Sitting of 28 November 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Shipping Transport) (Hong Kong) Order 2000 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxation on Income) (Norway) Order 2000 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
    Motion made,
    That the promoters of the Kent County Council 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 he deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill brought from the Lords in the present session;
    That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
    That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means)
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Tuesday 12 December.

    MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
    Motion made,
    That the promoters of the Medway Council 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;
    794
    That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
    That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Tuesday 12 December.

  Oral Answers to Questions
    ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
    The Secretary of State was asked—
    ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

      Abandoned Cars
      Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What action his Department is taking to assist local authorities to dispose of abandoned cars. [138935]
      The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We are very much aware that, because of falling scrap prices, abandoned vehicles are a growing problem. My officials are currently in discussion with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers to identify solutions and ways of dealing with the issue.
      Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. My local authority, Medway council, has seen its costs for dealing with abandoned cars rise by more than £20,000 this year. That affects urban areas in Chatham and rural areas such as Burham in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend rightly says, with the falling price of scrap and with car prices coming down, the problem will get worse and worse. Will he examine the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, which deals with the matter? Instead of cars being dealt with in the same way as leaves, perhaps we should amend the law so that fines are higher and responsibility is put on car owners, rather than on council tax payers.
      Mr. Meacher: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks. We have flagged up the possible need for primary legislation in any waste or environment Bill, and we shall certainly re-examine the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. I note the steps that have been taken in my hon. Friend's constituency to pilot a new multi-agency approach to abandoned vehicles. Untaxed vehicles will be wheel-clamped by a DVLA contractor and, if the vehicle is not taxed within 24 hours, it will be removed to a car pound and disposed of within 35 days. We are seriously considering that as a model.

      Urban Regeneration
      Mr. Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on the impact of transport investment on urban regeneration. [138936]
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The urban White Paper published on 16 November sets out a long-term vision for revitalising our urban areas. New transport investment, through the £180 billion programme in our 10-year plan for transport, obviously has a key role to play. This substantial increase in funding will, over the next 10 years, deliver significantly better transport, boost regeneration, provide better access to jobs and services, and make a real difference to the quality of life in our towns and cities.
      Mr. Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. One of the great features of transport investment is that it can often unlock much more generalised regeneration. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Northfield regeneration plan, under which a modest amount of transport investment would revitalise a local shopping centre in a deprived industrial area, improve leisure facilities and lead to greatly enhanced environmental improvements in the area. I ask her to examine those aspects in the weeks and months ahead.
      Ms Hughes: I agree that the scheme that my hon. Friend outlines is a good example of the essential link between transport improvements and urban regeneration. In addition to the benefits to which he has drawn attention, access to Longbridge would be improved. The scheme would regenerate the south-western sector of Birmingham. My hon. Friend knows that the scheme is being evaluated as part of the local transport plan system. I cannot pre-empt an announcement, but I can tell him that under the 10-year plan we are doubling the money that is available to fund local transport plans next year to more than £1.5 billion.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that central to the success of urban regeneration, which we all want to see, is not only a joint Cabinet committee but a Minister with specific responsibility? Will she ascertain whether that can be obtained? As I said to the Secretary of State last week, there are bound to be differences between Departments. We need a Minister with the power to make decisions.
      Ms Hughes: Fundamentally, effective regeneration involves co-ordinating all Whitehall Departments. That emerged from the Conservative party's proposals. However, there is a fundamental problem: the Conservative party cannot match our investment in transport and in regeneration because it has to contend with a £16 billion tax cut guarantee.
      Ms Margaret Moran: Is my hon. Friend aware of the representations that have been made by Luton chamber of commerce on behalf of Luton airport, Vauxhall and Whitbread, among other major businesses, on the importance of the east Luton road scheme between junction 10 and Luton airport? That
      796
      scheme has the potential to regenerate the area, to open a business park and to create more than 5,000 new jobs? Will my hon. Friend seriously consider allocating some of the additional funding to which she has referred to the scheme, which would have a major regeneration impact in my constituency?
      Ms Hughes: My hon. Friend outlines another good example of the essential links between transport and regeneration. However, she knows that the scheme to which she refers is in the local transport plan. We shall make announcements on that shortly.

      London Underground
      Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on progress in establishing the public-private partnership for London Underground. [138937]
      The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Best and final offers for the two deep tube contracts were received by London Transport on 20 November, and three bids for the subsurface contract are being evaluated. The public-private partnership is well on course to deliver the high and stable funding that London Underground has been deprived of for so long under the old public sector financing rules under different Administrations.
      Mr. Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Will he explain why Mr. Kiley has not been given full financial information about the PPP bids? What objection does the right hon. Gentleman have to making the information fully available, given that Mr. Kiley has signed a confidentiality agreement? Will he oppose any High Court action initiated by the Mayor? Does he agree with the Mayor that the lack of financial information has meant that he has been unable to put together a programme of action to reduce breakdowns on the tube, which is putting passenger safety at risk?
      Mr. Prescott: It is just not true that Mr. Kiley has not been given all the information. He has been given all the information that is available. More than 15 different papers—(Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must accept what I say to him. I would not lie to the House. Mr. Kiley has not received information about the final details that are now being assessed in the context of the commercial aspects of the best and final offers. He has not been given information on a revised consolidated public sector comparator. He was given the baseline for March 2000. Further development on the comparator will not be completed until the negotiations have come to an end. As I understand it, the Mayor is taking no legal action, and there is no threat to safety.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is massive public disquiet about the public-private partnership for London Underground? Does he accept also that the public are opposed to the break-up of the underground system in any shape or form, and that they want to see it as a unitary organisation that is funded and run by the public? Does he accept that there is a public mandate in the mayoral election to ensure that we retain a wholly publicly owned,

      797
      publicly financed and publicly run tube system in London, which will guarantee the best safety that it is possible to achieve?
      Mr. Prescott: We are making changes to London Underground because the public are fed up with insufficient investment in the underground system over the best part of the last 20 to 30 years. Governments have not faced up to the responsibility of finding that investment, largely because the Treasury and Government change every three to five years. We are seeking to give London Underground an investment programme for 25 to 30 years. That is what is needed on the underground and that is what we intend to produce.
      Mr. Archie Norman: Is it not the case that the progress of the PPP is slower than one of the express trains that the Deputy Prime Minister and I have shared from London to Doncaster? Two years
      ago—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister was given a hearing and the hon. Gentleman will be given a hearing, too.
      Mr. Norman: Does the Secretary of State remember saying two years ago that if the PPP was delayed, he would hand over responsibility for the tube? Just how long must Londoners suffer before he hands that botched proposal over to a man like Bob Kiley, who knows how to run transport systems?
      Mr. Prescott: I did not say that I would do that if the PPP was delayed for two years. In fact, it is proceeding according to the timetable that I set in the House and, if the hon. Gentleman wants, I can give him details. I am not sure what the Opposition would do. Are they still committed to privatisation, given that they appear to be rejecting it left, right and centre? Would they privatise the underground and guarantee that resources would be invested in it? We are making that investment and are taking a long-term approach to the problem of improving the underground.
      Mr. Norman: While this whole affair drags on, Londoners must suffer a continuing deterioration in the performance of the tube. That has gone on for three and a half years, but the one thing that the Secretary of State does not want to talk about is his record. After three and a half years of failure, will he say whether there is any area in the DETR portfolio where delivery is better than that which he inherited? Is the tube a great success? Are the roads better maintained? Has the Secretary of State cut congestion? Are the railways running more smoothly? Is homelessness falling? Has the exