it is a good idea to provide for forfeiture of vehicles for something which nobody suggests should be punishable by imprisonment; namely, to drive off a road.
  The Government are about to publish a consultation paper as part of a review of the penalties for road traffic offences, including all those contained in the Road Traffic Act 1988. The review will consider whether the current maximum penalties remain appropriate and ensure that any proposed changes to penalties are consistent within the whole sentencing framework. It will include consideration of when the power of forfeiture should be available to the courts in the case of other road traffic offences. I do not believe that in this one case it is desirable to pre-empt the conclusions of the review, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Hardy will not press his amendment.

  395
  I turn to the issue of how far off the road a person may drive, which is addressed by Amendments Nos. 194C and 195. Amendment No. 194C extends the offence in Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to where a person drives on to any land within 15 yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, only for the purpose of parking the vehicle on that land. Neither the Bill nor Section 34 criminalises such activity. I do not believe it is right to say that this would create a right of way. We are talking here about driving off the road in order to park.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the Minister said that Amendment No. 194C referred in effect only to parking, but in the way that it is phrased it goes much further. It provides:
  "It is not an offence under this section to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road — for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land".
  In order to park where he wants the driver may drive a very long distance within 15 yards of the road and, surely, that should not be tolerated.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that I have accurately described the terms of the provision. If the driver intends to park, presumably he does not leave the road very much earlier than is necessary for that purpose. I rest my case.
  Amendment No. 195 would make it an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle more than five yards from a road. At the moment, one can drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on common land, moorland or land of any other description within 15 yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may be driven, for the purpose only of parking that vehicle on that land.
  The noble Lord, Lord Monro, talked about poachers. There are much more common cases than poachers. People drive off the road for all sorts of reasons. They may drive off to take a break when they are tired, because the vehicle has broken down or because they have run out of petrol. They may drive off to admire the view or to park before going for a walk in the countryside. These are the actual reasons why people drive off the road.
  Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am not sure the noble Lord understands what I was saying. I was actually supporting the case. In Scotland it is impossible to impound the car, fishing rod and other equipment from a poacher. That shows just how important the deterrent is.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not venture into Scotland since the Bill is concerned with England and Wales. Given the kind of reason why someone might drive off a road, I wonder whether it is desirable to restrict the permission to five yards. It could snake it impossible to drive off the road for any of these quite legitimate purposes; for example, without parking partly on the carriageway. It could make it difficult to do so without damaging sightlines
  396
  or the passage of other vehicles. Many roads on which motor vehicles may lawfully be driven are quite narrow. I do not think that 15 yards is unreasonable. The distance has been 15 yards for a long time. I would prefer 15 metres pace the noble Lord, Lord Monson. But we have not done that.
  Perhaps I may give the results of some research which has been done in the department. When the Road Traffic Act 1930 was passing through Parliament, the then Minister of Transport, Herbert Morrison, resisted an amendment— needless to say from the Conservative Benches—to extend the distance from 15 to 30 yards; in other words, in the opposite direction. He said:
  "Surely it is reasonable, if a person is driving in the country, that, instead of leaving his motor in the road, he should be entitled, as long as there is no prohibition against it, to put the car on the edge of an open space. It is better for the clearance of traffic, and it discourages him from going farther.
  I think that 15 yards is quite sufficient, and will give adequate space for all the cars that are likely to be parked on these particular spaces".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee C, 27/3/30; col. 383.]
  I rest my case with Herbert Morrison's words.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, merely because historically the confiscation of vehicles has been associated with offences for which imprisonment is provided, why should we continue to be caught on that historical precedent? Surely, we should move forward. No one wants to increase the number of offences for which imprisonment is available, but it does not seem to be a logical or valid objection to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lo rd Hardy.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is exactly why I did not say that it was sacrosanct and that it would continue. I said that it was subject to a review. It is better for the review to take into account all the cases and assure a coherent approach to penalties in road traffic law.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the debate. I refer first to Amendment No. 195. It was tabled as a probing amendment because I was curious about the 15 yards. I recognise that we cannot provide parking places at frequent intervals in rural Britain. It would cost too much and people have to park. But I was puzzled about the 15 yards. I am pii771ed about how long the 15 yards stretch of parking may be and whether another illegal green lane will be established. I accept the point that the law, as it is, recognises 15 yards. However, I would point out to my noble friend that when Herbert Morrison defended 15 yards there were only about 10 per cent of the motor vehicles in the country that there are today. So the problem may suggest that a slightly more cautious approach would be available. I shall certainly be happy to withdraw Amendment No. 195.
  I am more concerned about Amendment No. 191. We are likely to be sending a bad and inadequate message to the off-road vehicle users who risk their

  397
  lives and limbs and cause a great deal of nuisance and damage to many areas of our country and to many hundreds of thousands of people. I put the proposal that the vehicle should be confiscated, not merely as an alternative to prison or a heavy fine and a long-standing burden on a young person's back but to perhaps stop that young person causing mayhem or injuring himself.
  I hope that the review will be sensible—I believe that my amendment is—and will not take too long. When the review concludes, I hope that it will not take long for any sensible proposals it may make to be dealt with. If we are concerned about the countryside and people enjoying it, we should seek to apply a little common sense to deal with a problem that need not have arisen and could easily be reduced. I may come back to the subject at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 192:
  Page 105, line 21, at end insert—
  ("(1A) For the purposes of this section a person shall only be deemed to have lawful authority if in carrying out the activity described in subsection (1) he has due regard to nature conservation.
  (1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A) the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales shall issue guidance about the nature conservation matters to which regard should be had.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 192, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 193. I shall not detain noble Lords long on this matter. I launched a debate in Committee on the question of lawful authority when authority is given to four-by-fours or motor bikes driving across common land. As I explained in Committee, that has been a serious problem. My noble friend said—I accept the argument—that my suggested definition of "lawful authority" is probably rather difficult to accept in law. Nevertheless, it is an important problem. Landowners cannot simply give authority to people with motorbikes or four-by-fours to drive across common land without proper nature conservation. I hope my noble friend will be able to reassure me that there are provisions in the Bill which will allow local authorities to write to landowners and say that they may give authority for people to ride across common land—which actually wrecks a number of wildlife habitats—but they must be sure that the people are not driving over it in order recklessly to destroy the wildlife habitats.
  I hope that my noble friend will be able to give that assurance. I beg to move.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I have considerable difficulties with the noble Lord's amendment which I partly raised when we discussed this issue in Committee. As currently drafted, it would apply to any land, not just common land. Therefore, we have to be careful when considering what the amendment proposes.
  398
  I can assure noble Lords that no one is keener than I to ensure that we have a system which prohibits the illegal use of vehicles on any type of land, footpaths or bridleways. Indeed, we shall come on to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, Amendment No. 193A, which I can assure him I shall wholeheartedly support. But we have to remember that there is another side to this issue. There are those people who enjoy cross-country activities with motor cars or with cross-country bikes.
  As I said in Committee, there are plenty of examples of properly organised events taking place with the landowner's permission, no doubt in conjunction with the local authority or with the police, which cause no difficulties whatever. They may create a certain amount of nuisance in terms of noise, but it is only fair and proper that we should consider other minority groups. There has been an all-out attack on all off-road driving despite the fact that there are people who genuinely enjoy the sport. It would be quite wrong of us completely to ignore their interests. My noble friend Lord Glentoran described off-road driving as dangerous and dirty. That is a rather sanitised approach. We are talking about the countryside where we do have tractors, we do have four-wheel drive vehicles and we do have quadbikes going on land in a perfectly legitimate way. It is a messy activity; and if people do not like it, quite frankly, tough.
  Having said that, I have some sympathy for what the noble Lord is saying. However, we have designated areas where nature conservation is well protected and we are to have legislation to give statutory backing to biodiversity. The real nature conservancy concerns are well covered in the Bill. Therefore, I think that the amendment is intrusive, restrictive and unnecessary.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I understand the quarter from which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is coming. In Committee I spoke on behalf of 4x4 drivers. My noble friend Lord Peel said that my noble friend Lord Glentoran described off-road driving as a dirty sport. In fairness to my noble friend Lord Glentoran, he was referring to the dirt coming back onto the road. That is what my noble friend was saying—not that he regarded it as a dirty sport. In the debate on the previous group of amendments we discussed the problem of vehicles that had been over rough ground coming back onto the road and leaving mud on it and making it slippery, so making it dangerous for other road users. I support what was said by my noble friend Lord Peel and so I shall not repeat it.
  Perhaps I may make another point to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. As the House will know, farming is currently facing great difficulties. Farmers are being asked to diversify. Some farmers get quite an income from having organised events on their land. Therefore, I would have some difficulty in supporting the amendment.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, would such organised events require temporary planning permission or

  399
  would people living alongside a field that had been let out by a farmer have to endure the noise and chaos that would be caused?
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, as far as I am aware— I look to the Minister for help on this point—planning permission is not needed. Normally, it is done in an organised way through agreement with local people. I do not think that planning permission is needed. However, I may be wrong.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer that specific question. Where an event crosses a highway or byway, it requires local authority approval. Other than that, lawful authority from the landowner is enough.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I rise only to say that, as I hate the sound of the internal combustion engine, I am totally opposed to the position taken by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the Opposition.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I find myself torn on this matter. I have some sympathy with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Williams in relation to the problem of the potential impact on nature conservation. On the other hand, one has to recognise, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, indicated, that motor vehicles of various types are used for recreation in the countryside with relatively few problems. No one is saying that we should have a complete ban on the use of vehicles for recreation.
  If read literally, my noble friend's amendments could affect land other than land directly concerned with nature conservancy and would fall into the difficulties identified by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. We have some sympathy regarding the substantive issues to which my noble friend spoke, but I am satisfied that there are already extensive controls to protect both habitats and species and that those controls will be substantially increased as a result of the Bill. Owners and occupiers will be required to obtain the consent of the conservation agencies before carrying out operations identified as potentially damaging. We are strengthening the protection against unauthorised use of SSSIs for driving or other purposes by introducing an offence of deliberate damage or disturbance to an SSSI. That will replace the power to make nature conservation orders.
  In relation to planning—this relates to the temporary use of land for events—there is a further protection for SSSIs. There is a general planning permission for the temporary use of land for motor cars and motorcycle racing for up to 14 days in any calendar year, but that does not apply to land notified as an SSSI. So where event organisers propose to hold an event such as that on an SSSI, they will have to ask for planning permission. Therefore, the conservation concerns are protected. As well as their planning powers, local authorities can use traffic regulation orders to deal with vehicles on rights of way. In many parts of the country, including the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and nature
  400
  reserves, such orders can be made to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. That could include the restriction of vehicular use. The Bill will extend that power to SSSIs and to Greater London. It will also clarify that natural beauty in that context includes flora, fauna and geological and geographical features and will give local authorities broadly similar powers to those existing in the specialised areas over unclassified roads in other areas. There are also strong measures to protect species, whether or not they are within SSSIs. Therefore, I think that the nature conservation concern lying behind my noble friend's amendment is well addressed.
  Looking more widely at the problems of vehicular use, there are also more general controls. For example, in exceptional circumstances, local authorities can make directions to withdraw general planning permission relating to temporary use of land. There are also by-law making powers.
  There are substantial existing powers in this area. In any case my noble friend's amendment would go wider than his original intention. However, the particular about which my noble friend and the whole House are concerned—the nature conservation point—is adequately covered by the combination of existing powers and the powers which are enhanced, mainly in Part III of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that he will not pursue the amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if the species that are to be protected under the forthcoming amendments in Part III, should they be passed, fall outside an SSSI, which government department will be responsible for dealing with the scenario raised by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel? 1f the off-road driving damaged a ground nesting bird, who would be responsible? Would it be a government department or the local authority which had not paid due regard to the conservation of biological diversity?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, in so far as t he powers to which I referred relate to the extension of the ability of local authorities to use traffic regulation orders in this context in order to protect flora, fauna and geographical features, the local authority would have the powers.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that response. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, put her finger on the point here; namely, that this is not a question that concerns SSSIs or national parks, because we all know that they are protected. This is a question that concerns areas of common land. After all, Wales comprises 8 per cent common land which lies outside SSSIs or national parks. What I have been seeking, and what I think I have now received—although I am not quite sure—is an indication from my noble friend that areas lying outside SSSIs or national parks will be protected and will enjoy greater protection as a result of this legislation.

  401
  I should like to give way for another moment to my noble friend. I hope that he will be able to offer me some advice on this point.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. I have also indicated that the measures to protect species, along with the measures as regards the powers of local authorities, to which I have just referred, would extend to all areas, not simply SSSIs.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I shall indicate to Powys County Council that it will be its duty, if the Bill becomes an Act, to write to landowners to say that this is the legislation as it stands. I shall also contact the Chief Constable to say that this is the new legislation and to ask him how police constables are to enforce it. That, of course, is a question of administration.
  In the meantime, I am grateful to my noble friend for the assurances that I have elicited from him and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 193A:
  Page 105, leave out line 26 and insert ("and not subject to any other rights").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 194 and Amendment No. 264. This is an important matter. We had a discussion in Committee of a somewhat general nature about the damage caused by what might be deemed to be illicit driving down what I shall refer to as green lanes. I hope that noble Lords will understand what I mean when I use the expression "green lanes" without going into the legal details. I do not think that I have to elaborate on that issue.
  By the time we reach Report, we should try to decide what the House wishes to do about a matter. There are two issues here. The Government have tabled Amendment No. 194 and I have tabled Amendment No. 193A. The two approaches are, if I may say so, rather different. I shall start by explaining Amendment No. 193A. If it were accepted, it would have the effect of banning motorised vehicles from green lanes unless their rights had been established under the definitive map procedures set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This would put them on the same basis as landowners, walkers and horse riders, who have to do the same. It would therefore create what is known in that unfortunate parlance as a level playing field between landowners, walkers and horse riders on the one hand and motorcyclists and four-by-four cars on the other.
  In my amendment, the highway authority—which, after all, is the authority which determines the procedures under the definitive map process set out in the Wildlife and Countryside Act—would be allowed to control what goes on in green lanes. The status of
  402
  the green lane would be decided and controlled by the highway authority and the definitive map. All that the magistrates would have to do, on any occasion where a dispute arose, would be to look at what is the status of the road, path or green lane and, only on the criminal charge, decide whether an offence has been committed in terms of fact. Magistrates have no jurisdiction to decide the status of byways, paths or green lanes. That is my starting point.
  The Government approach this slightly differently in Amendment No. 194. If that amendment were to be accepted as it is, then on a case-by-case basis, magistrates would have to take a view, on the balance of probabilities, whether a certain green lane had vehicular rights. It is true that the Government have moved some way towards my position on this matter, in that the prosecution would no longer have to prove that they do have such rights, but the defence could quite obviously argue that they do not. Again, we enter what I shall call the "green lane" situation where the defence would argue and the magistrate would have to go through all the procedures of deciding whether a particular green lane had vehicular rights.
  The problems with this approach are as follows. Magistrates' courts are not courts of record. If one magistrate decides that vehicular rights do exist on one particular green lane and another offence is brought before the court, then if the second magistrate— possibly a different stipendiary magistrate on this occasion—decides the case the other way round, it has no effect. In those instances, magistrates decide only for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act. Whatever decision is taken in a court of law—after all, magistrates' courts are courts of law—it will have no effect on what might be the status of the green lane when the definitive map is produced. I regard that as the first problem.
  The second problem here is that, although I have great respect for magistrates, I do not see how magistrates' courts can be relied on here. These are extremely complicated issues. As I understand the government amendment, magistrates' courts are being asked to decide, on the balance of probabilities— which is a civil rather than a criminal test of proof— that vehicular rights may or may not exist in a particular circumstance, in a particular case, at a particular time. The resources that will be required for this will be absolutely enormous. In the Grimsell Lane affair, the stipendiary magistrate took three days to come to a decision, and even then he commented that it did not affect the status of the green lane in question.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I hope that I am not interrupting the flow of the noble Lord. However, would he reconsider his statement that this would be judged according to a balance of probabilities on the civil test? Surely this is a criminal matter? Someone would be guilty of an offence which forms a part of the normal criminal framework of the Road Traffic Act. Is not the noble Lord wrong about this?
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I am right about this. As I

  403
  understand the government amendment, the question of whether, for the purposes of a criminal offence, there are rights of way along a particular lane will be decided on the balance of probabilities. So the magistrates will have to decide, first, on the balance of probabilities whether such rights do exist. They will then have to address the criminal case and say, "Given our decision on the balance of probabilities, should we take the view of 'beyond reasonable doubt?"'. That is the answer and it emanates from the Government's lawyers as well as my own lawyers. I have no doubt about this. I am only sorry if I have put down the noble Lord rather too severely.
  I have now explained two problems in this area. We then have to address the problem that what happens on the definitive path, which is covered under the civil procedures of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, may or may not be affected by what successive magistrates decide. We may say that a magistrates' court is not a court of record, but if we had, say, 25 instances where magistrates decided that there were vehicular rights on a particular green lane, it would be very difficult for the highway authority to say there were not. But they may do so under the procedures of the WCA 1981. They are two quite different approaches.
  I feel that the Government recognise that I have a point. I recognise that the Government have a point in that there must be some interim procedures before the definitive map becomes absolutely definitive. But the principle that the highway authority should determine the civil question of the status of a green lane must be sacrosanct. It cannot be left to magistrates' courts to decide that. I hope that my noble friend will consider carefully what I have said before we go any further.
  To a certain extent, Amendment No. 264 is related to what I have to say. If Part II is not commenced in fairly quick time, local authorities will have to go on reclassifying RUPPs and so on until restricted byways can come in under the law. This seems a bit of a nonsense. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give an assurance that Part II will commence pretty quickly, otherwise local authorities will still have a statutory duty to do something which will be irrelevant once Part II comes into effect. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am glad that this issue has come back before us. Many noble Lords felt that the discussion in Committee was less than satisfactory and did not bring out all the issues to which the noble Lord has referred so well. I am also pleased that the two amendments are to be debated together as it gives your Lordships a chance to compare them.
  I should say at the outset that, of the two amendments and the two approaches, I prefer those of the noble Lord to those of the Government. I shall explain briefly why. I accept and commend the fact that the Government moved quickly to reflect the concern that was expressed in your Lordships' House over the issue of the unlawful use of footpaths and bridleways. I have a suspicion that, perhaps in their
  404
  haste to accommodate your Lordships' views, the Government were not as mindful as they might have been of the consequences of their approach.
  We have to be very mindful of the role of magistrates' courts in this regard. Public rights of way get on to the definitive map in a number of ways, but very often it is after a long, expensive and tedious procedure. It cannot be right, for example, that the day after a footpath appears on the definitive map, someone can drive along it unlawfully and, should they be prosecuted, can go to the magistrates' court and re-run all the arguments that they previously lost as a defence against that unlawful use.
  It leaves the magistrates in a difficult position. They are a fine body of people but, even for those with significant expertise and training in public rights of way law, these are very complicated matters. I am not sure that we should add this to the burden already held by magistrates. Can the Minister say whether he has had time to consult with the Bench and whether magistrates would like this duty imposed on them?
  We also have to consider what happens next. Let us suppose that the magistrates decide that, on the balance of probabilities, there are vehicular rights. That decision will not change the definitive map; it will still show a footpath or a bridleway. So we are left in a position where, in effect, the magistrates' court has condoned the unlawful use of a route. It would not, of course, be unlawful—the court will have acquitted the accused person—but it will leave an anomaly between the definitive status of the route and what the magistrates have decided. That will mean that successive waves of drivers could use that route almost with impunity because, should the police take the trouble to prosecute them again, they will know that they have been let off before. At best that leaves an anomaly; at worst it provides a way of fast-tracking the definitive map procedure by doing something unlawful. That is quite the wrong message to send out. I support the noble Lord. We really must seek to ensure that the definitive map is truly conclusive.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I consider Amendments Nos. 193A and 194 among my favourite amendments to the Bill. This is for two reasons: first, although they deal with it in different ways, they deal with a real problem; and, secondly, I raised the point at an earlier stage and I have therefore convinced myself that I have had a tiny influence on the final result of the Bill, which is encouraging from a personal point of view.
  Turning to the substance of the matter, Amendment No. 194, which has been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is a definite improvement in comparison with the present situation. At the moment, as we know, it is possible for people to ride motor bikes or drive vehicles on bridleways; for them to be taken to court; and for them to be acquitted because of the terms of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I think it is common ground that the current text is not satisfactory and does not achieve what we wanted

  405
  from that Act. The government amendment makes it far more likely that attempts by defendants to muddy the water in such cases will be less successful because the text refers to the fact that the contrary must be proved. That is better than the present text. It is a step forward and I welcome it.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 193A, which has been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. On an earlier occasion, I was among the few who said—now I have very large support—that the more radical solution would be to make the definitive map conclusive in the context of proceedings. That means that the decision on such matters would be taken out of the hands of magistrates. Anyone who was totally dissatisfied with that would have one redress—to invoke a modification order and to go through the enormous procedure of trying to change the status of a bridleway. That is what I said on a previous occasion; I maintain the view that that is the better approach. It is clearer and it corresponds best to what we are seeking to achieve—namely, that bridleways should not be converted accidentally into ways on which motor vehicles can be driven.
  I support the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. While recognising that the government amendment is also an improvement, I think the simplest approach is presented in Amendment No. 193A.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on this occasion. It gives me great pleasure to do so. I was interested in what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, because it concurred very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said. I have taken some independent advice. I am delighted to say that the advice I have been given concurs exactly with what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have said. I can only assume that it must be spot on.
  Like other noble Lords, I welcome the government amendment. However, I do not think that it goes far enough to deal with the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, the magistrates simply would not be able to cope. They have not got the expertise to do so. Although cases may come before them, there is no guarantee of a satisfactory outcome. Under the noble Lord's amendment, the onus would be on those wishing to take vehicles on such routes to try to get the definitive map changed. That is a much tougher requirement. In view of the enormous difficulties that we are facing up and down the country, I think that the noble Lord's amendment is the one we should accept.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I shall not go through the arguments again. I support the noble Lord's amendment.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should draw the
  406
  attention of the House to the fact that if Amendment No. 193A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 194 because of pre-emption.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may deal briefly with Amendment No. 264 in this group, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams—I shall deal with it first because it is the easy one! I agree with my noble friend that the provisions in Part II of the Bill that do not take effect automatically two months after enactment should be brought into effect as rapidly as possible. We have in mind the early part of 2002–03. I am not in a position to make a firm commitment at this stage. There are some 40 regulation-making powers in relation to Part II which must all be in place before the full enactment of the legislation can take place. I hope that the fact that I agree with him reassures my noble friend sufficiently that this will be done as rapidly as possible, subject to parliamentary procedures where they are required. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend in relation to Amendment No. 264.
  My noble friend and others have spelt out the meaning of the government amendments, to which I shall return in a moment. It may be sensible to give a little of the background first. Amendments Nos. 193A and 194 relate to the Bill's cross-reference to the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Bill amends Section 34 of the Act to create a presumption that where a way is shown in a definitive map as a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway, it is to be treated as being a way of the type shown. So it would be shown as a footpath, bridleway or whatever, and would be presumed to carry only that right of way.
  But the point here is that a presumption is not conclusive. If we had a conclusive definitive map, clearly the approach taken by the noble Lord in his amendments would apply. Nevertheless, in some cases we are giving 25 years to enable any objections to be settled—in other words, for the conclusive map to be established.
  In the interim, there is clearly a problem in that what appears on a definitive map may not be conclusive. In other words, it may be challengeable. Up to now, the principal concerns expressed in this House have related to the requirement that the defence against being accused of using a vehicle on a right of way which did not allow vehicular traffic was simply to produce prima-facie evidence of vehicular rights. Our amendment recognises that that is not enough and that there has to be a significantly greater burden of proof. Our Amendment No. 194 would require the same level of evidence as, for example, an order modifying a definitive map so that a way would be shown as a footpath, bridleway or restricted by-way as required. In other words, in order to defend a position under the presumptive position, the same level of proof would be required as would be required to change that presumptive position. That is the highest evidential burden placed on the defendant in criminal proceedings. Therefore, the burden of proof set out in Amendment No. 194 is substantial.

  407
  One has to cater for the fact that a vehicle user might have proof of a pre-existing vehicular right. My noble friend claimed that Amendment No. 193A would simply put motor vehicle users on the same basis as walkers and horse riders. But that is not the case. A walker may walk on a footpath which is not shown on a definitive map; a horse rider may ride on a way that is shown as a footpath if there are bridleway rights over it; and, if sued for trespass, a walker would be able to put evidence that a way was a footpath and sustain that evidence in court.
  In relation to the motorist, Amendment No. 193A would prevent a motorist putting evidence to the court that there was a pre-existing right of way. In other words, the motorist would be treated as being in a less favourable position than a walker or a horse rider accused of inappropriately claiming a right of way when one did not exist. It is difficult for me to accept Amendment No. 193A because it goes much further than we would go in preventing a motorist claiming before a court that using a vehicle on a particular right of way reflected pre-existing vehicular rights.
  My noble friend refers also to the role of the magistrates' courts; and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised queries as to the appropriateness of the magistrates' courts in this respect. As I believe my noble friend himself said, the magistrates' court would not by its decision be establishing the status of a right of way. The court would simply be, on a case by case basis, establishing the balance of probabilities. I agree in one sense that where there is a whole range of these decisions, the Highways Authority might wish to take them into account. Nevertheless, there is no way in which a magistrates' court could definitively define a right of way in those terms.
  The definitive maps to which we refer were not intended to prevent a motorist from being able to claim evidence of vehicular rights. The conclusive evidence of rights of way is not simply being able to point to a map and say that a way is so designated and that all other evidence is therefore irrelevant—which I think would be the effect of my noble friend's amendment.
  There are other considerations in relation to this matter which we should have to take into account if we were tempted to go down the road that my noble friend has taken. Human rights issues could possibly be involved, because people rely on vehicular access to their homes or their businesses. Preventing the use of such rights, or making people liable to prosecution for using such rights simply by referring to the nature of the definitive map could seriously affect their access to and use of their property and the access of others who needed to reach their property. For example, a farmer might depend on public vehicular rights to drive agricultural machinery to part of his land, or he might want members of the public to be able to buy produce direct from the farm and so on. It is possible that he may have private rights of way; but he may not. Amendment No. 193A would make him potentially liable.
  408
  There is a great deal of obscurity regarding what exact rights exist. The noble Lord's amendment would take the overriding view that if a right of way was shown on a definitive map, that was the end of the story. I can see that there are enormous attractions in that. However, it does not address the real situation on the ground. It could affect the livelihoods and the reality of daily life of a large number of people who have farms or other premises which are accessible from those rights of way.
  Having said all that, I recognise that there is real problem here. The Government have given a great deal of thought as to how Section 34 might be strengthened We are satisfied, as we have indicated in tabling Amendment No. 194, that we need to increase the burden of proof. We are satisfied also that going as far as my noble friend's amendment would go would not be appropriate and that it would raise other issues.
  Nonetheless, it is clear from my noble friend's argument and from the arguments of noble Lords on all sides of the House that there is considerable concern as to whether our Amendment. No. 194 goes far enough. I believe that Amendment No. 194 establishes an important principle of the burden of proof and that we shall therefore wish to pursue Amendment No. 194 if Amendment No. 193A is not carried. However, I recognise that something more may be required. At this stage of the Bill, and given the complexity of the matter, I do not wish to mislead noble Lords. I can given no commitment that I shall be able to find a satisfactory way to resolve this very complex dilemma over the next six days. Nevertheless, I am prepared to indicate to my noble friend that I shall look into the matter to see whether something can be done.
  From what I have said, it is clear that the matter is not all that straightforward. However, we recognise the concern. I believe that our Amendment No. 194 goes some significant way towards meeting that concern. If my noble friend can be persuaded to withdraw his amendment, we shall endeavour to find out between now and the next stage whether there is another way to deal with the situation that will not run into the kind of difficulties to which I believe his amendment would give rise. I shall move our amendment when we reach that stage.
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his response. If I may say so, I think that he has taken the mood of the House. I believe that he is wise to take the matter back and look at it again. I certainly shall not oppose the government amendment. Nevertheless, unless the Government come forward on Third Reading with something that meets the concerns of the House, I may well move my amendment again at that stage and then my noble friend may have a problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 194:
  Page 105, line 26, leave out from ("unless") to end of line and insert ("the contrary is proved").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 194A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 194B:
  Page 105, line 26, at end insert—
  ("() If without lawful authority a person drives a four-wheeled drive vehicle upon any road or pathway not designated on a definitive map as a boat he is guilty of an offence.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are concerned about the reports of damage to green lanes by owners of four-wheel drive vehicles. We are not satisfied that the use of barriers and notices at the entrances to footpaths and byways will necessarily stop the drivers of these all-terrain vehicles from continuing to plough up the ground and ruin some ancient pathways, which are much appreciated by walkers and wildlife alike.
  The problem with these vehicles is that they can cross land that other vehicles cannot cross. We wish to ensure that it becomes an offence to drive any such vehicle without authority on a pathway that is not officially designated as a BOAT (a byway open to all traffic). This would get around the problem of vehicles entering a green lane other than by a recognised entrance point; for example, from the adjoining land, across a ditch, or up a steep embankment. I beg to move.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in principle. However, I wonder whether it is wise to restrict the injunction, so to speak, in the amendment to four-wheel drive vehicles. There are some two-wheel drive vehicles that also cross rough land; indeed, some of them have high-ground clearance. I merely put that point forward for consideration.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, some of the arguments rehearsed in respect of the last group of amendments apply equally to this amendment, but noble Lords will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to repeat them. In essence, we do not believe that it is reasonable for a person to be given a criminal record for exercising public rights of way simply because these have not been recorded on a definitive map. Therefore, all the arguments used in relation to the previous amendments also arise in this respect.
  There are some technical shortcomings in this amendment in that it would prevent anyone from driving a four-wheel drive vehicle on motorways and trunk roads, which cannot be recorded on definitive maps. I am sure that that was not the noble Baroness's intention. Indeed, I believe that she may find herself in considerable difficulty with some of the motoring
  410
  fraternity if she tries to pursue that aim. More substantively, the amendment contains the express statutory defence of driving with lawful authority. In this context, "lawful authority" could be restricted to mean the exercise of private rights or specific statutory rights. It could also be interpreted to extend to the exercise of public rights of way, which a court may well conclude so as to preserve people's ability to access their homes. If that were the case, it would, in practice, have no different effect from our Amendment No. 194, which has been passed, where the onus will now be on the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the existence of public vehicular rights over the right of way in question.
  The central point here is that we have grave misgivings about referring to the definitive map as the key determinant of whether or not the driving was lawful. In some circumstances, this might, in practice, prevent people from exercising their lawful rights. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will wait to see whether there is anything further that can be done in relation to the previous amendment. It is to be hoped that I can bring something forward at the next stage, subject to the caveats that I have already given to the House.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I had not in fact degrouped the amendment, so I was quite surprised to see it placed separately on the Marshalled List. Obviously I realised that it would be covered by the discussion on the previous group of amendments. I thank the Minister for his response. I look forward with anticipation to what he can bring forward at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 194C and 195 not moved.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 196:
  Before Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

  VEHICULAR ACCESS ACROSS COMMON LAND ETC
  (" .—(1) This section applies to a way which the owner or occupier (from time to time) of any premises has used as a means of access for vehicles to the premises, if that use of the way—

  (a) was an offence under an enactment applying to the land crossed by the way, but

  (b) would otherwise have been sufficient to create on or after the prescribed date, and to keep in existence, an easement giving a right of way for vehicles.

  (2) Regulations may provide, as respects a way to which this section applies, for the creation in accordance with the regulations, on the application of the owner of the premises concerned and on compliance by him with prescribed requirements, of an easement subsisting at law for the benefit of the premises and giving a right of way for vehicles over that way.
  (3) An easement created in accordance with the regulations is subject to any enactment or rule of law which would apply to such an easement granted by the owner of the land.
  (4) The regulations may in particular—

  (a) require that, where an application is made after the relevant use of the way has ceased, it is to be made within a specified time,

  (b) specify grounds on which objections may be made and the procedure to apply to the making of objections,

  (c) require any matter to be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal, and make provision as to procedure and costs,

  (d) make provision as to the payment of any amount by the owner of the premises concerned to any person or into court and as to the time when any payment is to be made,

  (e) provide for the determination of any such amount,

  (f) make provision as to the date on which any easement is created,

  (g) specify any limitation to which the easement is subject,

  (h) provide for the easement to include any specified right incidental to the right of way,

  (i) make different provision for different circumstances.

  (5) In this section—
  "enactment" includes an enactment in a local or private Act and a byelaw, regulation or other provision having effect under an enactment;
  "owner", in relation to any premises, means—

  (a) a person, other than a mortgagee not in possession, who is for the time being entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the premises, whether in possession or in reversion, or

  (b) a tenant under a long lease, within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987;

  "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;
  "regulations" means regulations made, as respects England, by the Secretary of State and, as respects Wales, by the National Assembly for Wales.
  (6) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we gave a commitment to the House at Committee stage that we would bring forward our own proposals on the difficult and complex subject of vehicular access over common land. This amendment honours that commitment. The purpose of the amendment is to protect property owners who have been driving across common, or similar, land for many years and who are now faced with having to pay an excessive fee to the landowner for acquiring a legal right to do so. I should stress the word "and" because I am aware that many landowners have acted entirely responsibly on this issue. They have been prepared to grant easements to long-standing users for a nominal sum, perhaps to cover expenses. We do not want the existence of our scheme to mean that such landowners will not continue with that approach.
  The amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations, which will contain the details of the scheme. We decided on this route because we do not consider it appropriate for the scheme that we envisage, which is, of necessity, quite complex, to be included in primary legislation. Before the Report stage, we issued a paper setting out our current view of how the scheme will work. The main elements to be included in the regulations are as follows: first, that the property owner, or his predecessors, must have been
  412
  using the access in such a way, and for such a time that, had the land not been common land (or other land on which driving is prohibited), a prescriptive right of access through long use would have been acquired.
  Secondly, a limit on the amount of compensation that the property owner has to pay to the landowner will be included. In view of the comments made in Committee, and in the responses to the consultation paper, our current view is that this will be 1 per cent of the value of the property for residential properties built before 1st December 1930 and where use of the property is materially unchanged since that date, or 3 per cent for all other properties—or, alternatively, one-third of the increase in value of the property with a right of access, if that is lower.
  We have listened carefully to the views expressed on the question of compensation, but remain unconvinced that it would be appropriate to grant any easements for nothing. I should perhaps stress at this stage that nothing in these proposals prevents property owners from claiming a prescriptive right through long use, if they can show that such a right had been acquired before it became an offence to drive across common land.
  Thirdly, the regulations will include procedures designed to ensure that the scheme cannot be circumvented and that, where disputes arise, there an appropriate mechanism to ensure that these can be resolved. I hope that the House will feel able to accept the amendment. It will probably be better if I listen to the arguments behind the amendments that have been tabled to our amendment before responding to them. In the mean time, I beg to move.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 196, Amendment No. 196A:
  Line 3, after ("any") insert ("land or").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 196A I speak also to Amendments Nos. 196B, C, D, E, F, G and J which stand in my name. They all deal with the complex and vexed issue of vehicular rights of way over common land. My interest in this subject stems from the situation in Surrey. Surrey County Council felt obliged by the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 to seek best value for money in those cases where they held the right to grant easements over common land. Although it set a limit of 4 per cent on the value of the property for these easements, in some cases this involved a payment of £10,000 or even £20,000. That is not difficult for some but difficult for others, particularly elderly people who have lived in fairly modest homes which have been caught up in the property boom and who have little in the way of income or savings except what is tied up in their homes.
  Other public landlords—here I cite Guildford and Waverley borough councils in the county of Surrey— felt no such obligation and were in the meantime granting easements at the cost only of the legal fees involved. The result was a chaotic situation with property and commons owners both uncertain of

  413
  rights and obligations and with properties which did not have explicit easements or rights of way blighted by uncertainty. While such uncertainty persists it is impossible to obtain a mortgage which effectively blocks sales.
  As the Minister indicated, we had some discussion on this matter at Second Reading and in Committee. We are extremely grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment today. I record my thanks to the Minister and to his officials for the constructive way in which they put forward the original proposals and dealt with the consultation on them. They have taken into account many of the points made not only by myself and others in the Chamber but also by people outside who have participated actively in the consultation process and who are extremely grateful for the result.
  Amendment No. 196 is the outcome of the process. The amendment and the regulations it proposes meet many of the issues raised. It lays down the right of an owner of such a property to be granted an easement and the conditions under which that easement may be granted, including specifying the maximum sum that may be charged. The regulations are, of course, crucial, but they are still subject to consultation and for that reason there remains some degree of flexibility.
  The amendments to which my name is attached cover three distinct topics. Amendments Nos. 196A and 196C insert the word "land" before "premises". The reason for this is to ensure that the right to the grant of easements shall extend to agricultural land as well as dwelling houses and other properties. My noble friend Lord Phillips tells me that in legal parlance "premises" does indeed include land without buildings on it as well as land with buildings on it. However, I should be glad to have the reassurance from the Minister that this is the interpretation placed on these words in the amendment.
  Amendments Nos. 196B, D and E all stand in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I shall leave it to the noble Earl to speak to those amendments. I say merely that we on these Benches support him wholeheartedly on all three of the issues raised: the ceiling set for the value of easements shall be 2 per cent of the value of the property; the ability to defer such payment until the property is sold; and the need to have an explicit assurance that the regulations will be laid within a fairly short space of time so that the uncertainties which have dogged so many caught up in this issue will finally be terminated.
  Amendments Nos. 196E, F and G also stand in my name. I wish to take a little time to explain the amendments. They relate not to property owners seeking to buy or sell easements for a lump sum, but to the situation where the owner of the commons is a charitable trust and where that trust has traditionally granted easement in return for an annual payment which is used to fund the maintenance of roads, paths and other general improvements to the amenities of the common land. There are a number of such trusts in existence; indeed, the National Trust is an example.
  414
  But whereas the status of the National Trust is explicitly recognised in paragraph 11 of the draft regulations that have been circulated, this is not the case with other charitable trusts.
  One such trust is the Totteridge Manor Association, formed in 1955 as a registered charity with the objectives of managing and maintaining the rural amenities of some 52 acres of common land in Totteridge, a mixed residential and rural area in the north of London. At present the association charges an annual sum to those requiring rights of way for vehicles across its land. It fears that the Government's intention in the amendment—to allow property owners to buy such easements for a fixed capital sum— will have the perverse and unintended effect of preventing the association and other trusts of its kind being able to continue to levy annual payments and thus to fulfil their obligations to maintain rural amenities and manage the areas of common land. The association is worried that under the terms of the amendment it will be obliged to sell off easements for lump sums which will not only deprive it of its annual income but also make it difficult for it to fulfil the responsibilities of stewardship incumbent on it under the terms of the charitable trust.
  Amendment No. 196F seeks to alleviate the situation by, first, allowing common land owners with charitable trust status to continue to exist without the objects of the charity being compromised or the amenity of the common land being jeopardised; secondly, ensuring that rights granted as a result of the changes are the same as if they had been acquired by prescription; and, thirdly, ensuring that such charitable trusts are not prevented from asking for reasonable periodical payments for the maintenance and upkeep of the common lands. Just as the position of the National Trust is recognised, we ask that the position of these other charitable trusts should also be recognised in the regulations. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I speak to the amendments in the group which stand in my name. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I am also grateful to the Minister for his amendment which addresses the issue which was identified and discussed at some length in Committee. The amendments that we propose to Amendment No. 196 constitute fine tuning. I accept that in the short time since the Committee stage much progress has been made. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in saying how helpful the officials have been in discussing what I think everyone recognises is an astonishingly arcane area of law; that is, access over common land. We are going back to 1906 and trying to resolve complicated issues.
  To demonstrate how complicated the matter is, Amendment No. 196AA, which stands in my name, is a gem of a complication. It seeks to address a problem which would arise under subsection (1)(b) of the Government's proposed new clause in Amendment No. 196 if a right of access arises from a presumption

  415
  of modern lost grant. I suspect that some noble Lords do not immediately recall what the presumption of modern lost grant is all about. I refer them to the 16th edition of Gale on easements which I have to hand. The provision is a legal title derived from the presumption of a right of way.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I believe that it is known as lost modern grant, not modern lost grant.
  The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, all I can do is refer the noble Lord to Gale on easements which talks of a presumption of modern lost grant. I shall show him the document later, although I defer in all matters legal to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Whatever it is called, let us assume that this situation arises where a right of way through virtue of long use has lapsed or no longer exists for some reason. That could happen if a lease were granted and it brought the property in question into the same management as the access land. Clearly there would then be no need for a right of way. The lease could end and the period where the access was required would not have achieved the prescriptive period of 20 years. I believe that subsection (1)(b) of the Government's amendment does not address the issue. I suggest that Amendment No. 196AA addresses it.
  Amendments Nos. 196B, 196D and 196E deal with the possibility that the regulations, when finally drafted—I accept that much further consultation is needed—allow for the deferral of payments and limit the amount to be paid to 2 per cent of the value of the property. I share with the Minister the belief that a payment is perfectly appropriate. The access owner will face charges. The issue is the balance of the interests of the access owner and those of the property owner. I recognise that some individuals and their predecessors who have owned and lived in those houses since 1926 when the anomaly in the law arose will find it harsh, particularly if they are retired, to face a bill amounting to 3 per cent of the value of the property. That is the figure now suggested in the summary of the draft regulations.
  Payment is a total windfall for the access owner. Were it not for the law which came into force on 1st January 1926 those prescriptive rights would long since have come into play. It is only because the access owner has either never known of his or her interests or has never bothered to enforce them that the situation arises today. After 50 years—it is longer in many cases—he is now entitled to present a bill of 3 per cent at today's prices.
  Bearing that in mind and accepting from the Minister that payment is due to the access owner— however fortunate one may think the access owner to be—in seeking to get the right balance it is not unreasonable to hit on a figure of 2 per cent. That is the figure I commend to the House.
  From these Benches we have from time to time argued that there are human rights which have to be taken into account. I recognise that that is precisely the reason that payments have to be made to the access
  416
  owner. I still think that 1 or 2 per cent is appropriate. The figure of 1 per cent is proposed in the draft regulations for those properties built prior to December 1930. I have no quarrel with that. I think that that is perfectly appropriate.
  Amendment No. 196J refers to the need to ensure that the regulations are tabled within four months. It would be sensible to have in the Bill a date at which these regulations should come into effect. It would be most unfortunate if the period were protracted unnecessarily. However, I recognise that more discussion is needed. A period of four months might not be appropriate.
  Amendment No. 196FA deals with properties whose construction was completed prior to 1st January 1906. The reason for the date of 1906 is that it is 20 years before the Law of Property Act 1925 came into force in January 1926. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that I need not worry about the properties relating to 1906 or earlier because they have prescriptive rights: after all, they were using their access for 20 years up to 1926; there is no problem; the government amendment does not address the issue because it does not need to address it. I am not sure that that is so. If one goes back to the maps of 1906 or thereabouts one finds evidence that there was a house; there must have been some route to it but it does not follow that it was always the same route. It probably was not when one considers how the tracks on common land have moved. After this long period no one can say from first-hand evidence what happened in and before 1906.
  In seeking to establish the balance of interests between the access owner and the property owner, when talking about a house built in or before 1906 there can be no argument but that the house had access for vehicles—they may have been wagons—and a presumption that there was a prescriptive right. The access owner has to produce some evidence either of restricting access, of having made a licence or at least of having registered an interest. In other words, the presumption is moved to the access owner. If between 1906 and 1993 he never got round to doing that, a landowner cannot complain to the Court of Human Rights that he has had his rights greatly limited. Any other landowner would be only too delighted to know that by this astonishing aberration of the law he has an ability to charge 1 per cent, 2 per cent as I suggest or 3 per cent as the Government may suggest on these properties. But for 1906—surely not.
  I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendments to Amendment No. 196 and recognise that they are tabled in the spirit of helpfulness, fine tuning the excellent Amendment No. 196.
  The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I associate myself with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I associate myself, too, with their thanks to the Minister for the work that he and his officials have undertaken in tabling the initial amendment. I am enormously impressed by the depth of the noble Earl's researches and his mastery of these matters. The issue

  417
  is of great seriousness to those immediately affected. My concern is for those in an area of Northamptonshire who have been in urgent touch with me as they have with the noble Earl.
  It is a matter of very real alarm to the people whom the noble Baroness and noble Earl described. I share the noble Earl's sense that the figure owing to the owners of the common land must be set as low as reasonably possible. I note his remarks on that aspect. I support the amendments and all that has been said. I underline how urgent it is for the amendment to be in place and for it to be tuned as finely as possible.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I express grateful thanks to the Minister and his team. The problem that has arisen is huge.
  I shall not go over the ground that other noble Lords have covered so carefully. Perhaps I may ask one or two questions. I speak to Amendment No. 196H which is grouped with the other amendments. It is a simple amendment compared with the other amendments. It requires that there should be affirmative resolutions by both Houses on this issue.
  Have the Government defined any amount of land which would be included? Is it the house and the immediate curtilage of the land or the garden? Alternatively, would it include acres of land? The provision refers to land. I was not sure how extensive they would be.
  Secondly, in many cases the problem has arisen because individuals are—rightly—entitled to charge for access over land. A good deal of pressure has been put on parishes and local authorities to apply charges under the best value regime. What is the Minister's guidance to them?
  Thirdly, I should like to ask about the regulations. Much of the outcome of our discussions will be built into regulations, which we shall not see before the Bill receives Royal Assent. The Minister has given us an indication of the Government's intentions, but I do not think that the final regulations will be written into the Bill before it passes. Any clarification that the Minister can give us would be very helpful.
  Other noble Lords have mentioned the National Trust and the Totteridge Trust, which has written to me. Will an individual be able to become a trust to get round the provisions that my noble friends are trying to protect? That is a slightly obscure question, but it is relevant. The issue is not about existing charitable trusts, but what might happen in future. We ought to put our minds to that.
  Again, I thank the Minister and I do not envy him the task of trying to pull this difficult problem together.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment No. 196H, which would ensure that regulations made under this complex new clause were promulgated under the affirmative resolution procedure, not the negative. I asked one
  418
  member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee whether it had considered the compensation provisions, which will be reserved to the regulations. He did not think that it had. It is fair to point out that the Committee was subjected to a heavy burden of work on the Bill, with many government amendments being tabled and many aspects relating to delegated legislation that had to be dealt with quickly. If ever any measure warranted the affirmative resolution procedure, those regulations will, in the absence of the compensation arrangements being specified in the Bill.
  I support what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said so well when speaking to his amendments, some of which were tabled jointly with my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford. Amendment No. 196AA would insert into subsection (1)(b) words that would not penalise those who had not acquired a full prescriptive right before the due date. Do the words "to keep in existence" in subsection (1)(b) mean the same as not to have abandoned the easement? I have given notice of some of my questions, but this one only occurred to me during the debate. If those words simply mean that someone who has not abandoned an easement will get a statutory easement, the noble Earl's concern is dealt with. However, if they mean something more proactive, he has a powerful point. The inestimable Gale says that the normal rule for easements is that once they have been obtained by prescription, they can be lost by abandonment only if something radical happens. He says:
  "The true rule would appear to be that mere non-use without more, however long, cannot amount to abandonment".
  There are any number of reasons why someone might not use the right of way for many years. For example, they might be ill, or even a recluse. The words "keep in existence" seem more proactive. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.
  Finally, I shall speak in favour of Amendment No. 196E. It may be a little exaggerated to suggest that denying proper compensation to those lords of the manor who have suddenly woken up to this wheeze could have implications under the Human Rights Act 1998. I cannot be absolutely sure, but I do not believe that the issues were considered when the Law of Property Act 1925 or the Road Traffic Act 1930 were introduced containing provisions that, many years later, it would be realised had created, by a side wind, a potential for ill-gotten gains by certain unscrupulous lords of the manor.
  Earl Peel: I think that the noble Lord is referring to the owner of the common rather than the lord of the manor. The two are separate.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I accept the noble Earl's point, although lords of the manor usually are the owners of the common, even if not always. In 1925 and 1930, there was no intention to deprive those in the process of acquiring such prescriptive rights of the rights of way that they had already long enjoyed. Most of those who have those rights will do extremely well

  419
  on the basis of the 2 per cent suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have expressed their gratitude for Amendment No. 196. I do so not on behalf of Ministers, but on behalf of officials, lawyers and parliamentary counsel, because they have done the real work. I shall try to deal with each amendment in turn and answer the additional points that have been made.
  Amendments Nos. 196A and 196C would insert the word "land". The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right that the Bill implies land and buildings, so no amendment is called for.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked how we defined the land area. It does not really matter very much. What is significant is access to the property. There is no limitation in the clause, but if we had to define it, I imagine that we would define it as the curtilage. That is the normal method.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, my concern was that the entry and perhaps 10, 15 or 25 acres from it might be included. Paying 3 per cent on that would come to a goodly sum. If the relevant area is only half an acre, it is another matter. Perhaps the Minister misunderstood me.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand. The noble Baroness is talking about the land area from the point of view of evaluation, not permission. That will certainly have to be dealt with in the regulations. I imagine that it will be a particularly difficult issue.
  Amendments Nos. 196B and 196E would reduce further the compensation payable by the property owner to the land owner. I have suggested that the regulations should provide for 1 per cent per property before 1930 and 3 per cent for later properties. Here, a figure of 2 per cent is suggested. That is lower than the figure which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, suggested in his amendment in Committee. Our intention is to create a fair balance between the landowner and the property owner. We listened carefully to the points made in Committee and noted the responses to the consultation letter which we issued last month. The result was the tiered system of 3 per cent or 1 per cent, and we believe that that is an appropriate balance.
  There is nothing magical about those figures. They are round figures. We are simply responding to the consultation. I do not feel inclined either to put a figure into the Bill or to go against the consultation which we have undertaken.
  With regard to Amendment No. 196D, I appreciate the wish to ensure that no property owner is faced with having to pay a large lump sum immediately. In response to the concerns which were expressed, we have already reduced the percentage compensation payments and propose that the regulations will provide for payment by instalments. To that extent, we
  420
  have dealt with the problem that the amendment would address. However, it would appear to be unfair to the owner of the common land to provide for a long delay before any payment was made, which is what the amendment seeks to do. Therefore, I hope that Amendment No. 196D will not be pressed.
  Amendments Nos. 196F and 196G appear to have been drafted with the intention of providing safeguards to the owner of the common land and the beneficiaries of charities. I sympathise with the objectives set out in the amendments with regard to charities. However, we believe that regulations would provide a better means by which to safeguard the position. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that when drafting the regulations we shall consider ways in which we can do that.
  I was asked whether individuals can turn themselves into a trust in order to receive special treatment. I am not convinced that the provision allows special treatment for charities, and I am not convinced that that would be worth while. However, if I am wrong, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
  I continue with Amendment No. 196F, which is a substantive amendment. With regard to paragraph (b), I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that it is intended that the statutory rights created under the scheme will be the same as those that would have arisen if the right had been acquired by prescription. I believe that that is the assurance she required.
  With regard to paragraph (c), there is nothing in the Bill, nor will there be anything in the regulations, that. will prevent the landowner using any compensation for the upkeep of the common. However, it is not our intention to provide for a lump sum compensation payment followed by an annual fee, which would or would not be put towards upkeep as the case may be.
  In relation to paragraph (d), I am not convinced that it would be appropriate to give the common landowner the ability to impose conditions on the statutory right over and above those imposed in the regulations. The rights that we intend to give to the access user are those that he would have enjoyed by prescription. I hope that I have covered the points that were raised.
  In relation to Amendment No. 196H, which seeks to insert the affirmative resolution procedure, I do not believe that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has put forward an explicit view that the negative resolution procedure is incorrect. If the committee were to say that the affirmative resolution procedure should be used, we would do so. However, I do not believe that the amendment is appropriate until the committee comes to such a conclusion.
  With regard to Amendment No. 196J, I can give the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the assurance that we fully appreciate the need to act quickly. We intend to bring forward the regulations as soon as we can. However, it is obvious from this debate that the issues are not straightforward, and I do not wish to make any commitments.

  421
  Amendment No. 196AA concerns what the noble Earl calls "modern lost grant" and what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, calls "lost modern grant". I prefer to call it "modern grant lost". I consider that to be much more elegiac and poetical. It would go with "paradise lost", and would not make any difference to the sense.
  As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, will have become aware in the course of his research, the law of prescription is very complex. He is right to point out that our amendment will not cover all the circumstances where prescriptive easements would have been obtained if driving had not been made a criminal offence. That will be the case in many instances, but neither would certain cases be covered by his amendment. Many people have paid for easements which otherwise they could have obtained through prescription.
  In putting forward this amendment, it was never our intention to do anything more than deal with a specific, acute problem. The problem which the Government seek to resolve concerns cases where a property owner has been driving to his home across common land unhindered and continuously for many years but is now faced with a large payment in obtaining the legal right to do so. That was the problem with which we were faced and which we have stuck to. If we widen the scope of the amendment, we run the risk of opening up many more access ways across common land that have not been used for many years. Behind that must be our desire to stop people driving across common land unless they have to. The amendments concern occasions when people must do SO.
  Amendment No. 196FA deals with the desire of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, to ensure that the government scheme takes special account of properties where vehicular access may have been in existence for many years. We accept that there is a case for a reduced compensation payment, and that is what we propose to put into the regulations. It represents a great deal less than the 9 per cent which some owners can currently expect to be asked to pay.
  It is now suggested that we should go even further and provide free easements for houses constructed before 1st January 1906 because such properties had been in existence 20 years before it became an offence to drive on common land and therefore a prescriptive right must have been acquired. I am not sure about that. I do not believe that many people living in properties next to common land in 1906 would have had cars. I believe that they would have used hand carts.
  The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, they would have had vehicles.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, very few of them would have had motor vehicles. I believe that if they were removing their chattels, like the Mayor of Casterbridge, they would have done so in a hand cart.
  422
  I do not believe it is at all certain that every house had a vehicular access which was used in a manner that would have acquired a prescriptive right before it became an offence to drive on common land. In 1926 it became necessary to prohibit driving on common land because motor vehicle ownership had spread sufficiently to make it a problem. Prescriptive rights may be claimed for a wide variety of uses and on various grounds. However, we are not aware of any other circumstances where evidence does not have to be produced to support claims for those rights. We accept that the problem of vehicular access over common land needs to be addressed. Our intention in the amendment is to create a fair balance between the aspirations of property owners and the rights of landowners.
  Perhaps I may turn briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
  The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I wonder whether, on reflection, he believes that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made some sense in his reference to wagons. Indeed, all sorts of people had vehicles with four wheels, not two, before the motor car came into existence. Such vehicles were pulled by horses. That type of argument has been put forward at other points during the passage of the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord was somewhat cavalier in his dismissal of the noble Earl's use of the words "wagon", "cart", "carriage" or whatever.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not dismissing it at all. I was attempting to reinforce it. I believe that during the period of 20 years between 1906 and 1926 a great deal of wheeled traffic would have been non-motorised. I do not believe that, even now, anyone will worry if a wagon or a hand cart is driven across common land, even if not for access to premises. That is not the problem. The problem is caused by people driving motor vehicles—mechanically-propelled vehicles—across common land. That is the type of access right which I do not believe was always in existence between 1906 and 1926.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I do not know whether I misunderstand the noble Lord. The law is very clear that there is a right of way for vehicular access. It does not matter what type of vehicle is in question, whether horse drawn or motor driven. I believe that there may be some misunderstanding about that.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I will not challenge the noble Lord on the law. Behind all this is our desire to stop motor vehicles driving on common land except where they have to. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked whether "to keep in existence" is the same as "abandoned". Statutory easements created under our scheme will follow the normal laws on prescription. They will not affect the law on abandonment.

  423
  As regards whether the 1925 and 1930 Acts did not intend to cause this problem, I do not think I can add to what I said about the tiered figure, which was the result of consultation. Concerning the other points raised with two officials by the noble Lord, I can confirm almost everything that he said. I do not believe that I need weary the House with that unless he wants me to.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I have not made the points yet. I thought it appropropriate to raise the points made with the officials at the end of the debate on the amendments and when we consider their resolution.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall try to cut that out because the noble Lord has already spoken on the amendment. When it is disposed of, I hope that we can return to Amendment No. 196 formally. So that none of us has an extra bite of the cherry, I shall deal with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised with my officials.
  I am happy to confirm his understanding on almost all points. The amendment will not confer a right of easement if the criteria set out in the amendment and regulations are not met. Therefore, it will not prevent owners of commons stopping unauthorised uses that do not meet with the requirements set out in the amendment and regulations. It will not interfere with the present law in relation to acquiesence, and/or estoppel. The intention of the amendment is to grant an easement in respect of the use enjoyed at the time of application.
  Should the use change, whether in the number of properties served or the route or nature of the surface, then the person who has the benefit of the easement could be regarded as acting unlawfully as they have acted beyond the terms and the owner of the common would be able to take appropriate action. As regards parking, the statutory easement will grant only those rights which would have been obtained by prescription so that it will permit parking only if that is already taking place.
  I return to the remark of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that these amendments are fine tuning of our original amendment. I am grateful for all of them. They have led to a constructive debate, but I hope that it will be possible to have them withdrawn and proceed to approval of the original amendment.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very thoughtful reply to the series of amendments which we put to him. I believe he is right; we have had a very constructive debate. As the noble Lord pointed out, the main problem we have faced is those people who thought they had right of way to drive to their own property only to discover that they were committing a crime in the process. The problem has created a very acute issue for some people. It is important that it should be dealt with as quickly as possible.
  424
  I am sorry that at this point we cannot be clear that regulations are going to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. But I hope that when this matter comes before the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee it will enable us to debate the regulations in this House.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the committee says that the measure should be considered by the affirmative resolution procedure, we shall provide for it. I believe that the noble Baroness will agree that it would be right for us to provide for it only on the first occasion and that subsequent amendments could be by the negative resolution procedure.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. There is so much that hangs on these regulations that it would be good if there were the opportunity for debate in the House. With that reservation, I withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment No. 196A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 196, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 196AA to 196J, as amendments to Amendment No. 196, not moved.]
  On Question, Amendment No. 196 agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Erection or improvement of stiles etc.]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 196K
  Page 43, line 34, at end insert—
  ("() In subsection (5) of that section, at the end there is inserted "or for the breeding or keeping of horses."").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 197:
  Page 45, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(4) In section 344 of the 1980 Act (application to Isles of Scilly) in subsection (2)(a) after "147," there is inserted "147ZA,".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment again dealing with the situation in the Isles of Scilly. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 198:
  After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

  MINOR AMENDMENTS TO HIGHWAYS ACT 1980
  (" .—(1) In section 66(3) of the 1980 Act (works for safeguarding persons using footpaths)—

  (a) after "footpath" there is inserted "or bridleway", and

  (b) after "barriers," there is inserted "posts,".

  (2) In section 134 of that Act, subsection (5) (which limits the persons who may bring proceedings for failure to restore a public path disturbed by ploughing etc.) is omitted.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 67 [Interpretation of Part II]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 199:
  Page 46, line 1, at end insert (", unless a contrary intention appears").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.55 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2000
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th November be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, following the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, these regulations seek to amend the Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) Regulations 1994 and also make some minor amendments to the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations, the Social Security (Credits) Regulations and the Social Security (Payments on Account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations. Amendments are being made to three principal areas: first, the amendment of the national insurance contribution conditions for new claims; secondly, the taking into account of occupational and personal pension income in excess of £85 a week for new claims from April 2001; and thirdly, the extension of incapacity benefit to long-term incapacitated young people aged 16 to 19 and in some circumstances those aged under 25. I must stress that all of our proposals apply only to new claims made after 6th April 2001 and that existing beneficiaries at the point of change will not be affected by the new measures.
I turn to contribution conditions. The Act amends the contribution conditions of IB so that only people who have paid contributions in one of the last three tax years prior to the claim will qualify. Nevertheless, we always recognised that there are situations where it is unreasonable to expect people to have worked and contributed in the last three tax years. The regulations therefore provide that carers who currently qualify for incapacity benefit after receiving invalid care allowance will be able to continue to do so on the same basis in the future as now; that is, through contributions paid in any tax year. I should emphasise that it will not be necessary for the person to have been working immediately before they started caring.
Special protection is being provided to people receiving disabled persons tax credit who earn below the lower earnings limit so that they can requalify for IB beyond the normal linking rules. People on DPTC already benefit from a special two year linking rule in IB which allows them to return to benefit at the same point as they left it. However, we recognise that such people could be disadvantaged if they stay in work for
426
more than two years, and consequently the regulations provide that a person in this position will be able to qualify for IB, as now, on the basis of contributions paid in any tax year, rather than one of the last three.
We have also said that there will be safeguards for people who leave IB and have to return to it before they have had sufficient time to rebuild their contribution record. That last group already receives protection as a result of the 52-week linking rule that we introduced in October 1998. However, to ensure that people will not lose out under the new contributions test the regulations provide for the relaxation of the new contribution test where someone had been on IB in the previous tax year prior to the claim.
I move now to the occupational and pension payment proposals. These regulations exempt severely disabled people in receipt of the highest rate care component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) from the abatement of incapacity benefit on account of pension payments.
We are also exempting from the abatement provisions three other forms of payment: individual permanent health insurance arranged by an employee; any permanent health insurance payment for which the employee has contributed more than 50 per cent to the premium; and any health insurance which is intended to cover treatment costs. We will take account of permanent health insurance only where an employer has arranged it and the contract of employment has ended with that employer—in other words, where it is, so to speak, in proxy for an occupational pension.
We also recognise that there will be circumstances in which it will not be appropriate for occupational and personal pensions to be taken into account. The regulations therefore provide for occupational and personal pensions not to be taken into account where the pension payments are in connection with the death of a member of a scheme or where an occupational pension scheme is in deficit or has insufficient resources to pay the full pension.
In earlier debates concerns were expressed that the notional income rules will force people to take their pension early. The notional income rule is intended to prevent a situation where someone deliberately chooses not to take up an income, or deprives himself of it, in order to gain access to or maximise an income-related benefit. I am pleased to announce that we shall not be taking notional income into account under the abatement provisions.
The regulations also provide details of how pension income cases are to be administered.
I turn next to the extension of 1B to persons incapacitated in youth. The Act extends I B to young people aged from 16 to 19 who were incapacitated in youth and are not able to meet the normal national insurance conditions because of illness or disability.
Following representations during the passage of the Act that our intention to extend the age cut off to 25 for people in higher education would not help certain young people with severe learning disability who are in

427
mainstream education beyond age 20, we decided to widen the concession to include people in any form of education or work-based training. I know that that further concession was very good news to and welcomed by Mencap. These regulations set out how a person aged above 20 but below 25 can be permitted to receive IB above the normal age cut-off of 20 years.
The prescribed conditions are that a person must have been registered for and attended a course of full-time advanced or secondary education or vocational or work-based training for at least three months before he reached the age of 20. The course must have ended no earlier than in one of the last two complete tax years before the year in which benefit is claimed. To give an example, if a person's course ended in May 2002, he could still claim IB under the youth provisions as late as December 2004 provided he is still aged under 25.
We were also asked to help those who take up employment and earn below the LEL for a lengthy period before becoming incapable again of work. These are people who want to do what work they can but who would not be able to do enough work to benefit from DPTC or the therapeutic work rules.
The regulations therefore enable people who leave incapacity benefit under the youth provisions for paid employment or training to requalify and do so for periods beyond the normal linking rules. People on disabled persons tax credit can return to IB at the same level as they left it if they become incapable of work within two years, provided they get DPTC for the week in which their contract ended.
However, we recognise that people who have worked for more than two years and had earnings below the LEL would not be able to qualify for IB under this rule. The regulations modify the rules to allow people entitled to IB under the youth provisions and who are aged 20 or over (or, where the education rules apply, aged 25 or over) to requalify for IB outside the normal linking rules where they left benefit for work if they left IB to work and have paid or been credited with contributions in both the preceding tax years and who have received DPTC in at least one week in the preceding tax year; or, if they have not received DPTC, they (i) left IB to work (ii) earned less than the LEL in the past three tax years and (iii) make a fresh claim for benefit within 56 days of leaving employment.
The regulations also protect people who return from abroad who were in receipt of benefit in the last tax year prior to the new claim.
Finally, the regulations automatically transfer, a year after the changes are introduced, those aged under 20 who were entitled to SDA at the point of change on to long-term IB. This will give this group of people access to long-term IB at the same time as persons incapacitated in youth who became entitled to short-term IB under the new entitlement conditions.
These regulations make a number of consequential amendments to other social security regulations which are all of a minor nature. Amendments are being made
428
to the claims and payments regulations, the credits regulations and the payments on account, overpayments and recovery regulations.
These regulations are entirely beneficial and enable a wide range of deserving groups to continue to receive incapacity benefit on the same grounds as now. I am sorry that they are so technical but to some extent they are amending existing regulations, which is why there is the elaborate insert. They ensure that special provision is made for those groups which the Government promised to help during the passage of the Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th November be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the House and for explaining them so fully this evening.
We, on these Benches, will not oppose them but I remind the Minister that these are part of what was a very controversial piece of legislation. We all—all five of us—remember the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act and I am sure that the Minister will not want to be reminded of the Back-Bench rebellion in both Houses.
This evening I give only one example of the controversial aspect of these regulations. They appear to be another attack on pensioners by increasing the means testing of those people who have saved hard for their retirement and they will simply discourage them from saving. The latest figures from the House of Commons Library show that under this Government's pensions policies, by 2003 between 55 per cent and 59 per cent of pensioners will be on means-tested benefits.
The Government claim that this is all part of their modernisation of welfare. Will the Minister confirm that before the regulations were finalised full consultation took place, particularly with the relevant interest charities? During the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, a number of my noble friends and I were contacted by a large number of charities with serious concerns about different aspects of the Bill. I have no doubt that the noble Earl was also contacted.
One organisation that we consulted widely during the passage of the Bill was the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I contacted that organisation this afternoon. Rather to its surprise, and to my surprise, it had received no contact from the Minister's department and has been given no opportunity to comment on the regulations. Does the Minister agree that that is just the sort of organisation which should have been consulted?
Earl Russell: My Lords, clearly, these regulations arise out of old battles. The Minister may be relieved to hear that I do not intend to revisit those old battles. She knows perfectly well what I think; I know perfectly well what she thinks. We need not go through that again. That is water under the bridge and there is quite

429
enough water coming downstream, both politically and literally, for us not to need to go chasing what has gone under the bridge.
However, it strikes me that we are dealing here with concessions which were made during the process of negotiation to get that Bill through. I do not believe that we often realise quite how much value there is in the process of political negotiation, compromise and concession. What has come out of it here is, as the Minister said, entirely beneficial. It is small but so are raindrops. Put them together and they get to be quite a lot. It is really quite an important process and when we are engaging in it, I do not believe that we always remember how important it is.
I am as happy about the drafting of the regulations. They are the most difficult regulations to understand since the first regulations that I dealt with on this Front Bench. I absolutely tore my hair out in relation to those. This time I relied on the Minister to give a clear, comprehensible explanation, which she did. I thank her for that. I wish the draftsman would follow her example.
I take the Minister's point about the acrostic quality of much regulation on social security matters, but I ask the Minister, or someone in her department, to look at the speech made on the last amendment to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in relation to the virtues of the Keeling schedule. That would make matters a great deal more intelligible for those who have to deal with them. Of course, the law is made for the public, who need to understand it as much as we do, and if we cannot understand it I wonder how on earth they can. If anything can be done to make the drafting of the regulations more intelligible it would help.
I also draw attention to one of my favourite drafting forms, the Humpty-Dumpty clause. Regulation 17(5) reads:
"A person who is 19 years of age or over shall not be treated for the purposes of Section 30A(2A)(e) of the Contributions and Benefits Act as receiving full-time education notwithstanding he is undergoing a full-time education".
That is a good example of the genre. I believe the regulation refers to the problems of finding the correct status of people who remain at school at the age of 19. I must declare an interest in having had a son in that position through the combination of a change of country and dyslexia. Now is not the time to develop that point. Nor is it time to develop the issue of intercalation with students. I hope that the department will consider both those matters in future.
I shall not repeat everything that the Minister has said, but on the general summary of the regulations we have concessions on contribution conditions and we have concessions linking the regulations with the 1998 concession on linking rules, for which I believe the Minister herself deserves a good deal of credit. I thank her for that. There is also the concession, for which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Rix, deserves credit, for people disabled in youth and the extension to people—for example, students—who are in no position to make contributions, those who are disabled between the ages
430
of 20 and 25. I believe that my honourable friend Mr Rendel deserves some credit for that. I thank both the Minister and him. When those regulations went through I seem to remember saying that I was being "Oliver Twist" in asking for more. Nevertheless, I am grateful for what we have. That is good.
On the disabled persons' tax credit, I am glad that the Minister grasped the mettle of the problem of contribution conditions for those who are below the lower earnings limit. Again, that is something for which I believe the House owes her some thanks. I have left the whole business of the Bill, but we should thank the Minister for small mercies, and there are quite a lot of them. I am glad to have them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for welcoming the regulations and for notifying me of two points that they wanted to raise so that I was able to check with officials that I understood them fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, made a general point on means testing. That was part of the debate that we had in the summer and the summer before that. As a result of the Government's policy, both in terms of the minimum income guarantee and pensioners' credit but, above all, the state second pension, the number of pensioners who otherwise would need to rely on means testing will be reduced. However, as the noble Lord must surely accept, a problem arises in that overall pensioner incomes have increased by 64 per cent—the top 20 per cent by 80 per cent and the bottom 20 per cent only by about 27 per cent—and therefore there is an increase in inequality. So if the same amount of money is given to all pensioners the differentials of inequality will be preserved, but if one seeks to target, as the Government are doing, by definition people's financial needs and resources have to be taken into account. The answer is targeting but we all have to seek to overcome the old stigma associated with the words "means testing" to ensure that people take up their entitlement as is there right and as of right. I am sure that we do not disagree on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, told me that he would raise the issue of consultation. Formally we do not have to consult because regulations issued within six months of the passing of the Bill do not need to go out to consultation, but as I believe I promised the House at the time, we consulted with the two leading organisations on disability involved in the regulations, Mencap and the Disability Alliance, the umbrella organisation for the full range of other disability organisations. Their concerns were of a technical and detailed nature and at no stage did they seek to challenge the principle of any of the regulations.
We also consulted ABI on pensions issues. I am not sure that NACAB would have been the appropriate body for these regulations. However, I believe that we would have taken heed if either Mencap or the Disability Alliance raised issues on which NACAB would have had an appropriate voice. As noble Lords have recognised, these are technical, detailed disability regulations and we consulted the leading disability organisations.

431
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, kindly gave me notice that he is concerned about what he pleasingly calls the "Humpty-Dumpty" quality of regulation 17(5). Normally if someone were in full time education they would not qualify for incapacity benefit. Therefore this regulation is needed to ensure that they can so qualify while in full-time education. As I say, full-time education is defined for the purpose of the regulation. It does not treat someone as being in full-time education if they are not, but it allows someone who is in full-time education to claim IB at the age of 19. Normally full-time education would exclude someone from incapacity benefit. That may cover a range of contingencies, so the noble Earl was correct. It is entirely a benefit provision. The fact that someone is in full-time education is not a bar to claiming IB, which otherwise would be the case.
Although many noble Lords were at odds as regards the main thrust of the Bill, I share with the noble Earl my appreciation for the constructive way in which we have been able to amend the original proposals in the Bill to ensure that small groups of people who, through no fault of their own, would otherwise fall through the cracks, have been given the protection to which they are entitled. I hope noble Lords will agree to accept the draft regulations so that they become substantive regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.18 p.m. to 8.55 p.m.]

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 199A:
Before Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
("Biological diversity

CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
.—(1) It is the duty of—

(a) any Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975),

(b) any Government department, and

(c) the National Assembly for Wales,

in carrying out his or its functions, to have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biological diversity in accordance with the Convention.
(2) The Secretary of State, as respects England, and the National Assembly for Wales, as respects Wales, shall each publish a list of, or lists which together comprise, the living organisms and types of habitat which in the opinion of the Secretary of State or the Assembly (as the case may be) are of principal importance for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1).
(3) Without prejudice to subsection (1), it is the duty of a listing authority to take, or to promote the taking by others of, such steps as appear to the authority to be reasonably practicable to further the conservation of the living organisms and types of habitat included in any list published by the authority under this section.
(4) Before publishing the list or lists required by subsection (2) the listing authority shall consult the appropriate conservation body as to the living organisms or types of habitat to be included in the list or lists.
(5) Each listing authority shall, in consultation with the appropriate conservation body—

(a) keep under review any list published by the authority under this section,

(b) make such revisions of any such list as appear to the authority to be appropriate, and

(c) publish any list so revised.

(6) A duty under this section to publish a list is a duty to publish it in such manner as the listing authority thinks fit.
(7) In this section—
"appropriate conservation body" means—

(a) as respects England, English Nature.

(b) as respects Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales;

"biological diversity" has the same meaning as in the Convention;
"conservation" in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, includes the restoration or enhancement of a population or habitat;
"the Convention" means the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992;
"habitat" has the same meaning as in the Convention;
"listing authority"—

(a) in relation to a list which the Secretary of State is required to publish under this section, means the Secretary of State;

(b) in relation to a list which the National Assembly for Wales is required to publish under this section, means the National Assembly for Wales.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I promised to bring forward a government amendment which would respond to the overwhelming support in the Chamber and in the other place for some statutory entrenchment of our biodiversity policy. We have given considerable thought as to how best to achieve that objective and Amendment No. 199A is our conclusion. I believe it to be a more comprehensive reflection of the implementation of biodiversity policy in England and Wales and also, for reasons which I shall explain, more technically satisfactory than Amendment No. 217 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I therefore hope that I can persuade her to withdraw her amendment in favour of the Government's. I shall deal with the amendments to my amendment once they have been moved.
The debates on this issue made it abundantly clear that there is a widespread concern that the conservation of biodiversity be addressed on a wider scale than solely in protected areas such as SSSIs. The Government totally agree with that. At present, it is undertaken as a matter of policy through the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.
That plan is a major expression of our obligations under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. But the convention sets a wide and comprehensive

433
framework, of which the Biodiversity Action Plan is only one part. The Government are firmly committed to the conservation of biological diversity and all the obligations which fall to it under the convention. That is why in subsection (1) of the amendment the Government have set their general duties—to have regard to the purpose of conserving biological diversity—in the context of the convention itself. I believe that that provides a firmer basis for the future development of biodiversity policy than the narrower emphasis contained in the alternative Amendment No. 217.
Nevertheless, we also fully recognise the central role that our implementation of the convention must attach to the conservation of those species and types of habitat for which we in this country have special responsibilities. Subsections (2) to (7) of Amendment No. 199A therefore focus on providing a flexible but clear statutory basis to the current process for dealing with species and habitats. While aiming to retain room for manoeuvre in setting future priorities, we are concerned to maintain the course and effectiveness of that current process. We have a very successful partnership approach, drawing in organisations across the statutory and non-statutory sectors. We do not wish this provision to result in the wholesale review of the current Biodiversity Action Plan priorities and processes.
In the light of that, we have framed the duty in subsection (3) to promote the taking by others of steps to further the conservation of the listed species and habitat types. We believe that this duty best reflects and sustains that partnership approach. The partnership of course includes other government departments and a very wide range of public bodies as well as conservation and land management NGOs and in some cases the private sector. Our amendment deliberately goes wider than Amendment No. 217.
Amendment No. 199A also reflects other valuable elements of the current process, such as the advice of the nature conservation agencies. We have also referred to "living organisms" rather than "species" which we understand to be more taxonomically correct because it can include lower plants and fungi and "habitat types" rather than "habitats" to avoid possible confusion with specific sites.
I therefore believe that our amendment is comprehensive and is to be preferred to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I shall listen to the debate on the amendments to my amendment. In the mean time, I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 199A, Amendment No. 199B:
Line 8, leave out ("have regard") and insert ("further and enhance").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Judd is attending the Council of Europe and is unable to be in his place this evening. My noble friend
434
has asked me on his behalf to move Amendment No. 199B and speak to Amendment No. 199C. We greatly welcome Amendment No. 199A and sincerely thank the Minister for tabling it. The amendment encompasses many of the matters for which we asked when we last debated this issue. We particularly welcome its emphasis on the obligation of the listing authority to ensure the conservation of living organisms and different types of habitat. We also welcome the proposal to consult appropriate bodies accordingly.
However, we believe that in one particular respect the amendment does not go far enough and is rather weak, and for that reason we have tabled Amendment No. 199B. We believe that this amendment strengthens the position and improves the new clause. It emphasises the need for Ministers of the Crown, government departments and the National Assembly for Wales to enhance and further, rather than merely to have regard to, their purpose in relation to conserving biological diversity in accordance with the convention. The amendment demands action and so strengthens the whole clause. I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on these small amendments which are intended to be supportive.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, in Committee I spoke briefly to this aspect of the Bill. I also thank the Minister for the very good amendment which has been tabled by the Government. I know that other noble Lords will also be grateful for it. I urge the Minister, however, to consider carefully the amendment moved by the noble Baroness which is intended to beef up the position. One can envisage a situation, perhaps not under this Government, in which a Minister of the Crown may not carry out his functions and is challenged in the courts. If he is asked to say whether he has had regard to these matters nothing can be simpler than for him to escape what we hope will be his obligations. If the clause read "to further and enhance", it might be rather more difficult for the Minister to escape, if he had failed to carry out his obligation. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, I hope that he will at least be able to give some guidance to assist someone who may at some stage wish to test the matter in the courts.
Earl Peel: I also very much welcome the amendment tabled by the Minister. I appreciate the difficulties which the Government faced in producing a balanced response to our debate in Committee on this important subject. The effects of the amendment will be particularly useful to conservation outside the designated areas; indeed, they may go some way to resolve the problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, concerning nature conservation in designated areas. As I said in Committee, I believe that the amendment will have a profound effect on the way that government ultimately think about management of the countryside. I am also convinced that as Ministers and government departments, who will be responsible for

435
implementing this legislation, come face to face with the realities, the inadequacies of the common agricultural policy will be brought into sharp focus, which can only be good. When we debated this matter in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, said that the financial implications of the amendment would not be very great. I suspect that they will be greater than the Government realise. The Government have made a brave move in tabling this amendment, which I and other noble Lords appreciate.
I have great sympathy for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. However, I am not sure that any government department would be in a position to further and enhance the objectives set out in the Government's amendment. It is perhaps asking too much of every government department statutorily to embrace that commitment. I welcome the Government's amendment and believe that it is a very accomplished response to our debate in Committee.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, although I should love to join the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in a spirited attack on the common agricultural policy, at this time of night I shall avoid doing so. I am delighted that the Government have tabled Amendment No. 199A and provided statutory support not only for the biodiversity action plan but the whole convention on biodiversity. The biodiversity action plan is a unique phenomenon in British public life in that it is an agreed set of priorities to which everyone signs up. I am glad that it will now be given some statutory underpinning.
The expression "to further and enhance" is interesting. I hesitate to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that no government department can further and enhance conservation. I can think of several departments, not least the Ministry of Defence, which own considerable land and can play a big role. I hope that I can encourage the noble Earl and the Minister to be ambitious. However, I am delighted to see in the Government's amendment not only statutory underpinning but also the statement that this is all about furthering conservation, not just having regard to it, and that the definition of "conservation" includes "restoration or enhancement". I hope that the whole House will support the amendment.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I go back to the observations of my noble friend Lord Peel. When the Government are expected to have knowledge of these matters they turn, naturally, to their official advice which comes from English Nature. They will not have problems in that regard. One would wish, however, to make a précis of the two amendments. In a way, Amendment No. 217 is much simpler for the man in the street to understand than Amendment No. 199A, particularly in relation to some of the technical stuff. Biodiversity means different things to many different people. If one looks for an indication of its meaning, one sees that in the new clause "biological diversity" is to have the same meaning as in the convention. If one looks up "the Convention", it means the United Nations Environmental Programme
436
Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992. But none of that is particularly helpful to the man in the street. It would have been to the advantage of the clause if the Government had simplified it and spelt out what they actually meant by "biodiversity", rather than leaving one to look up various Acts and conventions which are not on the face of the Bill.
I dare say that when the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament the Government will produce a document to elucidate and explain many of the issues in the Bill. This is one issue that needs further explanation.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, from the Cross Benches I welcome the Government's amendment No. 199A. It responds very well to what was discussed in Committee. I believe that the Government's formulation is quite satisfactory. It is important to have the statutory underpinning. It will not undermine the voluntary partnerships which exist already under the habitat and living organism, until tonight described as species action plans. The amendment responds extremely well to what is needed in the Bill.
Baroness Miller of Chithorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the amendment for the reasons noble Lords have stated. We welcome the widening of responsibility to include ordinary species and places, taking Part III beyond the concentration on SSSIs.
We recognise that this is a wider amendment than the one we tabled. When I first saw it, I had the reaction that the noble Lord, Lord Monro, has just expressed; it was so complicated that I did not fully understand and appreciate the degree to which it would be beneficial. Having unwrapped the meaning of it—I hope to an adequate degree—I am content that it meets the requirements we wanted to see met.
Although I understand the reasons behind the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I feel quite happy that the spirit—to further and enhance—is already encapsulated in the Government's amendments.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the amendment. I am delighted that support exists across the House. I have one question: can the Government give an estimate for the period of consultation referred to in this part of the Bill?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Government for their amendment. No one has spoken about my Amendment No. 217. I feel very sad, but we shall no doubt discuss that matter in a moment.
Noble Lords should be aware that our amendment was tabled before the government amendment. That is always a problem at the end of one stage and before the next stage starts. I thought that the joy of our amendment was that it was very simple and contained what was needed. However, I bow to the great support

437
that the Government have. I am more than happy to accept the Government's amendment. I do not have difficulty with that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who is not in his seat, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who, we knew, would not be able to attend tonight, for adding their names to Amendment No. 217.
In Committee, my original amendment No. 518 had much support from all sides of the House, and indeed from the Government. I am grateful. My amendment at that time was considered not perfect. I am even more grateful that the Minister has returned with something of which we are in favour.
Amendment No. 217 requires that, first, the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall establish and keep under review lists of priority species and priority habitats; and, secondly, that the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall take such measures where reasonable and practical to further the conservation and enhancement of the priority species and habitats. Thirdly, there is a duty to report on these matters from time to time. Fourthly—and perhaps most importantly at that stage—there is the requirement that every Minister of the Crown shall further the conservation and enhancement of the priority species and priority habitats listed under subsection (1).
I have one or two questions for the Minister. In subsection (1) of the Government's amendment, the words "to have regard" could be considered a little loose. I do not know if that was a deliberate choice of wording by the Government. But "to have regard" is not desperately direct. I should be grateful for the Minster's comments on that matter. My amendment refers to "further conserve and enhance".
In subsection (2), the phrase "of principle importance" is used, rather than the word "priority" which I have in my amendment. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that matter.
In subsection (3), the listing authority is either the Secretary of State for England or the National Assembly for Wales. As regards Wales, that is not a problem because the National Assembly has an overall responsibility for the countryside as well. But in England which Secretary of State will take the lead role? This point has already been referred to by other noble Lords. Will it be someone from MAFF, the DETR or the MoD? Presumably, someone will hold the lead responsibility. That is not clear in the amendment.
Subsection (5) requires the listing authority to consult the appropriate conservation body. While we all know about whom the Government are talking, I hope that farming organisations and non-government organisations, particularly the wildlife groups, will also be included in those discussions. As we said in Committee, for the United Kingdom to work well, it is essential for all of those who care for our countryside—whether the countryside provides their living or they simply wish to preserve and conserve our
438
countryside—to feel that they are included in the new arrangements. Other noble Lords have touched on that point. I wonder whether before Third Reading the Government might wish to consider an addition to the amendment should the Minister think it necessary. The main bulk of the amendment is perfectly all right.
Perhaps I may refer to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, about partnership. It is not just a government responsibility but involves drawing people together; and, of course, a very important matter is the money that goes with it.
Lastly—although I suspect that your Lordships will wonder where on earth Hazel is going when addressing the amendment—have the Government considered their position with regard to GMOs? Subsection (3) of the amendment requires the authority to,
"further the conservation of living organisms and types of habitat".
I know that they are not thinking in terms of GMOs, but has that point slipped through the net; and, if so, is there a view on it? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the support expressed for Amendment No. 199A. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others who supported Amendment No. 217 were trying to achieve the same purpose as the government amendment and went a long way towards it. I just think that my amendment is a little bit better and a little bit wider. But I appreciate that that represented the consensus of the previous discussion on the issue.
Perhaps I may deal, first, with the amendments and then with the questions. I appreciate the intention behind introducing the word "further" in one context and "enhance" in the other. As far as concerns "enhance", as the clause is structured it would be tautologous. Subsection (7) of the amendment specifically defines conservation to include not only enhancement but also restoration. It therefore includes the concept of enhancement and goes beyond it as part of the general definition of conservation. The provision thus achieves what is intended in that respect.
In relation to "have regard" as distinct from "further" when we refer to all government departments and the other bodies referred to in subsection (1), partly for the reasons given by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, it is difficult to see how all public bodies could have as a responsibility "the furthering" in relation to their other prime responsibilities, but in pursuing those prime responsibilities they have to have regard not just to biodiversity—in other words, as a minimising impact—but to the purpose of biodiversity conservation. That is not a weak formulation. There will be lead departments. But all other bodies will have the responsibility to have regard in pursuit of their other objectives to the purpose of biodiversity conservation. In that context, the duty to have regard is more appropriate and should encourage the drawing

439
in of a wider range of functions which can be delivered so that biodiversity is "mainstreamed" into other government policies in that respect.
I was asked various questions. My noble friend Lord Hardy and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the nature of consultation. The primary consultation will be with the nature conservation agencies, but there will be a fuller opportunity through the UK biodiversity group for consultation with other interests. Those would include agriculture. I cannot give details of the precise timing of that consultation because it would depend on the circumstances. However, that sets out how the consultation would be conducted.
In terms of lead responsibilities, as the noble Baroness pointed out, they are clear in relation to Wales. In relation to England, as is the case with all legislation, we have used the term "Secretary of State". In almost all circumstances this would mean that the Secretary of State for the Environment would be the lead Secretary of State but obviously in full consultation with other Ministers.
Nothing sinister should be read into the reference to "principal importance" rather than "principal priorities". The word "priorities" rather suggests that we would have a list to work through, whereas matters of "principal importance" comprise those which should he treated according to their status in terms of conservation needs. That is the only nuance intended here and I believe that the term "principal importance" is more appropriate here.
As regards the issues of money, my noble friend Lord Hardy, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, all referred to resources and the burdens that would be put on to the statutory bodies. This clause will not of itself impose new burdens because the policy to which we are already committed in relation to our support of the convention ought in any case to be pursued by the bodies. It merely makes explicit their duty to do so under the terms of the clause. Considerable sums of money are already being spent by the department, by MAFF and by other agencies such as English Nature, the Forestry Commission and so forth. The commitment does not of itself create further burdens of expenditure; it merely prioritises the duties that should in any case be carried out.
At the end of her remarks the noble Baroness raised the question of GMOs. I had hoped that we would progress all the way through the Bill without entering into this area. I believe that the notion of being obliged to include GMOs in this clause is a little far-fetched. The clause requires the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to compile lists in light of the purposes of conservation of biodiversity as interpreted within the terms of the convention, with discretion as to which of those organisms are of principal importance. At this time it is difficult to contemplate how GMOs could fall within that category. For that reason, the concerns expressed as regards GMOs in this context are probably rather misplaced. We have referred to "living organisms"
440
instead of species and that was not intended to incorporate species which are yet to be created I hope that the general understanding of the convention in this area would not include GMOs; indeed, nothing in the wording of the clause suggests that they should be included.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I was not trying to be mischievous. The phraseology suggested that the matter should be raised. Indeed, I was merely seeking clarification rather than the inclusion of GMOs under the clause.
Perhaps I may ask one question. First, as regards costings, has his department given thought to the kind of costings likely to be involved now or which are anticipated in the future or is this a little like a ball of string—unquantifiable?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the costings involved in carrying out our duties under the convention, which have now been crystallised under the terms of the Bill, are included within the forward plans of the department under various headings, as well as under MAFF and certain other departments. They have been included in the current CSR figures.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for rising again. We have no idea of the costs involved here. Surely the Minister can provide an estimate of what kind of figures are being contemplated here.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may consult on the question and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation. In the light of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 199B, as an amendment Amendment No. 199A, by leave withdrawn.]
[Amendment No. 199C, as an amendment to Amendment No. 199A, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 199A agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 200:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—

PROTECTION OF SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
(" .—(1) English Nature, with respect to England, and the Countryside Council for Wales, with respect to Wales, may make byelaws for the protection of all or part of a site of special scientific interest (and may make different provisions for different parts thereof) under section 20 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (byelaws for the protection of nature reserves).
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), byelaws under that section as it applies by virtue of this section. May—

(a) prohibit or restrict the entry into, or movement within, the site of persons, vehicles, boats and animals;

(b) prohibit or restrict—

(i) the killing, taking, molesting or disturbance of living creatures of any description in the site;

(ii) the taking, destruction or disturbance of eggs of any such creature;

(iii) the taking of, or interference with, vegetation of any description in the site; or

(iv) the doing of anything in the site which will interfere with the soil or damage any object in the site;

(c) prohibit the deposition of rubbish and the leaving of litter in the site; and

(d) prohibit or restrict, or provide for the prohibiting or restricting, the lighting of fires in the site or the doing of anything likely to cause a fire in the site.

(3) Byelaws made under section 20 of the 1949 Act may prohibit or restrict any activity referred to in subsection (2) within such area surrounding or adjoining the site as appears reasonable for the protection of the site.
(4) Byelaws made under section 20 of the 1949 Act may provide for the issue, on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the byelaws, or permits authorising—

(a) entry into the site or any such surrounding or adjoining areas as mentioned in subsection (3), or

(b) the doing of anything within the site, or any such surrounding or adjoining area, where such entry, or doing that thing, would otherwise be unlawful under the byelaws.

(5) Byelaws made under section 20 of the 1949 Act as it applies by virtue of subsection (1) shall not interfere with—

(a) the exercise by any person of a right vested in him as owner, lessee or occupier of land within the site of special scientific interest, or in any such surrounding or adjoining area as is mentioned in subsection (3);

(b) the exercise of any public right or way; or

(c) the exercise of any functions of a section 28G authority.

(6) Where the exercise of any right vested in a person, whether by reason of his being entitled to any interest in land or by virtue of a licence or agreement, is prevented or hindered by the coming into operation byelaws made under section 20 of the 1949 Act as it applies by virtue of subsection (1), he shall be entitled to receive from English Nature, with respect to England, or the Countryside Council for Wales, with respect to Wales, compensation thereof.
(7) If any person without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie on him) contravenes any byelaw made under section 20 of the 1949 Act as it applies by virtue of subsection (1), he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence, level 1 on the standard scale; in the case of a second offence, level 2 on the standard scale and in the case of a third and subsequent offence, level 3 on the standard scale.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the moment there is nothing on the face of the Bill to replace the Section 29 orders that the Bill removes. Therefore SSSIs which are not part of a national nature reserve nor part of internationally important sites are left without any effective protection against a particular threat. That is why we have brought forward Amendment No. 200. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has sent me a note to say that I may speak strongly on his behalf—although I would never presume to speak as strongly as the noble Lord.
Since I tabled the amendment, the Government have brought forward Amendments Nos. 210 and 211. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about those. Contrary to the previous group of amendments, the government amendments—which cover the same issue—are much shorter than ours. I welcome that. I hope that the government amendments will cover the gap left in the Bill, which would make the less important SSSIs—if one can call them that—vulnerable and without protection in case of need. I beg to move.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Baroness said about SSSIs. However, I wonder whether she is not going far too far with her amendment, bearing in mind the powers already available in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Some of us who sat on the committee—including the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath—remember 26 sittings in another place dealing with the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, with particular reference to SSSIs from Section 28 onwards which gave immense powers to English Nature and the Scottish Nature Conservancy Council, subsequently SNH. I am fortunate to have been on both sides because, after being involved in taking the Act through another place, I was for nine years a member of the council implementing it.
One can see the great value of the SSSI system. One's only worry is that English Nature already has immense powers, and, of course, conversely in Wales and Scotland. I often feel that we are going rather further than the Act, particularly in regard to the extension of the SSSIs and the action that could be taken against a potentially damaging operation.
There was a very good article in The Times on 4th November by Magnus Linklater—whose wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, is not in her place who writes extremely well. The article refers to Scotland but the same impact could occur here with English Nature. The article states:
"Later this month five vast areas of rural Scotland, totalling some 200,000 acres of hill and moor, are to be designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The aim is to preserve not people, but wild birds; or, to be precise, one particular species of wild bird—the hen harrier".
and so on.
When we drew up the 1981 Act, we did not anticipate SSSIs of such enormous size. Even in my day on the NCC, there were moves to make large tracts of the Pennines into SSSIs. I do not think that that was the original intention; it was for much smaller, concentrated areas which could be managed more simply. When one sees SSSIs of 200,000 acres, one begins to wonder whether one is not merely nationalising land and preventing hard-pressed farmers from carrying out a great many operations that they would like to carry out and which would cause no harm at all.
When one has an SSSI, there are probably 15 or 20 matters on which one has to obtain permission before any action can be taken in terms of agricultural

443
operation. Therefore, we must be very careful about giving greater powers to English Nature as regards its control of SSSIs, as the new clause seeks to do. We should move forward with great caution. The vast majority of people who are responsible for SSSIs, whether owners or tenants, look after them extremely well. They will not welcome further draconian powers being given to English Nature which will make it even more difficult for them to fulfil their duties. When people are hard-pressed financially, it is particularly difficult for them to enhance SSSIs or indeed the habitat of a farm, which can only come out of the profits, which at present are minimal or not there.
So, while I appreciate the wish behind the amendment, we should be very careful about increasing the powers that relate to SSSIs through English Nature and ultimately through the Minister responsible for rural affairs. I merely suggest a note of caution. We should not rush into this without careful thought. The powers are there, and we do not want to see them extended.
9.30 p.m
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of English Nature. Perhaps I may take issue with a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monro. My experience, based on conversations that I have had with upland farmers, is that they are absolutely delighted if their land is designated an SSSI, because it is one of the few ways in which they can get additional income into their pockets as a result of management agreements on SSSI land at a time when they are indeed hard-pressed for funds. I am delighted to see that many farmers, both in the uplands and the lowlands, see conservation money as a useful adjunct to their income in these difficult times.
I also wish that it were possible to designate great tracts of the uplands of England for hen harriers. Alas, owing to illegal persecution in a quite shameful way, we are now down to fewer than 20 pairs of hen harriers in England. I support government Amendments Nos. 210, 211, 219 and 220. Bylaws can already be enacted on European sites and on national nature reserves. The amendments simply extend the provision to all SSSIs. It is much easier to prove infringement of by-laws than it is to prove damage to SSSIs. It adds a means of prevention rather than shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. I strongly support these amendments.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 210 in principle. However, the words of my noble friend Lord Monro need to be heeded. Much of what he says is right. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, says about how much farmers welcome the additional income that comes on the back of an SSSI designation, that is not the original purpose of the designation; it is a by-product. Welcome though it may be, we need to be very careful that these designations do not get out of hand or become too draconian, and that they do not impose too much on the ability of people who own land to manage that
444
land. There is a delicate balance, but there is a danger that in certain circumstances we may be going a little bit too far.
In regard to Amendment No. 210, the noble Lord, Lord Monro, is right in his reference to the Pennines. Large areas of the Pennines have been designed as SSSIs. I see this amendment, which would allow English Nature to make by-laws, as a possible advantage, especially as regards dealing with some of the abuses under the access provisions of the Bill that we failed to address at an earlier stage. Again, I suspect that that may be a by-product, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response as to whether or not such by-laws could be used in cases where, for example, people disregard Schedule 2 and Chapter 2 in Part I of the Bill. That may be one way of dealing with those abuses, albeit in a rather round-about fashion. Can the Minister give us an assurance that such bylaws will not impinge on the rights of owners and occupiers of this land? May I also assume that those owners and occupiers will be consulted before any such by-laws are introduced?
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I, too, support the government amendment. I have reservations about Amendment No. 200 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but it does have one advantage in that it spells out a concern that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has just put into words. In subsection (5) of the amendment, the by-laws specifically,
"shall not interfere with … the exercise by any person of a right. vested in him as owner, lessee or occupier of land within the site of special scientific interest, or in any such surrounding or adjoining area as is mentioned in subsection (3)"—
and, indeed, shall not interfere with either,
"the exercise of any public right or way; or … the exercise of any functions of a section 28G authority".
Those matters are not spelt out specifically in the Government's amendment. I, too, should be glad if my noble friend the Minister could give us some undertaking that it is intended that those who own, occupy or lease land shall have some safeguards, and that they shall be properly consulted before such powers are exercised.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, much reference has already been made to government Amendment No. 210. The other amendments in this group are consequential upon it. Our amendment has the same objective as the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 200. However, I inevitably consider our amendment to be slightly better in one substantive respect; namely, that it is more focused than Amendment No. 200.
Having considered our earlier discussions in Committee and the issue of damage by persons other than owners and occupiers, we have been persuaded that there may indeed be circumstances where activities, which may well fall outside the general offence in 28P(6) of intentionally or recklessly damaging an SSSI, may nevertheless need to be curtailed. This amendment would enable the agencies to tackle situations and control activities that may be

445
causing minor amounts of damage, but which, if carried out repeatedly or by a large number of people, would cause serious damage to the SSSI.
By-laws may well prove effective in many such circumstances. We believe that it would be appropriate to apply, with appropriate adaptations, the conservation agencies' existing by-law-making powers in relation to national nature reserves, so as to enable them to make by-laws for the protection of all, or part, of an SSSI. I refer back to the discussion that we had when we dealt with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu regarding the access position. Although by-laws may not interfere with the basic rights of owners or with the use of public rights of way, they may otherwise enable the agency to prevent or restrict movement within an SSSI. Therefore, by imposing restrictions via by-laws, some of the potential abuses to which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred in earlier debates would be tackled. I indicated at that stage that that was one of the ways in which such problems could be addressed later in the Bill.
One facility under the by-laws which may be particularly useful would be the power for the agencies to issue consents authorising activities that would otherwise be illegal under the by-laws. That would enable the agencies to permit sustainable levels of activity—for example, the diversification issues to which reference has been made—at particular times. However, we do not need a specific provision in this Bill because the powers of the agencies are included under Section 20(2) of the 1949 Act.
We also consider that the agencies should not seek to make by-laws without taking the views of those with an interest in the land. I hope that that reassures the noble Earl, Lord Peel, on the consultation aspect.
One difference between the amendment of the noble Baroness and mine is that my amendments contain only a limited power for by-laws to go wider than the SSSI itself in Section 20(2)(g) of the 1949 Act (which enables by-laws to restrict the shooting of birds where this is required to protect the SSSI). However, the noble Baroness's amendment goes further than that. We do not consider that appropriate, partly for the reasons adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Monro. We do not consider it appropriate to provide the agencies with unlimited powers to make by-laws on areas adjoining or adjacent to SSSIs. Although such a provision has been included with respect to by-laws on European sites, so far as we are aware no circumstances have arisen where the powers have been used. Where problems arise on an SSSIas a consequence of lawful activities on adjoining land, I anticipate that the agencies will need to negotiate with the owners and occupiers of the land rather than have powers to impose by-laws on land which is not part of the SSSI. If necessary, they could use the Section 15 powers of the Countryside Act 1968 to offer a management agreement, for example.
I think that that is a better way to deal with adjoining landowners than to extend the SSSI powers into those areas. That is the only substantive difference
446
between the noble Baroness's amendment and mine. I believe that we are both attempting to achieve the same objective.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in response to a question of my noble friend Lord Peel he said that the Government would consult with landowners and others. However, that does not appear to be included in the amendment. While the noble Lord considers that point I turn to the noble Baroness's amendment. It is difficult to try to tackle such a wide range of matters. However, I seek to clarify two points.
Subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 200 refers to prohibiting or restricting,
"the killing, taking, molesting or disturbance of living creatures of any description in the site".
The control of squirrels or rabbits would fall foul of that provision. I suspect that that may constitute a problem. We have discussed the provision in subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause at several stages of the Bill. It seeks to prohibit,
"the deposition of rubbish and the leaving of litter in the site".
I believe that that provision is included elsewhere in the Bill. I seek clarification on that point either from the Minister or from the noble Baroness. However, I hope that it is already included. I should be worried if that were not the case. I am worried that, because of the lack of rural police, landowners, occupiers or land managers might be obliged to enforce these provisions. I thought that we had sought to avoid confrontation between visitors and those who work on and manage the land.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I emphasise again that my amendment does not seek to duplicate anything in the 1981 Act. Section 29 of that Act, which enables nature conservation orders to be made, is repealed by the Bill. My amendment does not seek to address a new area but rather a gap that arises through the repeal of Section 29. I hope that that answers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and to some extent the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on rural police. The order-making powers would also have required enforcement.
I accept the noble Baroness's point about litter. I am not sure that rubbish falls within quite the same definition, but that is a small point. Subsection (2)(b)(i) refers to prohibiting or restricting,
"the killing, taking, molesting or disturbance of living creatures".
The control of pests would be covered by subsection (5)(a).
I am pleased that the Government have brought forward their own amendment to cover the gap left by the repeal of the Section 29 orders. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Schedule 9 [Sites of special scientific interest]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 200A:
Page 114, line 16, at end insert—
("() In any of the circumstances referred to in subsections (1) and (2), the Council shall consider alternative options for securing the conservation of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features of the site, and shall discuss any such options with the persons referred to in subsections (1) and (2).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak to Amendment No. 200B. As the Bill is drafted, it appears that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales could simply refuse consent for an operation notified to them and walk away from the issue. Such a strategy could potentially damage any possibility of developing a positive relationship with the owner or occupier. A disgruntled occupier could feel left in limbo.
Accordingly, it is important that at the same time that English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales refuse, withdraw or modify a consent they also consider alternative options for conserving the special interest of the site and discuss these options with the owner or occupier.
The options could include doing nothing, seeking a mutually agreed grazier—for example, where the occupier no longer keeps livestock—or offering a management agreement to secure positive management. It is to be hoped that through such consideration and dialogue a positive working partnership can be established between the parties.
I turn to Amendment No. 200B. It is important that proper consideration is given to the interests of agriculture and forestry and economic and social interests by whoever is appointed to hear appeals. Under Section 28G any person who hears appeals will be bound by the requirement to,
"further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest".
That duty must be counterbalanced by a duty to take account of the interests of those bringing appeals, which will often relate to agriculture, forestry or economic or social matters. If the conservation and enhancement duty is not effectively balanced, anyone making an appeal is likely to feel that the cards are stacked against them.
The amendment, which draws on the duty placed on English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales by Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, provides for the necessary balance. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support both amendments. On Amendment No. 200A, it would be unfortunate if the conservation authorities simply dismissed a consent from an owner or occupier without seriously considering an alternative option. I have no doubt that in most cases this will be considered. I can only speak from my experience when dealing with the regional officers of English Nature. They are extremely reasonable. I have no doubt that in most cases such an option will be considered. However, we have a duty to
448
legislate for the unlikely. It is also important that owners and occupiers feel confident that the system is fair. It is unlikely that they will consider such art option unless it is a serious matter. We owe it to them to make the system fair and equitable.
On Amendment No. 200B, I understand that an owner or occupier who has been refused a consent under new Section 28F in Schedule 9 or who is aggrieved by the conditions attached to that consent may appeal to the Secretary of State. That seems fair and proper. However, as my noble friend pointed out, whoever is appointed to hear such appeals is bound under Section 28G,
"to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest".
That is fine. I have no problems with that concept. However, coming back to fairness and reasonableness, whoever is responsible for hearing the appeal should have due regard for local economic and social needs. The terminology in the amendment appears in many Acts of Parliament, so there is already a precedent for it.
The words "due regard" hardly compete with the words,
"to further the conservation and enhancement of".
The amendments would not seriously erode the principles behind the Bill. However, they would bring some reality to the decision-making process. As I said on the previous amendment, if an owner or occupier goes to the trouble of seeking a consent under Section 28F, he will have a good reason for doing so. It is only right and proper that his considerations should he given a fair hearing, alongside the obligations that the Bill places on the person conducting the hearing.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hope to be able to convince the noble Baroness that the amendments are unnecessary. Like her, we would prefer a partnership approach. When a landowner or occupier applies for a consent, he will already have before him the notification, which explains what is special about the land and what operations are likely to damage the special interests. He may also have the agency's statement of views on the management of the land. He should have approached the agency to discuss his plans and explore the options before making the application for consent. Even if he has not, there is still an opportunity for discussion should consent be refused or granted with onerous conditions that the owner or occupier is not happy with. That is why the provisions for making an appeal allow the agency and the owner or occupier to agree to extend the time limit.
There is plenty of scope for looking at the options. However, it is not appropriate to put the onus entirely on the conservation agency to come up with alternatives. Clearly, it would need to be prepared to discuss the options with the owner or occupier.
The code of guidance to the agencies, on which we are consulting, promotes positive partnerships and pre-application discussions. The consideration of

449
alternatives will also be very helpful. English Nature will then be in a position to suggest ways of making the operation acceptable.
However, there is no need to specify that informal process in the Bill. Each case is different. Alternative ways of carrying out the proposed operation, potential enterprises or suitable conservation options will vary widely. The agency should not be forced to consider alternatives only when an owner or occupier is seeking to carry out operations listed on the notification as likely to damage the special interest features of the site. It would also be impractical to burden the agency with such a general duty. The requirements to consider alternatives are built into the guidance under the Bill. The amendment would place too rigid a formulation on the agency.
As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, the phraseology of Amendment No. 200B is already contained in earlier Acts. When considering appeals, the Secretary of State will have regard to the requirements of Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, which states that in the exercise of their functions under that Act, the 1949 Act and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,
"it shall be the duty of every Minister … to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas".
As the appeals under this provision would come under the 1981 Act, as amended by this Bill, that duty will already apply. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful for that latter clarification. Before I finally withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. He mentioned the code of guidance. Is that already covered in the Bill or will it be dealt with later? I was not aware of it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can point to the provision in the Bill under which it comes. However, we are currently consulting on the draft paper. If it is not in the Library, it probably should be, and I shall ensure that the noble Baroness receives a copy of it before Third Reading.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord—not for more reading but for his response. It worried me that, as we go through the Bill, we keep discussing matters which, we are told, we shall come to but which are not relevant at present. However, if the Minister says that the code of guidance is being dealt with, I shall certainly have a look at it. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 200B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 201 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 201A:
Page 115, line 39, at end insert—
("() Where the Council does not assent to the proposed operation or assents to the proposed operation but with conditions, any dispute between the Council and a statutory undertaker shall be determined by a person appointed for the purpose

(a) by an agreement between the Council and the section 28G authority; or

(b) failing such an agreement, by the Secretary of State,

and on any such reference the person so appointed may confirm the decision of the Council or give the section 28G authority such directions as he thinks appropriate.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment returns to the problem that we had in Committee in relation to a disagreement between the conservation bodies under the Section 28G authority about an operation likely to damage an SSSI. Our amendment would allow either party formally to seek the view of the Secretary of State before the operation proceeded.
In Committee, I tabled an amendment which sought to use the planning process to resolve the issue. However, given my explanation and the reply from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I was persuaded that that was perhaps not the correct route to take. But I believed that the principle was worthy of pursuit. Therefore, in tabling this amendment I suggest the simpler route of an appeal to the Secretary of State.
If we leave the Bill as it is, there will be no mechanism to ensure a satisfactory outcome. English Nature's briefing on this amendment states that it believes that,
"whilst such a provision would be useful it is not necessary to add it to the face of the Bill itself, as enshrining it in statute may constrain attempts to reach a mutually acceptable solution".
I fully accept that. However, if an acceptable solution was not reached, the problem would remain.
English Nature goes on to say that, although it supports the principle, it believes that,
"this useful provision would be better incorporated into the Code of Guidance Ministers are preparing, which already provides explicit guidance for statutory authorities in paragraph 60".
English Nature states:
"Ministers expect that all public bodies, in deciding to go ahead against English Nature's advice, will clearly demonstrate how they have weighed the balance between differing interests".
The question that I must return to is: what if those bodies have not satisfactorily demonstrated how they have weighed the balance? Will the matter then be left in stalemate? English Nature may decide that it can appeal directly to the Minister. However, could the Section 28G authority appeal in the same way? Although such cases may not be frequent, I believe that when they occur they are likely to be difficult. Without a clear mechanism, they are likely to waste public time and money in a resolution that could, if our amendment were followed, be resolved easily. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of

451
Chilthorne Domer, for pursuing this issue with dogged determination. It would, indeed, be a serious issue if the statutory conservation body under the Section 28G authority failed to agree a proposed operation where the advice of the statutory conservation body was that the operation would damage the SSSI. I believe that it would be a serious issue for two reasons.
First, under this provision the statutory undertakers will have much broader responsibilities than they have ever had before. That will include responsibilities outside SSSIs that would have an impact on SSSIs. So these are entirely new circumstances and statutory undertakers will have no experience of them. Therefore, it is easier to see that their judgment could be wrong and they might plough on regardless of advice.
The second point I raise makes it an even more serious issue. The provision extends the duty to make that judgment to many more statutory undertakers than in the past. I say many more, but I probably mean many, many more. Can the Minister give a definite number of these statutory undertakers? I suspect that he cannot because I believe the reality is that no-one knows how many statutory undertakers there are. I know there are at least hundreds because they include the local authorities and the internal drainage boards. Possibly there could be several thousand of these statutory undertakers who, for the first time, have the responsibility of making a decision whether to damage an SSSI or not. I believe that any of this plethora of inexperienced undertakers could quite simply make a wrong decision.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly pointed out, the statutory consultation agency could refer to the Minister or ultimately seek a judicial review. But the Bill gives only 21 or 28 days in which to resolve a dispute and then the statutory undertaker can go ahead.
One might also say that the requirement in the Bill for Section 28G authorities to restore damage afterwards might act as a deterrent to them making rash decisions. But it might not. In many cases, once an SSSI is damaged restoration is not possible. I believe that the spirit of Amendment No. 201A provides a clear and more positive way of resolving these potentially highly damaging and rather unpredictable disputes. If it is not on the face of the Bill, perhaps I may at least press the Minister to give an undertaking that this provision will be clearly outlined in the code of guidance.
10 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I was slightly disturbed to hear her say that once an SSSI is damaged it is almost irreparable. That would be of great concern because around the countryside a great deal of quarrying is taking place on SSSI land. The quarry owners put the
452
sites back together and they become wonderful SSSI sites. Did the noble Baroness really mean what she said?
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness seeking guidance on this matter. Many habitats are pretty robust and one can do all kinds of things to them and they will eventually recover. But there are some which are so delicate that, if they are damaged, they either do not recover or recovery takes many, many years. It would be unfortunate if a statutory undertaker, simply through lack of experience, were to carry on regardless of that effect.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one understands that there may be disputes in this area, although they would be few and far between. I do not believe that the noble Baroness's amendment deals with the matter in the appropriate way, which is to try to ensure that where such works are carried out they take place either with agreement or with provisions for effective restoration. Bearing in mind what my noble friend Lady Young said, there may be problems in that area and lid I restoration must meet the statutory requirements.
However, we are setting up a whole new structure of arbitration here. The amendment would potentially permit an arbitrator to enforce a decision on a public body even though the public body was carrying out an operation which it was statutorily required to do through the public body's own legislation. The amendment would not impose any time limit on the arbitrator in determining the dispute; nor would it provide any direction as to what criteria the arbitrator should apply.
The effect of such an unfettered process of dispute resolution could result in a complete block on public bodies carrying out their work. In many cases the work of these public bodies on drainage and so forth could be absolutely essential for both the conservation area itself and the wider interests of farmers and others within that area.
Safeguards are already built into the Bill. The starting point is the overarching duty in Section 28G(2). Where a public body proposes to carry out an operation which is likely to damage an SSSI, we have provided for notice to be given. Where a public body has not received assent to proposed operations, that body must nevertheless give 28 days' notice.
Paragraph 60 of the code of guidance already makes clear that Ministers will expect all public bodies, in deciding to go ahead against English Nature's advice, to demonstrate clearly how they have weighed the balance between differing interests. The 28-day period allows the conservation agency to consider whether it wishes to take any further action—for example, raising the matter with Ministers or the courts in some circumstances, who may determine whether or not to seek to dissuade the public body from proceeding. In certain circumstances, there may already be formal powers for the Secretary of State to intervene but, in general, that will not be the case.

453
Further safeguards exist in that, even after the procedures in Section 28H(4) and (5) have been gone through, the work must be carried out so as to cause as little damage as is reasonably practicable.
It is likely that many of the activities carried out by public bodies could constitute development, being consents granted under their own enabling legislation. In exceptional circumstances, a local planning authority, for example, may consider that planning control should apply to permitted development. It is open to the local planning authority to consider whether to pursue the matter by making a direction under Article 4 of the general development order, which can potentially remove the particular development right and require an application for planning permission.
Where the operation does not benefit from permitted development rights or consents granted by the public body, the public body will be subject to normal planning control and will have to submit a planning application. There are arrangements under Part IV of DoE Circular 18/84 to ensure that Crown bodies which are presently immune from planning control are also affected in that way. If the local planning authority objects to the proposal and the objections cannot be resolved through negotiation, the Crown body must refer the proposal to the Secretary of State for his determination. So in that context, there is effectively an in-built appeals procedure.
In most cases one would hope that the public body and English Nature would reach agreement. Where they do not, there is a time period for English Nature and the Welsh equivalent to decide how to take that further. To build in a new arbitration system with what are fairly draconian powers over public bodies which have been entrusted with other responsibilities different from those covered by this Bill is the wrong approach. I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, there is something of an illusion that many of these activities would, after a period of time, result in satisfactory restoration of the sites. Certainly in Committee, I cited the example in Dorset of a local authority wanting to convert heathland, which is perhaps the most fragile of any habitat, into an urban parkland. I very much doubt that that would be restorable within decades, even if there were a will so to restore it.
I hear what the Minister says and I shall carefully read his reply in Hansard. I still believe that the advice that Article 4 can retrieve all those operations is wrong. I see that I am not likely to persuade the Government on this issue. I am sorry that we shall probably face a situation where agreements will fail to be reached in some circumstances. Eventually, those will probably have to go to judicial review rather than there being a mechanism which would have solved the problem more easily and earlier. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
454
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 117, line 3, at end insert (", unless the Nature Conservancy Council have notified the authority that it need not wait until then.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 207 and 208. The issue of consents or licences which may be granted by a public body—which the Bill refers to as a Section 28G authority—was raised in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. Government Amendments Nos. 203, 207 and 209 seek to address those concerns.
As presently drafted, the Bill requires a public body to wait for 28 days before issuing its decision on an application for consent. That is to allow for consultation with the conservation agency. Amendment No. 203 will allow the public body to issue its decision at any time within the 28-day period, providing the agency confirms in writing that it need not wait.
Amendments Nos. 207 and 209 provide defences for offences under Section 28P(6) of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging SSSIs. Those will be particularly relevant as respects persons carrying out operations who are not owners or occupiers of an SSSI. Those defences are similar to those available to owners or occupiers of SSSIs. They will include situations where planning permission has been granted on an application for the works; where the works are urgently required; and where the works have been authorised by a Section 28G authority acting in accordance with the terms of Section 281, which will involve notification and so on.
I shall listen to the noble Baroness who, no doubt, will want to speak to Amendment No. 204. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened and for returning with a good resolution to the amendment that I tabled at an earlier stage of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 207 and 209 will achieve the same effect as my Amendment No. 208 would have done. I was delighted to be able to withdraw it.
However, I want to speak to Amendment No. 204 and ask the Government to consider carefully the value of it. It is intended to reduce the bureaucratic workload that the Bill would generate. It enables the consultation procedures set out in Section 281 of the Bill to be focused on real problems, rather than blindly requiring consultation for all permissions affecting an SSSI, whether or not they pose a threat to wildlife. An earlier version of this amendment was met with initial approval in our debate on the Bill, but was ultimately rejected on the grounds that it referred to another part of the Bill that was directed specifically at owner-occupiers rather than statutory bodies.
That much-commended body of officers at the DETR have written in support of the view that the consultation procedure should be tailored to suit the

455
features of each SSSI. They have proposed that administrative measures should be used for that, and that a memorandum of understanding should be agreed between the council and statutory bodies. The DETR suggests that that memorandum may, for example, exempt certain permissions from the consultation procedure.
I regret to inform your Lordships that the Bill in its current form provides no facility for such exemption from consultation. Although there is no obstacle in the Bill to the agreement of a memorandum of understanding, neither the statutory body nor the council could rely upon such a memorandum as a legal excuse from undertaking consultations demanded by the Bill. The memorandum would leave both the statutory body and the council vulnerable to legal challenge, making it, in effect, worthless.
Along with the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committees, the worried cockle fishermen and other fishermen who earn their living on these estuaries, I have studied carefully the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the DETR on my original amendment, and I believe that Amendment No. 204 incorporates changes which overcome the objections to the original. I hope that the Minister will recognise that this is a pragmatic amendment that offers to streamline the administration of the Bill and to reduce its burden on public bodies without compromising the protection of wildlife.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have been informed of the particular concerns expressed by bodies such as the sea fisheries committees. Nevertheless, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness. It is part of the duty of the public body to ensure that the agency has an opportunity to comment on applications for permission, consent or licences where the activity is likely to damage the special features of an SSSI. It is also open to the agency to reach the kind of memorandum of understanding to which she refers. In certain circumstances we would wish to encourage that in terms of the correspondence from my department.
As the conservation agency by reaching an agreement with the public body has confirmed that the activity is not likely to damage the special interest, there would be no requirement to follow the procedures under new Section 281. There is therefore no need for an agreement to be specifically included in the legislation as a reasonable excuse because such an agreement would already have been confirmed by the conservation body and would be a reasonable excuse against prosecution. We do not believe that the noble Baroness's amendment is necessary and I hope that, with those reassurances, she and those in the sea fisheries sector who are concerned will take comfort from the albeit slightly more indirect protection which a memorandum would have. I assure her that that would be the position because of the implied agreement of the conservation body, which is already a signatory to the memorandum.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
456
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 117, line 31, after ("them") insert ("to a condition Which existed at the time of the notification of the site under the 1981 Act or at any other time after such notification").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment develops Amendments Nos. 486A and 487B, which were discussed in Committee. It is still unclear where the baseline exists for deciding the condition to which an SSSI should be restored. The amendment specifies that it was the condition of the land at notification of the SSSI, or at a point in time after it, to which restoration should refer. It qualifies the reference to restoration in the reference setting out the contents of management schemes.
The amendment would prevent English Nature and the CCW insisting under a management notice that the site should be restored to some pristine condition in which it could have been at any time in the past. It would not prevent English Nature and the CCW al: any time negotiating a voluntary agreement with an owner or occupier to restore a site to any agreed condition.
The amendment would not affect the powers in relation to the restoration of an SSSI where a successful prosecution had been brought against someone who damaged it. In cases where an offence of damaging an SSSI under the Act has been proven, it is right to insist on restoration to the condition before the offence took place. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, this is one of the most important amendments we are debating tonight and I want to speak firmly against it. Amendment No. 205 would condemn those SSSIs which are in an unfavourable condition at the time of notification to remaining in an unfavourable condition potentially for ever. Sixteen per cent of the SSSIs notified since 1998 were in an unfavourable condition at the time of notification. Forty per cent of our SSSIs are in an unfavourable condition and they are our few sites of national and international conservation importance. Frankly, the fact that we have sites in such condition is a national disgrace.
The sites require management action to restore to an adequate condition the features for which they were notified. It is not about a mythical state that existed at some point in the past or a notional baseline; it is a state defined by objective criteria for the individual features for which the site was notified. Perhaps a layman's explanation of those criteria needs to be provided for SSSI owners and occupiers so that they are not shrouded in mystery and appear to be less like longing for the Nirvana of a past age which is unobtainable by anybody. There is a simple way to describe "favourable condition" in relation to each of these features, and I hope that that is reassuring to owners and occupiers.
In the vast majority of cases management action can be obtained by voluntary agreement with owners and occupiers of SSSIs, with the support of advice and

457
funding. In the very few sites where there is no voluntary agreement there are provisions in the Bill for a management scheme and, ultimately, a management notice to ensure that restoration to a favourable condition occurs. However, both of those would be accompanied by the provision of funding and technical support. There are provisions in the Bill for the proper hearing of appeals against management notices if owners and occupiers feel aggrieved. There are more than adequate safeguards against any concern that some kind of high-handed, unilateral action will be taken by blind statutory conservation organisations. I hope that the Minister will resist the amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have difficulty with the situation in which we find ourselves as a result of this amendment. I understand what the noble Baroness says and appreciate the aspirations of English Nature and any of the statutory bodies to enhance SSSIs. However, it seems rather harsh to insist that the land in question should be forcibly changed to a standard of management different from that which obtained on designation. The noble Baroness shakes her head, in which case I have obviously misunderstood.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, it is rather strange that a site which is in an unfavourable condition should somehow remain in that state, as the noble Earl suggests. If all one is doing is setting in aspic its unfavourable conservation condition, which may be declining, it almost begs the question why the site was designated in the first place.
Earl Peel: My Lords, there is some misunderstanding. It is odd that a conservation body may ultimately resort to a management notice, which is a fairly draconian measure, to achieve better standards than existed when the site was designated. I have no objection whatever to the idea of English Nature or CCW entering into a wildlife enhancement scheme to try to improve the standard of a site, but it is perhaps a little unreasonable to use these draconian measures if the owner is against it. I am certain that the Government will reassure us that they hope these measures will be dealt with in an agreeable fashion without recourse to action at this level. I declare an interest as an SSSI owner. English Nature might tell me that it intended to designate the site because it had potential for improvement, and it could force that upon me even if I thought that it was not in my interests to do so. Perhaps I am being unreasonable, but I believe that my noble friend raises a point which is somewhat inequitable.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness can intervene at some stage to deal with the following matter. Why have so many sites got into a bad state? Is it because English Nature has insufficient funds to make management agreements to keep the SSSIs up to the required standard, or is there a shortage of management to carry out the work? The onus seems to be on English Nature to indicate why
458
these sites are in such poor shape and why it is not doing more to bring them back to where they should be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer to the last question is that for a number of years there has been reliance on voluntary agreements. Sometimes that voluntary agreement has worked and sometimes it has not. Conservation agencies have discussed site management statements or conservation plans with many owners and occupiers of SSSIs. They have often been able to agree on measures designed to bring the sites back into good health. My noble friend Lady Young is right that that must be English Nature's objective. It certainly is the Government's objective. That is called "favourable condition". I shall return to that because the noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked what is the baseline about which we are talking. Sometimes this process works, and sometimes it does not.
The Bill's provision for management schemes in new Section 28J represents a formal recognition of this voluntary process. It similarly includes requirements for consultation. Subsections (3) and (7) of new Section 28J provide extensive opportunities for the land manager to contribute his or her expertise, often based on his or her knowledge of the condition of the land over a number of years, in the process of establishing the most appropriate management for the site.
The management scheme—or any similar arrangements, agreed separately—will be a key feature in helping to combat neglect, which is often a factor on sites where the special features are not in good health, and in helping to change management practices which do not support the special interest. Where change is required, the agency would of course offer a management agreement if additional costs were involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked what was the baseline; what is meant by a site being in "favourable condition"? There cannot be a general answer. One can only give an answer in the context of an individual site. It must be related to the conservation objectives for the site. The objectives identify the minimum standard of conservation management needed to maintain the special interest that justified the notification of the land as an SSSI in the first place. They will relate to specific features on a site, such as the habitat requirements of species, or the area and composition of habitats. "Favourable condition" is the standard against which the agencies measure whether SSSIs—our most special nature conservation sites—are in good health. There is one standard; there is no one favourable condition. There can only be a favourable condition for each site.
In considering the action that a management scheme may need to include to restore a site where the features are not in good health, the agency will have regard to the statement of views about the management of the site, which Section 28(4) of the Bill requires it to prepare when notifying a new SSSI, or within five years for existing SSSIs. The statement will have explained in broad and simple terms the kind of

459
management which would best support the special features of the SSSI; in effect, a summary of the conservation objectives. But in drawing up a management scheme for the site as a whole, or for an individual landholding within it, the agency will look to integrate those conservation objectives with the owner or occupier's management plans for the land. The agencies will be looking for the most sustainable match which secures the best opportunities both for the land manager and for the conservation interest.
SSSIs can only be notified on the basis that they contain special features which justify notification, but not all of the features will necessarily be in good health at the time the site is notified. A number will have aspects that require remedial action. I believe it would be an unreasonable constraint to prevent management schemes from seeking to achieve this, and might significantly compromise our long-term objective of securing favourable condition for all SSSIs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, rightly said, if we cannot go back to favourable condition and seek to improve on the conditions which existed at notification then in many cases it is not worth actually notifying an SSSI.
I believe the agencies should be reasonable and realistic in their expectations. Clearly, long-term decline cannot necessarily be reversed overnight. Securing healthy sites, in favourable condition, may be a long process, for which the active co-operation of the owner or occupier is an essential pre-condition for success.
That is why I emphasise the value to the conservation agencies of taking account of the land manager's own objectives. There will of course be opportunities to challenge a scheme if anyone considers it to be unreasonable. There is an opportunity to make representations once a scheme is served. The agency must consider these and English Nature is drawing up internal arrangements to ensure that representations are given a wholly fresh examination. If a management notice must eventually be served requiring action to be taken, there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who can consider the extent to which it is reasonable to expect the works listed in the notice—and the management scheme—to be carried out.
I accept that the agencies must be cautious about imposing unreasonable or inappropriate demands on land managers, but restricting their ability to seek to secure the restoration to good health of all SSSIs could be damaging. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, we are to some extent going round in circles and I believe that there is something of a misunderstanding. I am sure I am right in saying that the SSSI scheme has been going for some 20 to 25 years. It would be reasonable to assume that during that period nearly all SSSIs have been well managed due to the management schemes that were put in place
460
when they were notified at the time, and that there are probably very few indeed which require the restoration that may or may not be needed.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, perhaps I may give two facts. First, 40 per cent of all our SSSIs are in an unfavourable condition and are showing no signs of improvement. Secondly, under the current legislation, until the Bill becomes an Act, if a landowner or occupier refuses to undertake a management plan, we ultimately have no statutory means of insisting that work to carry out improvements takes place. There is a serious problem. At the moment we have no mechanisms as a nation to resolve the problem if there is no ability to reach agreement.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I am astonished to hear that such a large proportion of SSSIs, which were established some time ago, are not in a good state. I am in favour of them being restored to the condition that they were in, or better, when the notification took place 20 years ago.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, "or better". Those are the words.
Lord Luke: My Lords, "or better", under a voluntary agreement. The objective of the amendment is to stop any indication to a perhaps negligent owner who has not kept to the terms of the original agreement that he should restore the SSSI not only to what it was when there was a satisfactory agreement in place but going back to something that was never there in the original agreement. That is all I am talking about. I have no objection to getting back to the condition they should be in. I think that we are all on the same side. I shall withdraw the amendment but I should like to discuss the matter with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to see whether we can sort out exactly where we are. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 118, line 22, at end insert—
("() Where a notice under subsection (3) has been given and is subsequently withdrawn, the Council shall reimburse any costs reasonably incurred by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (3) in making any representation or objection in relation to the notice.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment should be a little less difficult. It is an established principle that where a statutory body commences any proceedings which lead to the person affected incurring costs in dealing with the proposal and the body then fails to proceed for whatever reason, the person affected is entitled to receive reimbursement of those costs from the body concerned. For example, the principle has been established in relation to compulsory purchases of land under Section 31 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.
The same principle should apply where a notice regarding a management scheme is not subsequently confirmed in relation to an owner or occupier who was notified and who reasonably incurred costs in handling and responding to the notice. Such costs could include those of attending meetings with English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales or in seeking proper professional advice on the implications of the notice or in seeking professional assistance in preparing any representation or objection. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred us to Section 31 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. It is quite right that where a notice to treat following a compulsory purchase order is withdrawn the costs of the owner or occupier should be reimbursed. However, I do not think that this is a parallel situation. On a successful objection to a compulsory purchase order such that it is not confirmed, the costs of making the objection at a public inquiry follow the event; that is, an award of costs is made automatically. If a compulsory purchase order is confirmed, the acquiring authority then serves a notice to treat. The owner or occupier needs to take steps in response—for instance, terminating an operation or acquiring new property—which would be rendered abortive if the notice were withdrawn. Confirmation in such a case would take away from the objector some right or interest in land for which the legislation gives an explicit right to compensation.
In planning law, a revocation or discontinuance notice which prevents implementation of a previously granted planning permission or a stop notice requiring cessation of activities which do not have the benefit of planning permission and where enforcement notice proceedings are being taken are examples of analogous cases where compensation is payable and where costs would "follow the event if the notice was not confirmed on appeal. That could also arise under this Bill if an agency sought to withdraw an existing consent and its action was quashed following an appeal.
But this is not the case with a management scheme. A scheme would be the result of extensive consultation and discussion. It reflects, in statute, the conservation agencies' existing practices in agreeing site management statements and conservation plans, which land managers have welcomed and encouraged. The purpose of the scheme is to reach agreement on the preferred management of the conservation interest. This could include confirming activities which may take place or which have consent. It may be accompanied by a management agreement supporting positive management. It should therefore be of benefit to an owner or occupier, although it is quite possible that it could be withdrawn in favour of a voluntary agreement. It does not remove any rights and there is no entitlement to compensation.
462
A management scheme is by no means analogous to a compulsory purchase order, as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, appears to suggest. I hope that he will not press this amendment.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am not terribly happy with that explanation. I believe that this is similar to a compulsory purchase order which has not been carried out. This concerns an outside agency which would come into an owner's private property. Obviously the owner would wish to secure the best possible advice as to how he should deal with it and thus costs will be incurred. If the whole procedure then goes through, everything will be taken care of but if, for whatever good reason, it is then stopped, it seems to me that it would be extremely unfair on the owner.
I should like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
10.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 206) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 46.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Luke, L. [Teller]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Byford, B.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L. [Teller]

Montrose, D.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Glentoran, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Selborne, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Waldegrave of North Hill, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bach, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Billingham, B.

Borrie, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Maddock, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rennard, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gilbert, L.

Thornton, B.

Greaves, L.

Warner, L.

Hamwee, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Whitty, L.

Harrison, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Haskel, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Hayman, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.49 p.m.
[Amendment No. 206A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 122, line 25, at end insert ("without reasonable excuse").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 208 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 122, line 34, at end insert—
("() It is a reasonable excuse in any event for a person to do what is mentioned in subsection (6) if—

(a) paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4) is satisfied in relation to what was done (reading references there to an operation as references to the destruction, damage or disturbance referred to in subsection (6)), and

(b) where appropriate, subsection (5) is also satisfied, reading the reference there to an operation in the same way.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 210 and 211:
Page 123, line 23, at end insert—
("Byelaws.
28R.—(1) The Nature Conservancy Council may make byelaws for the protection of a site of special scientific interest.
(2) The following provisions of the 1949 Act apply in relation to byelaws under this section as they apply in relation to byelaws under section 20 of that Act—

(a) subsections (2) and (3) of section 20 (reading references there to nature reserves as references to sites of special scientific interest); and

(b) sections 106 and 107.").

Page 124, line 25, at end insert—
("(1B) Byelaws made by virtue of section 28R may apply to Crown land if the appropriate authority consents.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Consequential amendments relating to sites of special scientific interest]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 211A:
Page 126, leave out lines 9 to 12.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment speaks for itself. We on these Benches are asking the Government whether they wish to continue to include these three lines in the 1981 Act. In the light of our feelings on the matter, we feel that they should not be included at this stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that the amendment speaks for itself. I do not wish to delay the House, but I wonder whether she could interpret it for me. I have read through the amendment, but I am not familiar with the details of the Act to which it refers. Perhaps the noble Baroness could expand upon her explanation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may try to do so. The amendment has the effect of
464
retaining references to English legislation in the 1981 Act. This Bill applies only to England and Wales, whereas the 1981 Act also applies to Scotland. The Bill inserts into the 1981 Act a new Section 28, which will apply in England and Wales. Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 10 merely deletes references in the original Section 28, which will be retained in Scotland, where these refer only to England and Wales, as these references will be obsolete. References to these matters have been carried forward for England and Wales in the new Sections 28 to 28Q, set out in Schedule 9 to the Bill. Therefore, what we have done is intentional.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11 [Transitional provisions and savings relating to sites of special scientific interest]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 128, line 24, at end insert ("and "stop notice" has the meaning given by paragraph 9(3) of this Schedule").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 213 to 216 and 262A. Amendments Nos. 212 and 216 are technical amendments to Schedule 11. They set out the transitional arrangements for SSSIs and relate to procedures for service of a stop notice. Amendment No. 212 defines the term "stop notice" for the purposes of the schedule. Amendment No. 216 applies the conservation agencies' powers of entry in Section 71 of the 1981 Act so as to enable them to,
"determine whether or not to give or vary a stop notice".
The amendment also applies to Schedule 11 generally the procedures for service of notices, which already apply to Part II of the 1981 Act.
Amendments Nos. 213, 214 and 215 clarify the time limits for an owner or occupier to make representations on the statement made by the conservation agencies of views about the management of the land. The owner/occupier is notified of the date, not being less than three months, on or before which he may make representations about the proposed statement. The agency then has a further two months to consider any representations and confirm or revise its statement of views.
Amendment No. 262 clarifies the timing of commencement of the transitional provisions set out in Schedule 11; namely, that they come into force two months after Royal Assent, along with the other SSSI provisions of this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 213 to 216:
Page 129, line 9, leave out ("time") and insert ("date").
Page 129, line 10, leave out ("within") and insert ("on or before").
Page 129, line 13, leave out ("period of three months") and insert ("date").

465
Page 133, line 16, at end insert—
("Powers of entry
21. Section 51 (powers of entry) has effect on and after the substitution date as if, in subsection (1), after paragraph (1) there were inserted—
"(m) to determine whether or not to give or vary a stop notice;".

Service of notices
22. Section 70A (service of notices) applies in relation to notices given under this Schedule as it applies in relation to notices and other documents required or authorised to be served or given under the 1981 Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
Clause 72 [Limestone pavement orders: offence]:
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 48, line 35, at end insert ("together with the confiscation of any vehicle which is used to assist in the committing of such an offence"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Government have cause for pride in fulfilling that part of their election pledge which was to be tough on the causes of crime. Here we have a case to be tough on crime itself; indeed, it is a rather nasty crime. Some noble Lords may see a similarity between this amendment and Amendment No. 191, but they are different.
I do not seek to alter the financial penalty in the Bill but the step I propose seems a particularly appropriate one to deal with this theft. This afternoon my noble friend read a commendable Statement which envisages the building of hundreds of thousands of new homes. Those homes are needed but many of the owners of those new homes will want to build rockeries in their gardens. That constitutes a ready made market for this theft. The limestone pavements of these islands are shrinking due to that theft, which could not occur if the people carrying it out did not have a motor vehicle, probably a 4x4, in which to transport the stolen limestone.
The Government will say that they have responded to this concern as they have included in the Bill a maximum fine of £20,000 for this offence. That is a significant sum. However, if someone is charged with stealing what will appear to be £5, £10 or £20-worth of rock, no court will impose the maximum fine for that offence. If that did occur, it would be regarded with astonishment. The only way to safeguard the remaining limestone pavement is to ensure that this theft is stopped. I hope that the amendment will be speedily accepted.
I do not want to speak for too long but my next point is relevant to this Parliament. Some 20 years ago I learnt that virtually every peregrine falcon's nest—there were fewer peregrine falcons then—was being watched by thieves who intended to take the fledglings at an appropriate moment as the going rate was £600 per bird. At that time if thieves were caught with a stolen bird they were fined £2—a derisory sum.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds gave me a draft Bill one day. The following day I obtained sufficient signatures from all parties. The following
466
Friday the Bill passed through all its stages in the other place in, I believe, 55 seconds. The Bill was then piloted through this Chamber by the late Lord Cranbrook, one of the most distinguished conservationists of the previous century. Noble Lords will be aware that his son is also a distinguished conservationist. The late Lord Cranbrook piloted the Bill through this Chamber in a similar period of time and it was enacted with astonishing speed. I believe that it set a record for a Bill to reach the statute book. I wish that we had achieved that with a few more Bills over the past few months. The Bill was enacted and the penalty for that theft was massively increased. The courts did not always impose the increased penalty but the Bill responded to a need.
The need to tackle the theft of limestone pavement is equally urgent, at least in a geological sense. Hundreds of thousands of houses need to be built in this country, preferably on brownfield sites. However, their gardens should not be filled with limestone pavement which has been stolen because society is too weak to introduce sufficient deterrents to prevent that. I beg to move.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Lord will remember the long debates on Section 34 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act which for the first time introduced restrictions on the removal of limestone pavement. As the noble Lord rightly said, while one may be able to undertake fishing, shooting or poaching without a vehicle, one certainly must have a vehicle to cart away lumps of limestone pavement. To have one's car, four-wheel drive or lorry confiscated as part of the penalty for committing that theft seems to me an eminently sensible provision.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I too support the amendment. It obviously makes sense and would constitute a deterrent if it were accepted. Frankly, the argument which was used in relation to the noble Lord's previous amendment—namely, that the confiscation of a vehicle was associated with something that was not a criminal offence—does not apply in this case. It clearly would be a criminal offence. It would be a major deterrent on an issue which will become increasingly serious. I hope that the Government will feel that it is a penalty suitable for the crime.
11 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, we on these Benches follow the line of thought which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, put forward so robustly. It is a great crime that so much of this valuable limestone is being taken. It is pure theft. I may be wrong but I suspect that the Government will say that the amendment is not right or acceptable. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment due thought. It would send a strong message. People are often quite happy to pay a fine. However, the amendment provides for the confiscation of any vehicle. Making the commission of such an offence more difficult has much to recommend it.

467
I support the amendment. I hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the amendment seeks to permit the confiscation of any vehicle which is used to assist in the commission of the offence in Section 34 of the 1981 Act in relation to limestone pavements.
I am pleased to reassure my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that the courts already have the power under Section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to order forfeiture of property used for the purpose of committing or facilitating the commission of any offence.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to intervene, I made a relevant point in the previous debate. I pointed out that I have been involved in a number of conservation Bills in which that provision has been inserted. As far as I know, it has never been applied in England. It has in Scotland, but that is irrelevant to us today.
It is essential to emphasise the point. The courts in Britain have not been using the power my noble friend describes.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I repeat that I refer to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Therefore, I do not think that it is reasonable to make the judgment that over a long period of time the power has not been used.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, with respect, the Bills to which I referred were enacted 10, 20 and up to 24 years ago.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I understand the point my noble friend makes. The point make to him is that there is evidence here of recent action which has been taken with regard to the penalty that he seeks. I believe that the provision addresses the objective. That, coupled with the substantial increase in the existing maximum penalty for an offence under Section 34 from £5,000 to £20,000, to which my noble friend referred, should prove a deterrent.
My noble friend makes the point that in the past legislation has been introduced with maximum penalties available and that in the past the courts, he alleges—perhaps with some justification—have not taken seriously some of the offences. He referred to offences against birds. Speaking personally and perhaps anecdotally, the courts appear to take more seriously now interference with birds and flora and fauna. I think that my noble friend's work in this field may have helped to ensure that those who make the decisions in the courts are aware of the severity of the problem.
My noble friend referred to Amendment No. 191, which relates to the new Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 found in Schedule 7 to the Bill. The key
468
distinction is that Section 34 of the 1988 Act is a road traffic offence. We explained on Amendment No. 191 that the power of forfeiture is available only for certain road traffic offences—broadly those that are punishable by imprisonment. I hope that my noble friend will feel that the Government have acted as he wished and that the power is available to the courts.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I shall not press the amendment, but I shall watch with great interest over the next 10 years to see whether there is still a significant quantity of limestone pavement left in Britain. I certainly do not wish to stay late in the Lords on a Thursday night to pursue the matter without an assurance that the Government will respond positively. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the amendment is withdrawn, I point out to my noble friend that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will be watching with him in North Yorkshire. He may also find my noble friend Lord Whitty there on many occasions—although I hasten to add that they will not be travelling together.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 49, line 13, after ("28P") insert ("or under byelaws made by virtue of section 28R").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 49, line 27, at end insert—
("() to determine any question in relation to compensation under section 20(3) of the 1949 Act as applied by section 28R of this Act;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Enforcement of wildlife legislation]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 50, line 31, leave out from ('amendments") to ("has") in line 32 and insert ("relating to offences and enforcement powers under Part I of the 1981 Act)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 229, which is the substantive amendment in the group. It gives police officers new powers of arrest for certain wildlife offences. Many of us are aware of the difficulties that the police have faced when dealing with people who commit wildlife offences. I have been given examples of evidence that could be crucial to the investigation being removed before the police have had a chance to see it. That has probably led to some people being prosecuted for fewer offences and has almost certainly resulted in some people escaping prosecution. Wildlife crime can have a direct impact on populations of some of our more vulnerable species. I am concerned that the police should have adequate powers to enforce the controls on those species as effectively as possible.
The Bill already contains a package of measures to strengthen wildlife law enforcement. Amendment No. 229 makes certain wildlife offences relating to species

469
of conservation concern arrestable, as an exception to the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In those circumstances only, police officers will be able to arrest anyone whom they have reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, is committing or is about to commit such offences. The amendment has the strong support of Association of Chief Police Officers, which believes that the present law is inadequate in that respect.
Amendment No. 225, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would introduce new powers of arrest when evidence is spirited away. We believe that our more general amendment covers that. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the amendment that we moved in Committee and have tabled again on Report is slightly narrower than the government amendments. It would give police officers the power of arrest to prevent the destruction of evidence that might be found at another place before the authorities could get a search warrant. Government Amendment No. 229 adequately covers what we were seeking to achieve in Committee. We welcome the fact that the Government have tabled their own amendment that covers our concerns and some other eventualities.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the government amendments and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her amendment. I agree that many people in this country are extremely worried about wildlife crime. I believe that, in the past, adequate powers either have not been in place or they have been in place but have not been used. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained, it is helpful if the police have reasonable grounds for suspecting that wildlife crime has been committed. I believe that it is an issue with which we all sympathise. We welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 222 to 224 not moved.]
Schedule 12 [Wildlife: amendments to Part I of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981]:
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 136, line 44, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (2) and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 227 and 228. I express my regret at not having moved this amendment in Committee. On the only occasion when that arose, I had to leave the House before midnight. I also declare an interest. I have had 50 years' association with English Nature, formerly the Nature Conservancy Council for England. I have been a member on various occasions and was asked to be chairman approximately 20 years ago. I also have a successful and informal arrangement with that body on my own area of wetland on the north Norfolk coast. I mention all that because I believe that this is
470
the first time in 50 years that I have disagreed with English Nature. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is here and that we shall hear her views.
First, I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting any change to the present protection of birds legislation. I am concerned solely with the threat of prison for certain offenders. Therefore, it is a humanitarian and not a wildlife amendment. I believe that it involves a great point of justice.
I believe that we are agreed on all sides in supporting prison as a punishment for genuine wildlife crime. The purpose of my amendment is to exclude from the threat of prison ordinary, honest country workers—shepherds, working farmers, keepers, gardeners and wardens—all of whom make no gain from an offence. Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 identify the items in previous Acts where wildlife crimes may occur. Amendment No. 228 goes on to exempt from prison people who live and work lawfully in the countryside and who have no serious criminal or commercial intent and make no gain.
Those citizens will still be subject to the same laws as at present and can be fined severely if appropriate. The present legislation in this respect has been entirely successful and, in my view, there is no reason to change it. There is no suggestion whatever in the amendments that prison should not be available in the case of premeditated criminal activity of the kind that has been mentioned by noble Lords this evening; that is, where birds or eggs are stolen and sold, shipped abroad or locked away. There is certainly some nasty bird and animal traffic by which individuals seek to profit. We all agree on that. The noble Baroness, chairman of English Nature, and the chairman of the RSPB told me recently that that is their main concern.
A great deal has been said about SSSIs. In considering this amendment, it is important to keep in mind that they cover only 6 per cent of the country. My amendment is concerned mainly with the other 94 per cent; that is, the great mass of the country in which wildlife, especially birds, is entirely dependent on house owners, landowners, farmers, shepherds, private gardeners, wardens and keepers. It is they who protect wildlife in the country as a whole.
The main reason for ruling out prison for country workers and all the people I mentioned is that it has been proved to be unjustified and completely unnecessary. I shall come to that point. If an offence is committed occasionally, more than adequate penalties are already available. Heavy fines are an extremely painful sentence for any worker on the land. I am not suggesting that there should be a change to that. Those people are not criminals, even if one or two out of thousands once in a while may have been foolish or intemperate. They normally have slender resources and fines really hurt.
As we all know, the focus and preoccupation of these provisions is on the protection of birds of prey. I gave details on various aspects of the subject at Second Reading. It is emphatically raptors which prompted this unfortunate proposal. I shall try to

471
remember to say "raptors" because one switches from one to another for birds of prey. "Raptors" shall be my word.
To introduce prison at this stage will make the Government look completely out of date. Since the introduction of earlier legislation, including the 1981 Act in which some of us took part—I moved amendments in this House—the overall population of the raptor group has increased by about 200 per cent. It is predicted to increase to 400 per cent in the not-too-distant future. Thereafter increases could be exponential depending on the food supply.
We are therefore already at the summit of a spectacular success story, looking to even more remarkable increases. That level of increase in the number of raptors occurred just as much in the 94 per cent of the country looked after privately as in the 6 per cent looked after or fostered by wildlife organisations.
The crux of the matter is this. That success was achieved without the threat of custodial sentences. Prison, or even the hint of it as a deterrent, did not exist and it therefore made absolutely no contribution at all for more than 20 years to one of the greatest bird recoveries in history. That proves that the threat of prison is completely unnecessary. The raptor recovery occurred without it ever being contemplated.
It may have been thought that birds of prey were endangered or even diminishing in number, but it is now abundantly clear that the reverse is the case. Raptors are doing very well indeed and no species are diminishing through persecution. So it looks as though the Government have been misled by a misinterpretation of the facts.
In view of those bird population statistics, which are beyond challenge, how can it conceivably make sense or be just to threaten citizens in the countryside with prison when the objective has already been achieved beyond everybody's expectations? I fear that it will be seen as vindictive activism by government and perhaps by the conservation authorities, or as an abuse of power. That will do nothing for birds and great harm to the Government's fragile image in the country.
I feel strongly about this because we succeeded with earlier legislation and to start talking about prison implies that we failed, which is manifestly absurd. Neither am I suggesting at this stage that anything should be changed in the protection of birds legislation as it stands, only that the threat of prison should not be piled on top—clearly now without any justification at all. That would be an insult to those people who have been the main contributors to the raptors' success. That increase has not been due primarily to people at base or to wildlife managements and government advisers, but to Parliament for making the law in which some of us here were personally involved and, more importantly, to the suspension of organophosphates and other chemicals. But it is due also to houseowners, landowners, keepers, gardeners and so on, across 94 per cent of the country for observing the law and allowing raptors to increase.
Let me come to the detail. In its press campaign for this Bill there was our usual RSPB press release last month concerning 153 incidents of destruction of birds of prey. Those reports are helpful and that is of course 153 cases too many. But that must be seen in its proper context. If there were 153, it would not be one person killing 153 raptors or 153 people killing one bird each. For the sake of argument, let us say that there are 20 miscreants killing perhaps eight raptors each. They could be farmers, shepherds, keepers or whoever. There are roughly 5,000 keepers, including some wives as assistants, farm workers part-timers and helpers. That means that out of 5,000 there are possibly 4,980 keepers and assistants observing the law and doing a lawful job for conservation. That is more than 99 per cent of the total force.
Now let us turn to the damage. We must check the bird numbers and be quite clear about how significant was the damage as a result of 153 casualties. My information comes from the most up-to-date and authoritative publications, including the book by Chris Mead of the British Trust for Ornithology and the report of the Government's own raptor working group. According to those publications, there are now well in excess of 100,000 raptors in this country of about a dozen species. As I explained, most species increased substantially, some even by 300 per cent and one or two by even more.
I apologise for the details but if your Lordships are not yet nodding off, perhaps I may give the figures for birds of prey in percentages: the kite, plus 150 per cent; the marsh harrier, plus 340 per cent; the hen harrier, which is always in the argument, plus 35 per cent; the goshawk, 574 per cent, which is a serious problem because the goshawk eats other birds of prey; the sparrowhawk, plus 20 per cent, which sounds low but we are getting near saturation point in any event; the buzzard, plus 10 per cent; the eagle, plus 5 per cent; the osprey, plus 572 per cent; the peregrine, plus 104 per cent. Every single one of those figures has increased. Is it surprising that things are looking fairly rosy for raptors overall?
There are two species which have not increased. One is the kestrel, but there are 50,000 pairs. There is a small decrease which is entirely due to farming and the absence of shrews and voles and nothing whatever to do with persecution. There is the Montagu's harrier, of which noble Lords may or may not have heard, in relation to which there is no change. It is a rare bird. It was a rare bird when I was small and it will always be a rare bird, as far as I can make out. But there is no question of persecution.
I must tell your Lordships that 153 is less than one-sixth of 1 per cent of the present total population of raptors. The threat of prison enforcement, therefore, becomes more and more incomprehensible and impossible to justify. If the threat of prison was ever justified, if it had ever been considered a good idea as a deterrent, we should have introduced it in 1981 or even earlier but it was not because nobody in those days thought about enforcement, only about leadership and persuasion. There were the great giants—Julian Huxley, Peter Scott, Max Nicholson and others. They

473
started a huge movement which has been enormously successful but they never thought about enforcement. And they turned out to be right. A deterrent was clearly not needed; the raptors have now multiplied beyond expectations; so prison cannot possibly be justified. The threat of prison is an insult.
My great concern is that the Government will appear, by this ill-judged measure, not to understand balance. Maintaining the balance of nature in modern circumstances, already overwhelmed by the human race, is the last hope for natural biodiversity. The balance of nature is the actual meaning and purpose of conservation. That is what all those organisations are supposed to exist for. Birds of prey have no natural enemies except, in certain cases, from other birds of prey, and are therefore bound to multiply and upset the balance. Popular songbirds have been and are being decimated, probably by numerous causes but nobody is yet sure of the answers. It could be climate, winter starvation, winter wheat, the CAP, fast traffic, domestic cats or even Chernobyl, so they say, and so on. Perhaps it is a combination of them all. But what is now certain is that while popular birds decrease the raptors will still be on the increase. When there are very few popular songbirds left, the residue will easily be mopped up by birds of prey and may then never recover.
I am embarrassed that that has not been properly addressed. What is required is a conference of everyone concerned, like the 1970 conference of which Max Nicholson was director and which was presided over by the Duke of Edinburgh. That was enormously successful and produced a sea change in knowledge generally. That would be much better than looking stupid and ignorant in due course because of being completely out of date.
The serious aspect of all this for the conservation movement is that custodial sentences are being incorporated in a Bill through misleading information or perhaps even the suppression of information. Therefore, it is based on false conclusions. Inevitably, that means that if the Government persist, nobody will ever believe the department's wildlife advisers again. They will lose all credibility. Everything that they say will be suspect and there will be a shattering reverse of everything that so many of us have striven to achieve and worked for over half a century. In discussions and in various exchanges, the Minister has been helpful to me. I do not doubt that the amendment could be improved, but I sincerely urge him and the Government, in view of the false impressions now proved, to reconsider this serious injustice. I beg to move.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I have three comments about the amendment and the speech of the noble Lord. I am not as optimistic about the continued rise in the raptor population because, as he pointed out, if the prey population falls—in many respects I believe that it is still falling—more will die of starvation.
474
However, I have some sympathy with him in regard to the matter of imprisonment. Most shoots are balanced and most keepers do not destroy protected species. If a keeper is under enormous pressure to wipe out everything that competes for the game birds, in order to secure his job he may well feel that he has to break the law. In that respect I believe it would be appropriate for the owner of a shoot to go to prison rather than his employee.
At the same time I have some sympathy. A good friend of mine and a man for whom I have a high regard is a distinguished pigeon fancier. Earlier this year I walked by his lofts with him and saw three piles of feathers close by. There was a sparrow hawk in a tree which stayed for some time and every time he let his birds out the sparrow hawk pounced. He said to me, "It is taking all my best birds and I would love to shoot it but it is protected". In any case, he is keen on conservation and he knew that the sparrow hawk was probably starving because there are few small birds left in his territory.
He did not shoot it. Fortunately a pair of magpies arrived and decided to occupy the tree and made the sparrow hawk's life miserable and it went away. Whether it will return this winter, if it has survived until now, I do not know. He is hoping that it does not, otherwise he will have no pigeons left.
I do not suggest that we should shoot all the sparrow hawks, but I would like to believe that someone will carry out some research, as the RSPB did with herons when people wanted to shoot them for emptying garden ponds. The herons had worked out various rope systems protecting ponds. It would be nice if someone could identify a humane trap in which to catch the surplus sparrow hawks before the pigeon fanciers of Britain become absolutely furious and decide that they will risk imprisonment for shooting the birds that are destroying their roosts.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has put the argument so well and comprehensively and with such deep knowledge of the subject that there is little I can add. At this point I declare a potential interest in Parts II and III of the Bill, although I had absolutely no interest in Part I to which I occasionally spoke.
During the 1980s and to some extent during the early 1990s, the last Conservative administration were notorious for creating new offences for which individuals could be fined or sent to prison and for increasing the maximum penalties for existing offences. The way things are going, this new Labour Administration is rapidly following suit.
What is the justification for sending decent country people to prison for two years or even for two months for an honest mistake perhaps made in driving sleet or at dusk, especially when our prisons are full to bursting? Even if they are not full to bursting, the argument would still stand. I believe I know what the Minister will say. He will say that two years is a maximum penalty that courts will impose only in exceptional circumstances. Yes, but the reality is that

475
if the possibility of imprisonment exists in statute, sooner or later it will be imposed. I hope that the Government will consider seriously this compromise amendment. It is a compromise amendment because it does not apply to premeditated offences and, if the amendment cannot be accepted tonight, perhaps some compromise can be agreed before Third Reading.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa. He probably knows more about wildlife and the countryside than anyone in the House or in the United Kingdom. What he said is true and his recent article in Country Illustrated, which covered some of what he said tonight, shows that he is on the right track. We must listen to science if the necessary changes are to be made, particularly in relation to raptors.
My title is "of Langholm"—unfortunately I have no financial interest in the Langholm moor—so naturally I know a great deal about it. It is in Scotland and in sight of England. One is bitter about the fact that a scientific report on the area has been ignored by SNH and the RSPB. What many years ago was the finest moor in Scotland now has no grouse of any significance. Little is being done, six keepers have been discharged and the economy of the area has seriously suffered. That I put firmly at the door of SNH and the RSPB. It is a disgrace that a scientific report has been ignored.
I was a constituency MP in Dumfries for many years and know of the pigeon racing from the south of England, up the Pennines to the Solway area. Owners were furious about the number of pigeons which were killed by raptors while flying up the Pennines. It is serious that so little has been done to find a fair balance. No one wants a complete attack on raptors but a fair balance must be struck in order that other wildlife, whether song birds, game birds or racing pigeons, have a fair opportunity.
My noble friend Lord Buxton was right to say that we should impose a severe penalty on anyone breaking the law in this regard and that we should seriously re-examine the issue. The fines exist but we appear not to be taking action as regards breaking the law on access. There appears to be no deterrent as regards such action, but here there is a massive deterrent of imprisonment, which I believe is going too far.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I support what has been said by my noble friend Lord Buxton and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The difference between the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, and myself is that the sparrowhawk ate all the pigeons. As a result of their constant presence, my wife, who was trying to breed pigeons, gave up and took the remaining ones to London. She gave them to a friend in the hope that they might better survive in London than in Sussex because of the sparrowhawks.
It seems that for some time the campaign to protect raptors has reached an absurd proportion. The figures which my noble friend quoted show that in recent
476
years the number of raptors has increased hugely at the expense of song birds. Like my noble friend Lord Monro, I, too, have shot on moors, notably in the Borders, where, thanks to the increasing number of raptors, the grouse have disappeared. There it is easy for a raptor to take the young grouse out of their nests, and that marks the end of the season for the keeper, the beaters and everyone employed on the moor.
Therefore I hope that what my noble friend said tonight will highlight the problem about raptors riot only as regards imprisonment for those who shoot a sparrowhawk or a kestrel but in the wider sense—that the protection of one species of bird has gone too far at the expense of many others.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I regret that I must rise to speak against these amendments. I have a considerable degree of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and everything that he has achieved in conservation on his wetland sites in Norfolk. I am saddened by some of the observations tonight. It is absolutely vital that this Bill contains a provision for custodial sentences. I describe a circumstance where only a custodial sentence will do. There is a roaring trade in exporting peregrine eggs and chicks from this country to the Middle East which can be sold for many thousands of pounds. The people who carry out those activities, which are crimes, regard a fine as simply a tax on their profits. Therefore, they are quite willing to pay those fines serially.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I apologise sincerely to the noble Baroness for intervening. I remind her that I have said twice that all of that is agreed. There is no question that it is a crime to make money from the sale of these birds. I refer only to people in the country who do a different job but who, unfortunately, may get into serious trouble. Heavy fines are available. However, they do not have to leave their wives and children in tiny cottages which are at the mercy of every kind of brigand.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, if the noble Lord allows me to continue he will hear that my thesis takes that into account. This amendment creates a loophole which allows some people—it is difficult to determine who they are—to avoid custodial sentences when they have deliberately committed crimes. I am sure that the noble Lord does not intend to signal what these amendments appear to say.
The amendments provide that an offence is not imprisonable if it is carried out in the course of lawful activity and is relevant to the pursuit of that activity. For example, if a game keeper or farmer shoots a bird of prey he will not be imprisoned, but if a bird dealer or taxidermist destroys such a bird he will be. That is a strange distinction. The shooting, poisoning and trapping of birds of prey does not happen by mistake in the course of normal game keeping or other countryside activities. It is almost uniquely a premeditated criminal activity, and a person who engages in it should not be treated differently from a person who steals eggs and birds to sell. The fact that

477
this is not a universal practice but is carried out only by some people makes it even more important that keepers, farmers and other country people who behave within the law and do not destroy birds of prey are not penalised by the prospect that others who flout the law are simply subject to a fine rather than serious sentences of the kind that would be imposed on others such as taxidermists and bird dealers.
The noble Lord said that some populations of birds of prey had increased, which is true. However, some of our most magnificent birds of prey continue to be persecuted quite unnecessarily. Golden eagles are being shot. Those magnificent birds, which are comparatively few in number, should not be persecuted. In England we have only 20 pairs of hen harriers, which is hardly a rash of birds of prey on the landscape. The red kite reintroduction programme in this country costs approximately £15,000 per bird, but already over 60 of those birds have been illegally destroyed by shooting, trapping and poisoning, which is a disgrace. I believe that in today's society we should not regard the persecution and killing of these magnificent birds as anything other than a serious offence. To kill birds of prey is unnecessary and against the law, and I hope that the Minister will reject these amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she accept that in bad weather conditions—fog, mist and heavy sleet—people can make an honest mistake, perhaps not with golden eagles but smaller birds of prey?
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord must have met some very poor gamekeepers or farmers. My experience is that most people know very well what they are shooting. Indeed, in normal game shooting, people take great pride in knowing what they are shooting.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Buxton. I would not presume to trade between the technical expertise of my noble friend and the noble Baroness. I found my noble friend's points convincing on the technical front.
The conservation movement is a very broad church. Having been active in the conservation movement—certainly for the past 20 years—I can claim to be a part of it. It includes—I have seen it repeatedly and in many areas—some people with very extreme ideas and some people who are quite fanatical in their ideas: one has only to mention the animal rights groups. The statements of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, do not accord with what the ordinary people of this country believe to be the seriousness of the matters to which she referred. The noble Baroness's language is disproportionate to what the people feel. There is almost an echo of the 18th century in this debate. It is rather like having a debate on sheep stealing—hanging people for sheep stealing. It is staggering.
I used to say when I was on the Countryside Commission that it is a government's job to differentiate between sensible and foolish views. One
478
cannot take every view that is put forward by the conservation groups within the conservation movement. It is for the Government to come to a sensible view. The amendments suggested by my noble friend are sensible and are in close accord with what the people of this country feel. When my noble friend referred to the "fragility of the Government's support in country areas", I thought that I noticed the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, scoffing slightly—I may be wrong—at the idea that their support was fragile. In my opinion it is very fragile. Funnily enough, paradoxically perhaps, I spend much time defending the overall record of the Government to people in the country who can no longer find words condemnatory enough to say about them. If those people could find an attractive political party, many would desert new Labour in droves. Therefore, we need better balance in this matter.
Furthermore, I was rather concerned to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who in many respects I greatly respect, using language more appropriate to some of the really evil crimes in our society.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, my noble friend has raised one of the most important issues facing the countryside at the moment in terms of management. I have a great deal of sympathy for what my noble friend said and I certainly have a great deal of respect for what he says. Like other noble Lords, I know much about his provenance. He is not just someone who talks about conservation. He is an active conservationist. What he has achieved on his home patch is quite remarkable.
This is a thorny question. I accept much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. But there is something wrong with her argument. It is all very well bringing in custodial sentences and severe fines—what one might term "the stick"—but if one has no carrot to balance that stick, then it is wrong and unjust. At the moment, we have no carrot.
My noble friend Lord Monro talked about the disasters of Langholm. I have to declare an interest at this point because at that time I was chairman of the Game Conservancy Trust, which was the body that carried out the research at Langholm. It demonstrated beyond any question of doubt that hen harriers can reduce grouse populations to a point where a moor can become unviable and consequently, as my noble friend rightly said, jobs are lost and a whole management structure is removed.
There is no disagreement between any of the bodies about the science. It is purely in regard to how we go forward that there is a difference between the various organisations. To date, no consensus has been reached on how we go forward successfully and how we can produce a carrot to counteract the stick.
I do not want to say much more about this subject because it is a detailed and complex one. But I shall quote from a recent paper, Raptors and Red Grouse: Conservation Conflicts and Management Solutions, produced by four very eminent scientists—Simon Thirgood of the Game Conservancy Trust, Professor

479
Peter Hudson of Stirling University, Steve Redpath of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and, for those who are aware of his importance in these matters, Ian New ton of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. Ian Newton is, without doubt, the leading expert in this country on raptors. I shall go straight to the conclusions of their paper:
"Resolving the conflict between raptors and grouse remains a major challenge. Accepting the status quo of illegal persecution of raptors, declining grouse bags, and continuing loss of heather is not a sensible option".
I cannot believe that anyone could disagree with that. The paper goes on to say that,
"immediate measures are required to reduce conflicts between raptors and grouse".
Great efforts have recently been made to try to resolve the situation. I have to say that those have very largely failed. I do not believe that either the RSPB or the conservation bodies have shown a will to overcome this problem. I urge them to do so. I urge them to strive much harder to reach a solution to deal with the immediate problem; otherwise we shall see more Langholms, more management systems destroyed, more jobs destroyed and, ultimately, more wildlife destroyed.
I make this request to the Minister. I hope very much that we can set up in England and Wales a moorland working group similar to that which operates in Scotland, which is chaired by SNH in that country, so that we can have proper dialogue between the conservation bodies—the NGOs, the statutory bodies and those with an interest in these matters. Science and research will continue. Incidentally, in response to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, work on sparrowhawks has started, but that is another matter. New issues will appear and develop as we go along. We need this forum for proper dialogue.
I have raised the matter with the Minister's right honourable friend Mr Meacher and I should be very grateful if, before too long, I could receive an answer in letter form to that specific question.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly from these Benches. I agree with noble Lords who have pointed out that, on occasion, we fall behind the event when it comes to controlling species that have become far too numerous. In the case of these amendments, which deal with Schedule 1 birds, I should point out that earlier tonight we passed an amendment on biodiversity. Having done that, it will be for a number of different authorities to deal with species that are getting out of control.
Personally, I would start this process not with Schedule 1 birds, but rather to put on a ban on magpies. Furthermore, in the case of songbirds, I would look at the effect of domestic cats on their populations. However, while I understand some of the frustrations as regards those raptors that seem to be increasing in numbers—in my area it might be the buzzard—while they remain Schedule 1 birds and thus are protected, then we should regard them as such. The
480
right course would be to examine whether, if they have multiplied in such numbers as to present a threat to other species, they should continue to be included, in the schedule.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I rise from the Front Bench to speak in this debate not in any way as an expert, but to demonstrate my support—in case the Government Front Bench thought that it might be lacking—for my noble friends from this side and, indeed, for most of those who have spoken on all sides of the House. I think that everyone would agree that this has been an extremely enlightening debate about the problems of raptors. However, it has strayed somewhat from the basic proposition in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Buxton, which concerned the question of imprisonment.
Throughout the progress of this Bill, the Minister and the Government have consistently maintained that they are in the game of balance here. They have resisted sanctions of virtually every kind over large parts of the Bill. We have accepted their arguments and their rights. I strongly believe that severe sanctions are necessary against the killing or stealing of Schedule 1 birds. However, I was perhaps a little disappointed by the passion demonstrated by noble Baroness, Lady Young, though I understand exactly her arguments.
I believe that there is room for some amendment in this part of the Bill to improve its balance. I suggest that a strong case can be made to differentiate between those to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was referring; namely, those who knowingly trade in and profit from the killing of birds and the stealing and sale of the eggs or chicks of such birds. But I can tell the House that there are occasions when both gamekeepers and sportsmen have the misfortune to shoot a raptor or a protected species. It can happen in bad weather, when one is operating with a limited line of sight, or it can happen at dusk. I accept, however, that it can also happen when such shooting is undertaken wrongly and with evil intent. However, the balance of the Bill as presently drafted is wrong.
I realise that the House cannot divide on this matter. However, I shall go home tonight feeling rather sour if the Minister cannot see his way to having another look at this. I said in Committee, and I have felt throughout today, that the Bill has been going along extremely well. It is developing into a first-class piece of legislation, which is supported on all sides of the House. This issue grates; it has the wrong tone and is a little out of balance. I ask the Minister to accept that and to have a re-think.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not disagree that we have had an informative and enlightening debate on many aspects of these issues, but I find the conclusions of the debate bizarre. I also find the amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, very odd. To find the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for example, supporting them is very odd indeed.
No one disagrees that much of the protection of wildlife in the countryside rests in the hands of thousands of countryside workers, the vast majority of

481
whom for the vast majority of time take very seriously their responsibilities in this respect. They would not knowingly endanger a rare species or the biodiversity objectives we are trying to achieve in the Bill.
But throughout our proceedings, many of your Lordships have said that we need stronger protection of wildlife, flora and fauna within the Bill. In this schedule we have provided a substantially greater sanction—not only for raptors but for all the birds and animals in Schedule 5 and for all the plants in Schedule 8. We are therefore talking about a very wide range of possible offences against often rare wildlife—plants, animals, birds, and so on. To make an issue of the position on raptors seems an incredibly narrow approach.
Almost everyone believes that the current sanctions relating to wildlife offences are not adequate. Whether we blame the courts for not imposing the maximum penalties, the police for not pursuing them, the inadequacy of the penalties themselves, or whatever, they are not working. It must be part of a wildlife Bill to make sure that the sanctions are greater and that there is a greater deterrence for people who breach the regulations and endanger significant parts of our biodiversity.
If that is agreed, it is surely illogical to say that it matters who perpetrates an offence. What seems to be behind the noble Lord's amendments is that if a rare egg is stolen, or rare plants are torn up and so on, and that is done by a worker on an estate, then the penalty that applies to somebody who comes in from outside and does exactly the same should not apply. I cannot think of any other area of crime where the occupation of the perpetrator differentiates how they will be punished.
That is not to say that there cannot be significant mitigation put before the courts. In a sense, I am doing what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, predicted. It is already a clear defence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act that if a person can show that an act he has carried out, which might otherwise be against the law, was the incidental result of lawful activity and could not have been avoided, that is a defence and an offence will not have been committed. Even if an offence has been committed, mitigation has to be taken into account by the courts.
But we cannot exempt people from the effects of increased penalties for wildlife offences—which are vital to the preservation and enhancement of our countryside and wildlife—by dint of their occupation. It is the role of the courts and the judiciary to decide whether or not people are guilty of offences, and then to judge, in the light of all the circumstances, what are the appropriate penalties. We have upped the penalties. There may be mitigating circumstances—there often will be in the kinds of cases to which noble Lords have referred. The courts must be able to judge whether to impose the full sentence or as to what lower sentence they will apply.
482
We believe that it is necessary in order to deter wildlife crime—much of which is in pursuit of profit—to impose maximum sentences. We recognise that the courts will often not impose those maximum sentences. To differentiate by motivation is a matter for the courts; but effectively to differentiate by occupation would be an incredible new precept in English law. I do not believe that we should go down that road.
Arguments about whether or not raptor populations have increased are for the conservation agencies to take into account, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly said, and they may have to alter the schedules in terms of which species fall under which schedules. However, I cannot accept the basic premise of the amendments, even though I recognise the strength of feeling on the need to ensure that countryside workers, and estate workers in particular, do not feel threatened, and the feeling that certain matters are getting out of balance in relation to raptors, and so forth. Many of the individual points are no doubt valid. But the central point of the amendments is utterly wrong; it would be a wrong principle for us to enshrine in English law.
Midnight
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who have spoken in this debate. Their views were expressed with such eloquence and wisdom that I do not want to demean them by repeating anything that has been said. I look forward to reading the debate in Hansard.
However, I am deeply disappointed with the response from both the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who is an old friend, and from the Minister, who has hitherto been much more helpful in discussion. I do not want to be on record as having had a punch-up with anyone concerned with conservation. Therefore, I shall merely say that they have completely missed the point. The main point I was making was that everything has gone right without custodial sentences. Why in the name of God do they suddenly want to ratchet up the position and introduce such a provision when it has been proved to be completely unnecessary?
I should like to leave the matter there. I feel that I cannot say anything now which is not fierce and which might be wounding. It is better to leave it as it is. I should like, therefore, to withdraw the amendment—but in the certain hope that the Minister, the Government and English Nature will consider everything that has been said on all sides of the House and that they will try to find their way to fairness. Much of what I heard from both those quarters scares the daylights out of me. God knows what would happen and where I would go if my friend became Prime Minister and that sort of attitude was adopted towards perfectly good, legitimate people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 137, line 29, at end insert—
("Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)
13. In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (r) there is inserted—

"(s) an offence under section 1(1) or (2) or 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (taking, possessing, selling etc. of wild birds) in respect of a bird included in Schedule 1 to that Act or any part of, or anything derived from, such a bird;

(t) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—

(i) section 1(5) (disturbance of wild birds),

(ii) section 9 or 13(1)(a) or (2) (taking, possessing, selling etc. of wild animals or plants),

(iii) section 14 (introduction of new species etc.)."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Procedure for designation orders]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 52, line 2, at end insert (", local owner/occupier representative bodies").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to the part of the Bill that deals with areas of outstanding natural beauty. This small group of amendments deals with the confirmation of orders by the Secretary of State.
Areas of outstanding natural beauty can be created by orders brought forward by the Countryside Agency or, as appropriate, the Countryside Council for Wales. They have to be approved either by the Secretary of State or, indeed, by the National Assembly for Wales. It is a moot point whether one should have this breadth of consultation at this point or whether it should be undertaken at the earlier stage by the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales. In that regard, these amendments are somewhat imperfect and perhaps need a little more thought.
However, I ask the Minister to consider what we are raising by way of these amendments. Areas of outstanding natural beauty occur for two reasons: first, because they are fortunate in their topography; and, secondly, because they are fortunate in the people who have custody of the land within their boundaries. I refer to farmers and landowners, by and large, but also to people who live in favourable communities and take great care of them. I know of no other reasons for the existence of AONBs.
With this little group of amendments we seek to bring within the consultation process a wider group of people to represent the communities—especially those who have an interest in the creation and maintenance of those communities—than is presently provided for in the Bill. The Bill currently provides for consultation with local councils. Our amendments would bring in the representatives of landowners and occupiers. That may, perhaps, be better covered by using words like, "other relevant organisations". Indeed, local conservation bodies will have an interest in such matters and could well be consulted at this early stage.
We are dealing with a consultative process in the creation of areas of outstanding natural beauty. I find it inconceivable that the process will not take place in
484
this way. I suspect that the Minister will tell me that we are in the business of dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s once again. However, as currently worded, I do not believe that the Bill is sufficiently broad. It could be improved. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
Amendment No. 231 would apply the same consultation process to variations in the areas of outstanding natural beauty. These are quite small, sensible and unobjectionable amendments. I hope that the Minister will consider them positively, even if he cannot agree to them tonight. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we like the idea that parish councils should be consulted, as specified in Amendment No. 230B. However, I believe that the amendment should say "and parish councils", instead of specifying "or parish councils" as an alternative. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider including parish councils in Amendment No. 231; and, indeed, in some of the other amendments that we shall be addressing at a later stage. In some of the more sparsely populated areas, I am sure that parish councils will be particularly relevant.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I acknowledge that these amendments are intended to require wider consultation when AONBs are being designated. As I tried to explain in Committee, the Government's proposals in this area follow the legislation relating to national parks in providing for formal consultation to take place only with the local authorities. The point here is that, in practice, the designating bodies carry out much wider consultation than is provided for in the statutory requirements. We would expect that to happen here.
In practice, if further AONBs are designated—which, of course, is far from certain—parish councils and anyone else with an interest will be able to contribute their views, which will be taken fully into account. There would almost certainly be a public inquiry to allow all views to be heard. However, I am against adding to the list of formal consultees because it would complicate the process and mean that certain others, who almost certainly would be consulted, might be omitted. We would then have the usual problems in that respect.
I recognise that the noble Lord modified his approach from the rather wider definition that was previously sought. But the current amendment proposing that,
"local owner/occupier representative bodies",
should be consulted is flawed in that it does not cover seeking the views of individuals whose views might not be represented by these "representative bodies". This demonstrates again that it is better to have wide non-statutory consultation rather than attempt to lay down precisely who should be consulted. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with that approach.
Government Amendment No. 252 is included, not entirely logically, in the group we are discussing. This is merely a tidying amendment to the interpretation

485
provisions in Clause 85. It provides that the definition of "natural beauty" provided in Clause 85 applies only in relation to Part IV of the Bill. This is because, where the expression "natural beauty" appears in other parts of the Bill, separate but consistent descriptions of the meaning are already provided there. I shall move that amendment when we reach it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for her support in principle even if we are not absolutely certain whether we have the wording right. When one is in opposition one rarely has the wording right. However, when one is in government one has the staff to put the wording right. Usually between us we manage to get somewhere.
I heard what the Minister said in response to the amendment. I cannot say that I am particularly happy with it. However, I shall consider with care what he said. I doubt whether this is an issue of sufficient significance that we shall need to return to it on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 230A to 231 not moved.]
Clause 78 [Functions of certain bodies in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 53, line 4, leave out ("planning").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 232 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 233. We consider that the word "planning" should be deleted from subsection (4) of Clause 78. The provision in that subsection should apply to the whole of a local authority. I had assumed that that would be the case.
In Committee I said that the notices we were then discussing should be held by a local planning authority and was told firmly that that was not the responsibility of a planning authority. I query the reference to a local planning authority at this point in the Bill.
Amendment No. 233 seeks to substitute the words "a duty" for the word "power" in subsection (4) of Clause 78. We believe that "a duty" would be more appropriate. I support government Amendment No. 234 in this group. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without seeking to curtail any debate it might help the House if I now say a few words about Amendment No. 234.
When the House considered in Committee Amendment No. 453 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I indicated that we had sympathy with that amendment and would consider bringing forward an equivalent provision on Report. Amendment No. 234 is the resulting amendment. It will require public bodies when carrying out their functions so as to affect an AONB to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. As discussed in Committee and reflected in Clause 76, that purpose is the reason for
486
designating AONBs. It can only be right that in carrying out their functions in or so as to affect AONBs public bodies should have regard to the purpose for which AONBs have been designated.
This clause is modelled on an equivalent provision introduced by the Environment Act 1995 which already places a similar duty on public bodies in relation to national parks and their purposes. It is appropriate that while the Government want to emphasise the importance of our AONBs and the fact that their landscapes are of equivalent quality to the national parks, we should adopt this duty which reinforces exactly that point.
I point out for purposes of clarification that the requirement to have regard to the need to conserve and enhance natural beauty in AONBs will of course constitute only one of the various statutory responsibilities placed on relevant authorities and will not override all the various other duties which public bodies and statutory undertakers operate under.
I shall respond to the amendments to the amendment and to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, at the end of the debate but I thought it helpful to state this first.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for following up the promise he made to me in Committee. Amendment No. 234 provides that the public authorities concerned,
"shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty".
Having moved to areas of outstanding natural beauty, perhaps it is appropriate for me again to declare an interest to the House as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, which is entirely within an area of outstanding natural beauty, and as a member of the executive committee of the Association of AONBs.
I am pleased that the Minister has brought forward this clause. It reflects existing legislation regarding national parks. It will help to ensure that areas of natural beauty enjoy the weight and recognition appropriate to their national importance. I cite those words from the briefing from the Council for the Protection of Rural England on the amendment. I do not always agree with the CPRE but on this occasion I strongly agree with it. With this clause in the Bill it will be easier for AONB authorities to enter into a constructive dialogue with a wide range of national bodies and statutory undertakers. I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for example, will say that the words "have regard" should be substituted by the word "duty". In a sense I, too, prefer that. But I accept that the traditional wording in relation to national parks has been used. I am sure that it will reinforce the status of AONBs in a way that is thoroughly desirable. I welcome the amendment.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I address my amendment, Amendment No. 234ZA. The noble Lord, Lord Judd,

487
has put his name to the amendment. He asks me to say that he strongly supports it and greatly regrets that he is unable to be here to speak in its favour.
I fully share what I believe to be the Government's intention to make this clause more effective and clear as regards protection of AONBs. I believe that it is not as effective as it should be and in its present form is seriously defective. As the Minister recalled, the Government announced at an earlier stage—I think during t he passage of the Bill through another place—their intention to move an amendment in this House to improve the environmental protection of AONBs so as to give them a status similar to that of national parks. In its present form the amendment will not achieve its purpose for the following reasons.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded us, subsection (1) of the Government's new clause is based on the legislation already in place in the Environment Act 1995 regarding national parks, with the words "national parks" removed and the word "AONB" inserted. This will not produce the required result since the national parks are their own planning authority. I refer to the recent Windermere case. All the statute need do in that regard is to recall to the national park authority the priority given on the statute to their environmental protection.
But that is not the case with the AONBs. It is the local planning authority which decides planning issues in the AONBs and the words in the Government's new clause do not bind the local planning authority. The latter is simply told to "have regard" to the purpose of the AONBs. As I shall explain in a moment, it may not regard that as a matter of priority.
Next there is a conflict between the side note in the Government's text, General duty of public bodies, and the wording of the clause itself. I take it that it was the Government's intention to create a public duty but those key words are omitted from the clause. I am advised by the Officers of the House that a side note has no legal effect. It is merely a guide to the reader of the statute. The amendment would transfer the words from the side note into the text of the new clause, rendering it more effective and apposite.
I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on 2nd November to inform him of my intention to table the amendment. He kindly replied in a letter dated 14th November, which was forwarded to me by fax and received here this afternoon. He writes that he cannot accept my formulation because,
"the general duty to conserve and enhance",
AONBs belongs to many government bodies and cannot be addressed to local planning authorities alone. I used the phrase "general duty" because it appears in the side note to the Minister's amendment. If he can suggest another form of words that improves on "have regard to" but goes less far than a "general duty", I shall gladly consider it. The words "have regard to" on their own are inadequate.
The Government's new clause appears, to me at least, to be in conflict with their policy planning guidance on AONBs, which rules out any major commercial development unless it meets two tests:
488
national need and the absence of any alternative site. If the Government's new clause becomes law in its present form, it will be seen by some, myself included, as weakening the current position, as defined in the policy planning guidance. That would lead to confusion and would be very undesirable.
Some noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who has just spoken and whose opinion I greatly respect, feel that the amendment goes too far. I accept that planning authorities come in various sizes, political hues and attitudes. Many of them may be zealous in defence of their AONBs, but not all of them are. I shall illustrate that with a current important example that has guided my approach to the issue.
At the boundary of the Suffolk coast and heaths AONB and inside its south-western frontier is an archaeological site of national importance at. Sutton Hoo. A substantial local farmer who works the fields nearby wants to build a new washing, cleaning and packaging plant for his vegetable crops, at whose cultivation he is highly proficient. He bought a small redundant military site nearby, previously used by the Royal Air Force for a ground approach radar, and made a planning application for a large new structure on it close to Sutton Hoo. The planning officers supported him. Indeed, they had suggested the site to him in the first place and commented favourably on it when it came before the planning committee. The elected councillors rejected the proposal, having been duly warned of its policy implications by the local inhabitants. Their decision is now being appealed by the applicant, whose formal grounds for appeal clearly show the support that he was given by officials in the local planning authority.
I do not expect the Minister to comment on the case and it would be improper of me to suggest that he might, but it is a serious current example of how the new clause might be interpreted by some local planning authorities, which might claim that, as well as having regard to the purposes of AONBs, they also had regard to their own priorities, including the misery of the local agricultural population and the need to provide further opportunities for an effective farmer. That is why the Government's test is dangerously weak and why I prefer my version. The Council for the Protection of Rural England, to which I have spoken recently and of whose Suffolk branch my wife and I are active members, believes my amendment to be an improvement.
It would have been better if the new clause had been before us in Committee, but it was not available then. I do not pretend that my version is the last word on the subject. No doubt expert draftsmen could produce a more refined text. If the Minister is prepared to consider my points, I shall be content to withdraw the amendment.
However, there is a significant issue here and I intend to pursue it further. I emphasise that in this context the phrase "have regard to" is too permissive. We want a form of words which calls on the local planning authority to give proper priority to the needs

489
of the AONB, which this text does not do. This is a very important clause. I hope that the Government will be able to reflect again on what I have said.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in what he seeks to do. I certainly consider that the addition of the section on AONBs is every bit as important for the purpose of this legislation as the whole of the access section. I believe that it represents a major improvement to a Bill which, in general, I have always supported.
The AONBs owe much to my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, who gave this matter a dry run a year or so ago. I believe that government Amendment No. 234 is good so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. I understand that the wording suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is not quite acceptable to the Government. Amendment No. 234 states:
"In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an area of outstanding natural beauty, a relevant authority shall".
I suggest that we simply add the words, "seek to conserve and enhance". That does not mean that an authority will necessarily succeed. It does not mean that that will be the most dominant of its policies; but that it should, when it can, seek to conserve and enhance the beauty of the AONBs. The Government should return at Third Reading with slightly better wording for that amendment which, in itself, is an important addition to the Bill.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy to speak briefly to Amendment No. 234ZB, if that is in order. Briefly, he says that Amendment No. 234 requires statutory undertakers, when exercising any functions in relation to land in an AONB, to have regard to conserving and enhancing its natural beauty.
Particular concern has been expressed by holders of electricity licences under the Electricity Act 1989 over the use of the word "enhance". It implies a positive obligation on licence holders to improve the appearance of an area. In many cases, that is likely to result in claims that the licence holders should remove electric lines or plants which are in AONBs or place such lines and equipment underground. My noble friend goes on at some length to detail his views. However, I believe that the Minister has an understanding of them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for explaining the amendments to my Amendment No. 234. I start with Amendment No. 234ZA. Our amendment requires relevant authorities, in exercising or performing their functions, to have regard to the need to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of AONBs. The side note, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, recognises, is not part of the Bill. However, it is intended to mean "a duty to have regard to". That is exactly what it means. It does not place a particular management demand on those
490
bodies. It is intended to ensure that, in taking decisions or carrying out work which affects AONBs, public bodies and statutory undertakers should have regard to the fact that Parliament has provided for those areas to be designated for the conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty.
It would be unacceptable to do what Amendment No. 234ZA seeks to do by turning the duty to have regard into a general duty on relevant authorities to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of AONBs. While all Ministers of the Crown, public bodies and statutory undertakers should "have regard to" the reasons for which AONBs have been designated, they cannot all be made responsible for their active management, which is what Amendment No. 234ZA appears to propose. Those bodies all have their own existing statutory responsibilities, and they have a wide variety of degrees of influence or control over AONBs. Of course, they should have regard to the need to conserve and enhance natural beauty, but it would not be justified to give them a general duty to do so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, will not pursue the matter.
Amendment No. 234ZB draws attention to the legitimate concerns of statutory undertakers. We believe that we have got it right in requiring the relevant authorities, which include statutory undertakers, to have regard to conserving and enhancing natural beauty. But our amendment does not go further and require them to take particular action to do so. I have heard the concerns which come from electricity companies and they are quite legitimate. The companies are subject to various duties, including the efficient co-ordination and economic supply of power.
Government Amendment No. 234 will have the same application to electricity companies acting as statutory undertakers as it will to all the other bodies to which it will apply. That is to say, in exercising or performing their functions the bodies must have regard to the question of conserving and enhancing natural beauty.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for many years now Eastern Electricity has had a programme to put wires, not of the highest voltage, underground in designated areas including national parks, conservation areas and AONBs? The sad thing is that other electricity companies have been much less enlightened and have not yet followed suit. So rather than pandering to them, would not the Minister prefer to encourage those companies to follow the example of Eastern Electricity?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would encourage any statutory undertaker to follow that example. I was very much in favour of a proposal for the Millennium Commission to spend all its money in putting cables underground. That would have made an irreversible change in favour of the natural beauty of this country. However, I am told that that would cost £100 billion, despite the substantial sums

491
available to the Millennium Commission. We would like to see more cables put underground but we do not believe that it is appropriate to do that by legislation in this way.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, our amendment does not mean—I say this to console the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in his absence—that electricity companies will be required to place their lines underground in AONBs.
I believe I heard a general welcome for Amendment No. 234, but I believe that we have got the balance right. As regards Amendments Nos. 232 and 233, I am a little surprised to see them because they would place a duty on local authorities to take such action as appears to be expedient for the accomplishment of the purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty. In Committee I explained that what is now Clause 78(4) is merely a re-enactment of the provision which we have had for more than 50 years in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. In Committee the Opposition Front Bench wanted to remove that power altogether. Now they want to turn it from a power to a duty. That is a 180 degree U-turn.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I believe that during the early stages we were concerned that there would not be enough funding for some of the things that the Government hoped to do. As the Committee stage continued it became clear that that would be so. Therefore, it is better that there is someone who looks and listens. We just wish to make sure that the boards have enough strength. That is why we tabled these two amendments. I believe that the noble Lord is pulling my leg slightly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am, of course. I entirely accept and appreciate what the noble Baroness said. What is clear is that we are moving closer together. Let us compromise on the Government's attitude, which is a consolidation position. It applies what has applied to national parks for over 50 years.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words before we conclude this business in reply to what the Minister said about my amendment. I believe that he has misunderstood what I was trying to do. I noticed that he used a phrase which I saw in the letter to me from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, accusing me of saying that I was seeking to make all the public authorities responsible for active management. That is simply not the case. I am looking for a way in which we can have an effective partnership between central government and the local authorities, which the present text of the Bill does not provide. Therefore, I hope we shall hear more about this at the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
492
[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 234:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause—

Service of notices

  GENERAL DUTY OF PUBLIC BODIES ETC
  (" .—(1) In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an area of outstanding natural beauty, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty.
  (2) The following are relevant authorities for the purposes of this section—

  (a) any Minister of the Crown,

  (b) any public body,

  (c) any statutory undertaker,

  (d) any person holding public office.

  (3) In subsection (2)—
  "public body" includes—

  (a) a county council, county borough council, district council, parish council or community council;

  (b) a joint planning board within the meaning of section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

  (c) a joint committee appointed under section 102(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972;

  "public office" means—

  (a) an office under Her Majesty;

  (b) an office created or continued in existence by a public general Act; or

  (c) an office the remuneration in respect of which is paid out of money provided by Parliament.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  [Amendments Nos. 234ZA and 234ZB, as amendments to Amendment No. 234, not moved.]
  On Question, Amendment No. 234 agreed to.
  Clause 79 [Establishment of conservation boards]:
  [Amendment No. 234A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 234B:
  Page 53, line 30, at end insert—
  ("() No order shall be made under this section in relation to an area of outstanding natural beauty unless a majority of the local authorities whose areas consist of or include the whole or part of that area of outstanding natural beauty consent to the establishment of a conservation board.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 79(6) provides for local authorities in AONBs to be consulted about proposals to establish conservation boards. Local authorities in this context means a principal council within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972. I understand that to mean a county council, district council or unitary authority.
  As the Bill stands, there is no provision requiring any of the principal councils to agree to the establishment of a conservation board. Theoretically, therefore, the Bill could allow the Secretary of State or National Assembly of Wales to establish a board where every single authority involved was actually opposed to the idea.
  Of course, I realise that it is most unlikely that the Government would establish a board in such circumstances but they could do so, and that is the point. My amendment seeks to avoid that. I have received representations from local councillors in my part of the world who are in an AONB and therefore could have a conservation board imposed upon them. Their views on this matter are very strong indeed. They believe that there should be proper local consultation.
  My amendment simply seeks to require that a majority of the local authorities concerned in any area—and there could be many in some AONBs because they traverse county and district boundaries—would have to agree to the establishment of a board following consultation before the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales could proceed.
  There are similar amendments to mine. One is in the names of my noble friends Lady Byford, Lord Glentoran and Lord Dixon-Smith which would require the consensus of all local authorities within the AONB, which I believe is rather an extreme way of dealing with the consultation process. Another amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, requires a broad measure of agreement. With respect to my noble friend, I regard that as perhaps being rather woolly.
  My amendment would require a clear majority of authorities to be in agreement before a board could be established. That is clear and unequivocal. It avoids the possibility of one authority vetoing a proposal supported by the others. Equally, it avoids the prospect of the Government proceeding where the authorities involved are very half-hearted about the idea.
  Furthermore, I was interested to see in the circular letter sent to many noble Lords by the chairman of the Countryside Agency, Mr Cameron, that,
  "Conservation Boards will not be imposed on AONBs. We want every AONB to have the management system which best meets its local circumstances and needs".
  The letter goes on:
  "But the new legislation as drafted is needed to make the Conservation Board model available",
  which is fine,
  "when it makes practical sense, and where it is locally supported".
  I suggest that my amendment exactly meets that criterion because it prevents conservation boards being imposed against the wishes of the majority of the local authorities within that area. I was also interested to see a letter circulated by the Local Government Association, which made the same point. It said:
  "The establishment of the Conservation Boards must be with local and national agreement".
  Again, I suggest that my amendment meets this specific proposal. So I hope that the Government will look favourably on what I may describe as the third way. I believe that it would satisfy the requirements of local authorities, that we would get a consensus view
  494
  and that this whole contentious matter of conservation boards would go forward in a manner acceptable to local democracy. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has picked up much of what I would have said on Amendments Nos. 236A and 237A, which are grouped with his amendment. Those two amendments require the agreement of all authorities. The establishment of a management board for an area of outstanding natural beauty will be a serious matter. If there is any degree of opposition to the establishment of the management board, particularly from participating local authorities that must have participated in an existing joint board, it is highly unlikely that it will work well. In some ways the wording of the amendment in the name of my noble friend is more felicitous than the wording in Amendments Nos. 236A and 237A. The fact is that if there is not agreement to the establishment of such boards, the likelihood of their succeeding is pretty remote.
  Bearing in mind that in the vast majority of cases the AONBs are in existence and working happily and well with joint boards running them, it would be dangerous to go from that situation to one in which there was an imposed management board with a considerable degree of dissent in the area. I do not believe that that would be advantageous for anyone concerned, either nationally or locally. I ask the Minister to consider the position seriously. He may not want to decide tonight, but if not perhaps he can come up with something better at Third Reading.
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I want to speak to my Amendment No. 238A. It states that,
  "Before making an order to establish a conservation board",
  the Secretary of State with respect to England or the National Assembly for Wales,
  "shall be satisfied that there is a broad measure of agreement among those consulted locally that a conservation board should be established".
  The history of my amendment goes back to my Private Member's Bill of a year ago, when in the course of debating it I remember my noble friend Lord Jopling pointing out that in my original Bill there was no mention of a "broad measure of agreement" to a conservation board being established. In consequence, I put it in at Committee stage. That was before the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel was tabled. He referred to my amendment as being "rather woolly". I would not agree with that description, but I am not in the business of having a competition with him on such an issue.
  If the Minister were to agree to my noble friend's amendment, I would gladly withdraw mine. The point that is common between us, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, is that the conservation board should not be established unless there is a broad measure of agreement from a majority of those consulted that it should be established.

  495
  I fully agree with my noble friend that if the imposition of a conservation board were attempted by a Secretary of State against the wishes of most of those he consulted, it would be a great mistake. Clause 79 leaves open the possibility that a future Secretary of State may impose a conservation board against the wishes of the majority of local interests, including the local authorities concerned.
  It is precisely to ensure that such an unlikely but none the less possible scenario does not happen that I tabled my amendment. It does not undermine the powers to create a conservation board as I am not suggesting that acceptance by all local authorities is sought. I suggest that the Minister will lose nothing by accepting either my amendment or that of my noble friend Lord Peel. In either case, reassurance would be given to the sceptics that conservation boards would not be established unless there were agreement from the majority of those consulted. That might be a good thing.
  12.45 a.m.
  The Earl of Arran: My Lords, without wanting to be an adjudicator on variations on the theme, I come down strongly on the side of my noble friend Lord Peel. I believe that his amendment has the necessary strength, clarity and purpose. In my part of the world, Devon, the local councillors have expressed considerable concern that the Secretary of State has the power to impose local conservation boards against the wishes of local authorities within the AONBs. I hope that the Minister will understand the merit and good sense of my noble friend's amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches would take a different view and would prefer the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, which is consensual. The difficulty with the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is that if there were only two local authorities, which is the case for some AONBs, it would be impossible to produce a majority if one agreed and one disagreed.
  Furthermore, for the purposes of the conservation board too much emphasis is laid on the local authority and not enough on other interests. The concept that conservation boards will be over local authorities is wrong. It is a completely different relationship and in many cases they are fulfilling functions which are not among the primary purposes of the local authorities. I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would fulfil the kind of agreement which should rightly be sought locally. For that reason we support it.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I prefer the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Peel. It is important to have conservation boards. To some extent, it is a matter of persuasion. I well remember the previous government setting up the Broads authority many years ago. I was a member of the Countryside Commission and was sent to Norfolk and parts of Suffolk to help to persuade the local authorities to
  496
  agree to the proposal. However, the Government's intention was to legislate to set up a Broads authority. We succeeded in getting it set up with consent and it has been a considerable success.
  The South Downs Conservation Board of my noble friend Lord Renton, is a separate animal which he inherited from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I understand that the local authorities, which have representatives on the board, are keen on it and supportive of it. Therefore, we need more to persuade local authorities to accept the boards than at present.
  There is a difficulty as to the exact wording. I would have been quite happy with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel. The noble Baroness said that there might be two local authorities only one of which agreed. My understanding is that that would still pass the test according to my noble friend's amendment, because the majority must agree. There must be better consultation than is presently provided for, but it must not be such as to enable people to sabotage the setting up of the board.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we agree with all those who have spoken about the objectives and shall try to find the right way to achieve them. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that conservation boards are good. We also agree with Ewen Cameron of the Countryside Agency and the Local Government Association that boards should not be foisted on AONBs when they are not wanted. We expect the first moves towards the creation of conservation boards to be initiated locally. Our proposals require consultation with all affected local authorities before an order is produced to establish a conservation board. We shall take into account very seriously the views of local authorities, and the Secretary of State is bound to take reasonable decisions in the light of the consultations.
  Of the options that have been offered, we tend towards that of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. The approach based on a broad measure of agreement proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is similar to the way that the Conservative Party used to choose its leaders. That did not work very well. We believe that the all or nothing solution of the Conservative Front Bench goes too far. One may have a perfectly successful conservation board even if one local authority chooses not to take part in it. Although the exact wording of the noble Earl's amendment may not work in the circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, his amendment based on the majority view appears to be the closest. We shall look closely at tabling an amendment at Third Reading which produces the intended effect of Amendment No. 234B.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will clarify one important matter. I believe it is inconceivable that a conservation

  497
  board can be created if one of the local authorities is so determined not to have it that it refuses to participate. Perhaps I have misunderstood the situation.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that that is so. It is unlikely that there will be an AONB which involves only two local authorities.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for having taken such a rational view of this broad debate. I look forward with interest to how the Government deal with the matter at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 235:
  Page 53, line 41, at end insert—
  ("(3A) Subsection (3) does not apply to functions of a local authority under Part II, III, VII or XIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I explained in Committee that it was not the intention of the Government that conservation boards should be able to be made local planning authorities. A number of noble Lords wanted that to be made clear on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 235 achieves that by specifically ruling out the transfer or sharing of development plan and development control functions with conservation boards. Those functions will in all cases remain with the appropriate local authorities. I shall respond to Amendment No. 235A when it has been spoken to. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 235, Amendment No. 235A:
  Line 3, after ("VII") insert (", IX").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 235A and to speak to Amendments Nos. 244 and 245. I welcome Amendment No. 235. We were very concerned in Committee that, as originally drafted, the Bill would permit the considerable transfer of planning powers to a conservation board. The Government's amendment answers that concern. I am grateful to the Government for the manner in which they have responded to what was said on this issue in Committee.
  The Minister may think that I am a completely unreasonable person and will now start carping, but it is always as well to look with care at what has been done. Part II of the Bill deals with development plans; Part III deals with control over development; and Part VII deals with enforcement. Those are the planning powers that would cause serious concern had it been possible to transfer them to AONBs.
  I find Part VIII interesting. I should like to ask the Minister whether he feels that part should be barred for transfer. Part VIII is concerned with special controls. It deals specifically with trees: planting, tree preservation orders, compensation—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Part VIII is not in the amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I apologise. I have Part VIII down as included on my list.
  I welcome the amendments. We have tabled other amendments in the group. One is to remove Part IX because that deals with compulsory purchase. There are two other small amendments. One deals with compulsory purchase of land. The other deals with power to borrow money. There is a feeling, at the very least, that if conservation boards have powers to purchase land, they could cause vexation and antagonism locally.
  In any event, they need to raise monies if they are to purchase land. At the moment they have no certain sources of funding. They are not in the position of a local authority which has solid backing and sound financial ratings. These would be new bodies with—at best—a somewhat hesitant revenue stream, either from their participating local authority or from the Government. That would not provide a sound basis for borrowing. We have tabled two amendments to restrict both the power to borrow and the power to purchase land, which we believe are appropriate for this kind of body. Those are the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 235. They are important amendments which adjust the Bill in a small but significant way.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that as the conservation boards will be statutory consultees, and their management plans will carry weight in the development plans, members of the conservation board will have the same rules and conventions on declarations of interest applied to them as apply to other councillors in a similar position, such as parish councillors?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness is yes. We shall come on to the question of membership in the next group of amendments.
  Perhaps I may respond to Amendment No. 235A first. That would rule out all applications of Part IX of the Town & Country Planning Act. Part IX covers powers to acquire land by compulsory purchase. But it also covers powers to acquire land by agreement when the land is suitable for and required to carry out development, redevelopment or improvement. That is quite a wide exclusion. I would not like to rule out all these possibilities now. I would prefer to look at the matter in the establishment order for each conservation board to see what powers actually are appropriate. To take out Part IX now would be a mistake.

  499
  Amendment No. 244 seeks to prevent a conservation board being given powers of compulsory purchase. It is not our intention that conservation boards should be given powers of compulsory purchase. We have proposed in Schedule 14 the powers we consider conservation boards may need to acquire and dispose of land, and those are powers to purchase by agreement. Even those powers are likely to be used sparingly because we do not expect conservation boards to become major landholders. National park authorities are not. I do not believe that conservation boards need to be given compulsory purchase powers.
  I do not think that it would be helpful to extend in the Bill the list of functions which cannot be transferred to conservation boards. I have brought forward an amendment excluding the transfer of the main planning powers because there was clearly a measure of concern about that issue in Committee, even though I explained that we did not intend those functions to be transferred. I do not want to add to that. I should like to remind the House that the power this legislation will give to transfer functions is actually quite limited. It applies only to functions which are needed to achieve the purposes or exercise the functions of a conservation board.
  I turn to Amendment No. 245. Clause 80(5) of the Bill provides that the general power of a conservation board given by Clause 80(4) to do anything calculated to facilitate or conducive or incidental to accomplishing its purposes or carrying out its functions does not of itself provide a power to raise money. Conservation boards will clearly need to raise money somehow in order to be able to discharge their functions. Clause 84 allows the Secretary of State to make grants to them. The Countryside Agency will also be able to make grants, and between these two routes there is the ability to fund boards to the level affordable by central government. Conservation boards will be able to augment this income from other sources, including voluntary support from the local authorities involved in the boards. But the boards will not have levying powers. There would have to be a specific provision to do so and we have not included one in the Bill. Boards could be granted borrowing powers if that were allowed by the establishment order. There is provision, of course, for them to make charges for services. Clause 80(5)(b) is a correctly drafted provision, which incidentally is identical to Section 65(6)(b) of the Environment Act 1995 as it applies to national park authorities. To remove the words, as suggested in the amendment, might lead to doubts that conservation boards would be able to raise money at all. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he confirm that all those methods of raising funding will equally apply to AONBs which remain with a joint advisory committee? We are concerned that there should not be a two-tier system of AONBs and that those which choose not to have conservation boards will not be financially disadvantaged.
  1 a.m
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, government grants and Countryside Agency grants would apply to AONBs which were not conservation boards. Voluntary grants from local authorities would still be a matter for them. But it would be possible For the boards to receive grants.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I listened with interest to what the Minister said. He has been very helpful in his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 235A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 235, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment No. 235 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 236 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendment No. 236A not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 237 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendment No. 237A not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 238 had been renumbered as Amendment No. 234A.]
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 238A:
  After Clause 79, insert the following new clause—

  ESTABLISHMENT OF CONSERVATION BOARDS: CONSENSUS OF AGREEMENT
  (" . Before making an order to establish a conservation board, the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) shall be satisfied that there is a broad measure of agreement among those consulted locally that a conservation board should be established.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in saying that I shall not be moving this amendment, perhaps I may at the same time congratulate my noble friend Lord Peel on having Amendment No. 234B accepted in principle by the Government.
  [Amendment No. 238A not moved.]
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry moved Amendment No. 238B:
  After Clause 79, insert the following new clause—

  COMPOSITION OF CONSERVATION BOARDS
  (" .—(1) A conservation board shall consist of not more than 24 members of whom—

  (a) not less than three-quarters shall be appointed by local authorities and parish councils in the proportion of two members from the local authorities for every one member from the parish councils; and

  (b) the balance of not more than one-quarter shall be appointed by the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) from organisations whose interests and objectives are relevant to the conservation board.

  (2) In the event of a failure by local authorities and parish councils to agree appointments under subsection (1)(a) above, the matter should be referred to the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) for arbitration and decision.
  (3) A conservation board shall, after local consultation, decide whether to form an advisory council, and if such a council is formed, shall appoint members to it who shall be drawn from local organisations concerned with the objectives of the conservation board.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the composition of conservation boards. I believe that on this occasion I must have got it right because my noble friend Lord Peel has added his name to my amendment. That is bound to mean that it will now enjoy wholesale acceptance from all sides of the House, including the Government Front Bench.
  The purpose of my amendment is to suggest that a conservation board should not consist of more than 24 members, of whom not less than three-quarters—that is, a maximum of 18—would be appointed by local authorities and parish councils, thus in the proportion of two members from local authorities to every one member from parish councils. The balance, comprising not more than one-quarter—that is, a maximum of six—would be appointed by the Secretary of State in respect of England or the National Assembly for Wales in respect of Wales.
  The point about the size is extremely relevant. I am well aware that, for example, the Council of the University of Sussex, on which I happen to serve and which is the governing body of the University of Sussex, is under pressure from the Higher Education Funding Council. The council is thus in the process of reducing its numbers. I believe that many other universities are in exactly the same position. It has been suggested that for a university to function properly, the executive body of its council should not comprise more than around 25 members.
  I believe that exactly the same principle could apply to the new conservation boards, as and when they are established. The conservation board which I now chair has a membership of 36. If the same composition of membership were to continue at the same time as we absorb the East Hampshire joint advisory committee and become, in due course, the South Downs national park, I am told that the board membership would comprise a figure in the mid-forties. For a board to function properly, it should be kept as small as is practicable. I suggest that a maximum of 24 would be about as small as is practicable.
  When he replies, the Minister may well say that this should be dealt with in the order establishing a particular conservation board rather than be added to the primary legislation. I think that is wrong, because if it is put into primary legislation it will remove the temptation that will certainly exist, as individual conservation boards are created, to allow them to be formed at a size that will prove unmanageable in practice. However, it will be politically expedient at the time of the creation of the board. That is because it is a great deal easier to say "yes" to increasing numbers when a board is becoming formed than it is to say "no". For example, a local authority or county council may wish to put up three members rather than one. It is easier to give in to such requests. For that reason, I believe that to include a definition of maximum size in primary legislation—a size that would be as small as is practicable—makes good sense.
  The division between local authority and parish council members is a matter that has concerned many people, not least when the national parks came into being. I have therefore suggested that, when taking my maximum figure of 24, there would be 18 members, of whom 12 would come from the local authorities, six from the parish councils and the remaining six appointed by the Secretary of State to represent those organisations whose interests and objectives are relevant to conservation boards. At that point, the Secretary of State could bring in representatives from national bodies such as the NFU, the CLA, the Ramblers' Association and others.
  In subsection (3) I have added a provision that there should be an advisory council if a conservation board decides that that would be appropriate. I believe that that is the correct way in which to involve representatives of local organisations who are concerned with the objectives of the conservation board. I would much rather see them involved at the level of advisory council, which might meet two or three times a year, instead of in the composition of the board itself, for the reasons I have outlined. I have tried in this amendment to arrive at a compromise figure which balances the different factors and pressures. It is on that basis that I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps it may help the House if, as I did earlier, I say a few words about the government amendments and then, with the leave of the House—without curtailing debate—come back and talk to the other amendments.
  Perhaps I may first tell the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a little story. In the 1960s, I was a member of the Metropolitan Water Board, which had something like 100 members. It needed 100 members because the grand boardroom in New River Head had 100 seats, and it would have been awful if there were not 100 members. The majority Labour group used to meet at 1.30; the board would meet at 2.30. On the rising of the board, the water examination committee would meet in the Oak room. On the rising of the water examination committee, tea was served in the Oak room. Tea was never served later than 2.45. That was an efficient way to run a board.
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, perhaps I may cap the Minister's story. I have a meeting of my conservation board in nine-and-a-quarter hours' time in Lewes, Sussex. I suspect that all 36 members will be there waiting for me in order to find out how I got on tonight.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall speak for a shorter time than the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
  As regards Amendments Nos. 239 to 243, I explained in Committee that the Government's proposals for the membership are for at least 40 per cent—it could be more—to come from local authorities; for, in England, at least 20 per cent—again it could be more—to be parish members; and for whatever proportion is left to be appointed by the Secretary of State in order to represent all the other

  503
  interests that needed to be represented, such as conservation specialists, land managers and people who use their AONB for recreational purposes.
  But there were concerns expressed that the Secretary of State would be allowed to appoint up to 60 per cent of the members, and that was seen to be too great a proportion. Amendments Nos. 239 to 243 now provide that in respect of conservation boards in England, the parish members would be appointed by the parishes themselves rather than by the Secretary of State. We will provide for this by specifying in individual establishment orders how the parishes will go about making these appointments. We will consult before an establishment order is drafted with the relevant county associations of local councils—again I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils—and the affected parishes themselves as to what the order would say.
  That means in England that the Secretary of State will be able to appoint an absolute maximum of 40 per cent of the members, with the majority being democratically appointed locally. It is thoroughly appropriate that the Secretary of State should appoint some members to reflect the national interest in the AONB and the central government funding which will be provided.
  In Wales, if conservation boards are introduced—it will be a matter for the National Assembly to decide—the Assembly will decide in practice how to distribute the membership interest beyond the basic requirement for at least 40 per cent to come from the local authorities.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 238C only makes sense now that the Minister has explained Amendments Nos. 239 to 243. I am extremely grateful to him for what he said. Under the original draft of the Bill before us in Committee, the fact that parish council members could be appointed by the Secretary of State caused concern because we felt that it gave the Secretary of State too great a power of appointment. That is now removed. It is a very welcome concession and I am grateful to the Government for it.
  Amendment No. 238C, which is grouped with these amendments, concerns those members that the Secretary of State can still appoint. It requires the Secretary of State to make those appointments from a list of nominees obtained from local conservation bodies and other relevant organisations. The Secretary of State is bound to do that because there is no point in appointing anyone other than local people to these local bodies.
  Again, I should have thought that this was another of those irresistible amendments which the Minister ought at the very least to consider seriously. I do not expect an answer from him now. However, I should have thought that he could accept those words and find the situation satisfactory from the point of view of the conservation boards in the future. I ask the Minister to consider Amendment No. 238C very seriously indeed.
  1.15 a.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches feel that the government move to allow parishes to appoint their own members is very positive. It will send out a good message to parish councils about government trust in their abilities.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond very briefly. Now I have said that! I hate people saying "very briefly". They never mean it—and I do not mean it.
  Let me deal first with the amendment moved by die noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is similar to the one he proposed in Committee and I have already spoken to that. I do not think that it is an improvement on I he Government's proposals. I understand the desire to keep the number of members down, but we do not see a need to tie our hands in advance.
  Under the noble Lord's proposal there would be a likely maximum of 12 local authority members, which would not allow every local authority to have even one representative in bigger AONBs such as the Chilterns or the Cotswolds where there are some 15 local authorities. I believe that this would be an obstacle to getting local authorities to participate in conservation boards. The noble Lord seems to envisage that local authorities and parish councils will come together by some mechanism to agree on the distribution of their membership. I think that our proposal to have parish councils make their own choice is better.
  Amendment No. 238C would require the Secretary of State's members of conservation boards to be appointed,
  "from a list of nominees obtained from local conservation bodies and other relevant organisations".
  That is more restrictive than our proposal. The Secretary of State will, of course, expect to make hi s appointments taking into account the nominations coming from local conservative bodies as well as from other organisations. The process will be based on the Nolan principles for public appointments—appointments on merit following the principles of independent scrutiny, equal opportunities, openness and transparency. But it would be a shame for this body, but not for any other comparable bodies, to have a restriction on who could nominate prospective candidates for membership. No restriction is imposed on the membership of national park authorities. Members of such authorities were not, of course, appointed according to the Nolan procedures. But if we now have those procedures, surely we do not need to have restricted nominating bodies.
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, in the light of the government amendments, which I find satisfactory, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 13 [Areas of outstanding natural beauty: conservation boards]:
  [Amendment No. 238C not moved.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 239 to 243:
  Page 138, line 2, at end insert (", and
  (c) in the case of an English conservation board, such number of parish members as may be so specified.").
  Page 138, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
  Page 139, line 2, leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 3 and insert (", in accordance with the provisions of the relevant order, by—

  (a) the parish councils for parishes the whole or any part of which is comprised in the relevant area of outstanding natural beauty, and

  (b) the parish meetings of any of those parishes which do not have separate parish councils.").

  Page 139, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (7).
  Page 140, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.

  Clause 80 [General purposes and powers]:
  [Amendments Nos. 244 and 245 not moved.]
  Clause 81 [Orders establishing conservation boards]: [Amendment No. 246 not moved.]
  Clause 82 [Management plans]:
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 247:
  Page 57, line 15, after ("prepare") insert (", consult locally on").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and speak at some considerable length on Amendments Nos. 247 to 249.
  Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 are self-explanatory. Amendment No. 247 provides that conservation boards should publish plans, but that they should consult locally on them. As for Amendment No. 248, we believe that management plans should be reviewed within 12 months. This should be a priority, as boards may wish to change their initial plans. The provision in the amendment would add to their flexibility.
  Amendment No. 249 provides that the conservation board may review and adopt any plan prepared in the period before the board existed or in the subsequent two years. Under Clause 82(5)(a), the plan could have been prepared by a single authority, which need not cover the whole AONB. In fact, one could assume that it would not cover the whole. If it did, there would be no need for a conservation board. In such a circumstance there should be a statutory duty on the board to consult other local authorities wholly or partly covered by the AONB.
  Perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 249A, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. This requires a published response to every management plan within six months. That seems to me to be an extremely sensible proposition and one that I support. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Glentoran for what he said in support of my amendment. Quite simply, the point of my amendment is to ensure that, once management
  506
  plans have been sent to the Minister and public bodies, a reply is received. Under Clause 83(2), the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may receive a copy of a management plan, but there is no requirement upon them to reply. So what is likely to happen? What will the Secretary of State do with the plan? Will he put it in a drawer, will he bin it or does he reply to it? The fact is that far too infrequently does the Secretary of State reply. Indeed, I receive comments on this from many people working for national parks. It is a matter of vexation to them and could be so for conservation boards in the future. After spending a great deal of time and effort on producing a management plan, nothing more is heard from the Minister or the department concerned.
  The amendment is directed particularly at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. At the heart of this amendment is the acceptance that national parks authorities or conservation boards which prepare management plans have no direct influence upon farming management. The main influence on agricultural land management is concentrated on the activities of MAFF and the Forestry Commission. These government departments and agencies are in charge of delivering all the Government's intervention systems which influence agriculture. However—and this is the crux of the matter—there is no obligation, apart from the general duties clause, for government departments or their agents to take action in the delivery of management plan objectives.
  My amendment would not tie other government departments to take particular action. All it would do is require them to say, "We agree with this; we are getting on with it", or, "We don't agree with this, and these are the reasons why". This is a sensible amendment that I very much hope Ministers will be able to adopt. When replying to a similar amendment that I tabled in Committee, the Minister was rather off hand. I think that that is a mistake. What I am suggesting here allows room for disagreement. It would not tie the Minister's hand and oblige him to agree to do things that he does not wish to do. However, it would require him to say something in reply. I very much hope that the amendment will receive support from all sides of the House and, indeed, from the Government Front Bench.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches support Amendment No. 249A. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, there is not much point in producing a plan if the Government make no response whatever to it. Moreover, in terms of plans there are many others to which the Government do respond in one way or another; for example, local transport plans, local development plans and community strategies. Surely this plan will fit in with that pattern of response.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 247 and 249 appear to have as their aim to express in the legislation the need to consult locally on the preparation or review of management plans. It is the

  507
  Government's firm view that there should be widespread local consultation when management plans are prepared or reviewed.
  The position is that the Countryside Agency has begun work on guidance on the preparation of management plans, in full co-operation with those who look after AONBs, and that guidance will undoubtedly indicate a wide-ranging local consultation similar to the wide-ranging local consultation when national park management plans are prepared. That matter is best covered by guidance rather than by a measure on the face of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 248 would require a local authority or conservation board which is intending to review and adopt a non-statutory plan prepared before the passage of the Bill to review it within 12 months. However, the amendment does not appear to be consistent with, or follow through, any change as regards the timescale which is already on the face of the Bill in Clause 82. The amendment is internally inconsistent. Local authorities will have to publish such plans within three years of commencement or designation of the AONB, whichever is the sooner, and conservation boards will have to do so within two years of the establishment of a conservation board. So it is not necessary separately to require the review to happen within 12 months. Neither does it define when the 12 months would begin. I believe that the timetable in the Bill is clear. The amendment would confuse the issue.
  I was gratified to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, say that his Amendment No. 249A constituted mainly "having a go" at MAFF rather than my department. Nevertheless I consider that it is a little misplaced. The provision he has in mind, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has in mind, relates to plans which are part of the planning system; that is, the structure plan, the development plan and the community strategies to some extent. However, the management plan is in a different category. Structure plans which are generally prepared by the local planning authority at county level are very much part of the development plan system and subject to formal response from the Secretary of State. That is the general position with regard to the development plan system.
  AONB management plans are different. They are not part of the development plan system. Wherever there is a management plan there will also be a structure plan which will go through the normal process in relation to the Secretary of State. I do not see that the amendment would of itself bring about any improvement in the way in which the system of management plans operates in practice. Clearly there are occasions when the Government will wish to comment on the plan and the representatives of government will certainly want to participate in the plan, or the review of the plan, and in the work involved in delivering the plan, usually through the Countryside Agency and other bodies. This should be a continuing involvement by the Government's local agents as integral partners.
  508
  What we do not want to see is a system of formal responses from government, which appears to be the implication of the amendment. As occurs with the planning system on occasion, that risks developing into a confrontational situation in requiring the Government to draw up a list of ways in which their policies may conflict with the management plan. That would not be productive; it misunderstands the nature of the management plan system. If the plan has been prepared sympathetically with the participation of the agencies involved, there should be no such conflict. If the Secretary of State has to make a formal, statutory response, one gets into a situation approximating to the response to development plans, regional planning guidance and so forth. I do not think that that was the intention.
  If it would help the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I assure him that the question of the involvement of the Government and their agencies in the system of management plans is one that we are determined to see dealt with firmly and clearly in the guidance which the Countryside Agency is in the process of producing.
  The noble Lord may take comfort from government Amendment No. 234 giving government departments and others a statutory duty to have regard to the purpose for which AONBs are designated. However, I would not think that the formal response which seems to be required by the amendment is sensible. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
  1.30 a.m.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those explanations. We have come a long way. Our amendments relate to consultation and planning. I think that there is a good logic here. I accept the Minister's words that consultation will now take place, not just on this issue. I am content with that. I hope that plans will be produced after that consultation. Things happen only if you make plans to ensure that they happen and then review those plans to see what corrective action is needed. I hope that a system will be built up within the conservation boards which allows for plans to be made and reviewed on a regular basis. That is the nub of the matter. The Minister knows what we are driving at. He wants what we want. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 not moved.]
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 249A:
  After Clause 83, insert the following new clause—

  OBLIGATION IN RESPECT OF MANAGEMENT PLANS
  (" .—(1) The Minister (as respects England) and the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) shall, in respect of every management plan which they receive, publish a response within six months setting out—

  (a) the steps which the Minister or the Assembly intend to take to further the objectives in that management plan; and

  509

  (b) the extent to which the policies of the Minister or the Assembly may conflict with that management plan, and the steps which are to be taken to resolve that conflict.

  (2) In this section—
  "management plan" means a plan published in accordance with—

  (a) section 82, or

  (b) section 66 of the Environment Act 1995; and.

  "Minister" means the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot say that I have quite the same satisfaction with the Minister's reply. He said that he did not see how my amendment, which provides that Ministers would have to reply to management plans within six months, would help or improve the process. I cannot believe that he really thinks that.
  An individual may have spent a lot of money and time working to improve a management plan, perhaps having consulted with the Countryside Agency, the NFU or MAFF in the process. Having finally sent the plan, he then receives a card from the Minister (as I did recently) saying, "Thank you. The contents have been noted". That is not satisfactory. That seems common sense.
  Under the circumstances, given the late hour, I do not wish to take the matter further now. However, I shall return to the issue at Third Reading.
  [Amendment No. 249A not moved.]
  Clause 84 [Grants to conservation boards]:
  [Amendments Nos. 250 to 251 not moved.]
  Clause 85 [Interpretation of Part IV and supplementary provision]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 252 and 253:
  Page 59, line 27, leave out ("Act") and insert ("Part"). Before Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
  ("Local access forums

  LOCAL ACCESS FORUMS
  .—(1) The appointing authority for any area shall in accordance with regulations establish for that area, or for each part of it, an advisory body to be known as a local access forum.
  (2) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) the local highway authority is the appointing authority for their area, except any part of it in a National Park, and

  (b) the National Park authority for a National Park is the appointing authority for the National Park.

  (3) A local access forum consists of members appointed by the appointing authority in accordance with regulations.
  (4) It is the function of a local access forum, as respects the area for which it is established, to advise—

  (a) the appointing authority,

  (b) any body exercising functions under Part I in relation to land in that area,

  (c) if the appointing authority is a National Park authority, the local highway authority for any part of that area, and

  (d) such other bodies as may be prescribed,

  as to the improvement of public access to land in that area for the purposes of open-air recreation and the enjoyment of the area, and as to such other matters as may be prescribed.
  (5) The bodies mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (4) shall have regard, in carrying out their functions, to any relevant advice given to them by a local access forum under that subsection or any other provision of this Act.
  (6) In carrying out its functions, a local access forum shall have regard to—

  (a) the needs of land management,

  (b) the desirability of conserving the natural beauty of the area for which it is established, including the flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features of the area, and

  (c) guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales).

  (7) Subsection (1) does not apply to the council of a London borough or to any part of their area unless the council so resolve.
  (8) The Secretary of State, as respects England, or the National Assembly for Wales, as respects Wales, if satisfied that no local access forum is required for any area or part of any area, may direct that subsection (1) is not to apply in relation to that area or part.
  (9) Before giving a direction under subsection (8) as respects an area or part of an area, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales must consult the appointing authority for the area and the appropriate countryside body.
  (10) In this section—
  "appropriate countryside body" has the same meaning as in Part I;
  "local highway authority" has the same meaning as in the 1980 Act;
  "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;
  "regulations" means regulations made, as respects England, by the Secretary of State, and, as respects Wales, by the National Assembly for Wales.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 254, as an amendment to Amendment No. 253, not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 255:
  Before Clause 87, insert the following new clause—

  LOCAL ACCESS FORUMS: SUPPLEMENTARY
  (" .—(1) Regulations under section (Local access forums) may in particular include provision—

  (a) as to the appointment as members of a local access forum of persons appearing to the appointing authority to be representative of persons of any specified description or of any specified body;

  (b) as to the establishment by appointing authorities of joint local access forums.

  (2) The regulations must provide for the appointment of persons appearing to the appointing authority to be representative of—

  (a) users of local rights of way or the right conferred by section 2(1);

  (b) owners and occupiers of access land or land over which local rights of way subsist.

  (3) In subsection (2) —
  "access land" has the same meaning as in Part I;
  "local rights of way" has the meaning given by section 57(5), but as if the references there to a local highway authority and their area were references to an appointing authority and their area.
  (4) The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales, in making regulations under section (Local access forums) containing such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2), must have regard to the desirability of maintaining a reasonable balance

  511
  between the number of members of any local access forum appointed in accordance with paragraph (a) and in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (2).
  (5) Regulations under section (Local access forums) may include such supplementary or incidental provision as appears to the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales (as the case may be) to be necessary or expedient.
  (6) For the purposes of section (Local access forums), the Broads are to be treated as a National Park and the Broads Authority as a National Park authority.
  (7) In subsection (6) "the Broads" has the same meaning as in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.
  (8) Regulations under section (Local access forums) shall be made by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containing such regulations made by the Secretary of State shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 255, Amendment No. 256:
  Line 14, at end insert—
  ("(c) other interests especially relevant to that area").
  On Question, Amendment No. 256, as an amendment to Amendment No. 255, agreed to.
  On Question, Amendment No. 255, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 87 [Power of countryside bodies to enter into management agreements]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 257:
  Page 59, line 39, after ("land),") insert—

  ("(a) in subsection (1) the words "both in the countryside and" are omitted, and

  (b)")

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 261. At present Section 39(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 allows local planning authorities to enter into management agreements with landowners which may be made binding on successors in title,
  "for the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty or amenity of any land which is both in the countryside and within their area or promoting its enjoyment by the public".
  The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill contains a provision at Clause 87 which amends Section 39 of the 1981 Act so as to allow the countryside bodies to enter into management agreements with landowners under that section. The purpose of that amendment is to allow the countryside bodies to enter into agreements to protect the status of open countryside to which access will be granted under Part I, and so ensure the permanence of the right of access.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, tabled a similar amendment in Committee. This amendment will also give the Countryside Agency powers to provide permanent protection to millennium greens in towns. We therefore agree with the noble Baroness that it provides a useful addition to its armoury. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for tabling Amendment No. 257 to deal with the concerns that we expressed in Committee. The Minister mentioned millennium greens. Is she also speaking to Amendment No. 258A?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: No.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 258:
  After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
  ("Norfolk and Suffolk Broads
  . In Part IV of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988, before section 18 there is inserted—
  "General duty of public bodies etc.
  17A.—(1) In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in the Broads, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes of—

  (a) conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Broads;

  (b) promoting the enjoyment of the Broads by the public; and

  (c) protecting the interests of navigation.

  (2) The following are relevant authorities for the purposes of this section—

  (a) any Minister of the Crown,

  (b) any public body,

  (c) any statutory undertaker,

  (d) any person holding public office.

  (3) In subsection (2) —
  "public body" includes—

  (a) a county council, district council or parish council;

  (b) a joint planning board within the meaning of section 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

  (c) a joint committee appointed under section 102(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972;

  "public office" means—

  (a) an office under Her Majesty;

  (b) an office created or continued in existence by a public general Act; or

  (c) an office the remuneration in respect of which is paid out of money provided by Parliament."").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is in response to Amendment No. 543ZC, tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. It will require any relevant authority, in exercising its functions in relation to or so as to affect land in the Broads, to have regard to the purposes for which the Broads have been designated under Section 2(1) of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988. The amendment is equivalent to Amendment No. 234, which places a similar duty on

  513
  relevant authorities to have regard to the purpose for which AONBs have been designated when doing anything that affects an AONB. It is also equivalent to the appropriate provisions relating to national parks. The arguments are the same in each case.
  The amendment will ensure that all the family of national landscape designations are similarly protected by requiring relevant authorities to have regard to their purposes of designation. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I know that the Broads authority is glad finally to be treated on the same footing as the other national parks. I thank the Government.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 258A:
  After Clause 87, insert the following new clause—
  ("Town and village greens

  REGISTRATION OF TOWN AND VILLAGE GREENS
  .—(1) Section 22 of the Commons Registration Act 1965 (interpretation) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), in the definition of "town or village green" for the words after "lawful sports and pastimes" there is substituted "or which falls within subsection (1A) of this section.
  (3) After that subsection there is inserted—
  "(1A) Land falls within this subsection if it is land on which for not less than twenty years a significant number of the inhabitants of any locality, or of any neighbourhood within a locality, have indulged in lawful sports and pastimes as of right, and either—

  (a) continue to do so, or

  (b) have ceased to do so for not more than such period as may be prescribed, or determined in accordance with prescribed provisions.

  (1B) If regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1A) of this section provide for the period mentioned in that paragraph to come to an end unless prescribed steps are taken, the regulations may also require registration authorities to make available in accordance with the regulations, on payment of any prescribed fee, information relating to the taking of any such steps.".").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment honours the commitment that the Government gave in Committee to bring forward proposals on the registration of town and village greens. We understand the difficulties in registering land as a town or village green, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We share her wish to clarify and update the definitions in the Commons Registration Act 1965.
  The amendment directly addresses two of the noble Baroness's concerns. It makes it clear that qualifying use must be by a significant number of people from a particular locality or neighbourhood. That removes the need for applicants to demonstrate that use is predominantly by people from the locality and means
  514
  that use by people from outside that locality will no longer have to be taken into account by registration authorities. It will be sufficient for a significant number of local people to use the site as of right for lawful recreation and pastimes.
  Secondly, the amendment addresses the problem of applications being accepted only where it can be demonstrated that users come from a discrete area, such as a village or parish. That is not easy in large built-up areas. The amendment introduces the concept of neighbourhood and provides that users should come either from a locality or from a neighbourhood within a locality.
  The final part of the equation has proved a little more difficult to resolve. The Government have difficulties with the proposal that land should remain subject to registration as a green many years after its use for lawful sports and pastimes has ceased. That would have been the effect of the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. That amendment provided that qualifying use had only to end after 31st July 1990. That is already 10 years ago. Such a provision could significantly interfere with planned development.
  However, the Government accept that the current interpretation of the law, which is that qualifying use must have taken place virtually up to the date of the application for registration, is onerous. It makes it difficult for applicants to bring together in time all the necessary evidence of use over a 20-year period.
  Therefore, our amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to establish an appropriate time limit within which an application to register must be lodged. At present, we are minded to make that two years. We believe that it is an appropriate period within which it is reasonable to expect an applicant to be able to draw up the evidence necessary to support an application. If no application is lodged within that two-year period, the owner or developer will be able to take whatever steps are necessary to develop the land in the certainty that an application for registration as a green cannot be entertained.
  The Government will of course consult widely on the content of the regulations proposed under this amendment, which I hope the House will be able to accept. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Government for bringing forward this amendment in the short time they had available to resolve these difficult issues. In particular, I thank the Minister for explaining subsection (3)(b), which was quite difficult to interpret. There is no doubt that these smaller open spaces are important to people, and I believe that this provision will be valuable.
  Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the Government anticipate that regulations will be made

  515
  within a fairly short time. She mentioned a timescale of two years for paragraph (b). Presumably, that is the same time that would be required for regulations to be made. I am slightly nervous about that issue because we know that greens are being lost to developers who exploit the loopholes. I wish to establish that the timescale will be adequate in order to cover that issue.
  I also appreciate the Minister's definition of what the Government have in mind in relation to the term "neighbourhood". As I understand it, the intention is to widen the definition of "locality" so that there can be no argument if people from an area generally use a green. Whether it is a locality or a neighbourhood, that is an adequate test. I thank the Government for that.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with regard to the noble Baroness's second question, the intention when introducing the phrase was to clarify that the area from which the users come does not have to follow an administrative boundary. I understand that the timescale is approximately the same. Therefore, I am sure that the noble Baroness will find it acceptable. Should I find that I am in error, I shall of course write to her.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 259 to 261:

  Page 144, line 3, at end insert—

  ("1980 c. 66.

  The Highways Act 1980.

  Section 134(5).")

  Page 144, line 5, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 57(1), the words "on such scale as may be so prescribed,".")

  516

  Page 146, line 16, at end insert—

  ("PART VI OTHER

  Chapter

  Short title

  Extent of repeal

  1981 c. 69.

  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  In section 39(1), the words "both in the countryside and".")

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 92 [Commencement]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 262 to 263:
  Page 61, line 14, leave out ("and 16") and insert ("to 17"). Page 61, line 21, after ("10,") insert ("11").
  Page 61, line 22, at end insert—
  ("sections (Local access forums) and (Local access forums: supplementary).").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 264 to 264B not moved.]
  Clause 93 [Interpretation, short title and extent]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 265:
  Page 61, line 36, at end insert—
  (""local access forum" means a local access forum established under section (Local access forums).").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

Transport Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the reasons were ordered to be printed (HL Bill 131).
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before two o'clock.

  Pakistan: Restoration of Democracy
  Pakistan: Restoration of Democracy
  GCHQ: Recruitment
  GCHQ: Recruitment
  Secure Establishments for Juveniles
  Secure Establishments for Juveniles
  Convicted Sex Offenders under 18
  Convicted Sex Offenders under 18
  Young People in Custody: Literacy and Numeracy Classes
  Young People in Custody: Literacy and Numeracy Classes
  Young People in Custody: Special Educational Needs
  Young People in Custody: Special Educational Needs
  Proof of Age Proposals
  Proof of Age Proposals
  Winter Fuel Payment
  Winter Fuel Payment
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Retail Prices Index Excluding Mortgage Interest Payments
  Retail Prices Index Excluding Mortgage Interest Payments
  Personal Incomes: Top Rate of Direct Tax
  Personal Incomes: Top Rate of Direct Tax
  Church Buildings: VAT
  Church Buildings: VAT
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  A3 Kingston By-pass
  A3 Kingston By-pass
  Vehicle Excise Duty: Exempt Historic Vehicles
  Vehicle Excise Duty: Exempt Historic Vehicles
  Regional Government
  Regional Government
  Trunk Road Improvement
  Trunk Road Improvement
  Conjoined Twins: Medical Procedures
  Conjoined Twins: Medical Procedures
  Tate Gallery: Spoliation Advisory Panel
  Tate Gallery: Spoliation Advisory Panel
  House of Lords: Standards of Conduct Report
  House of Lords: Standards of Conduct Report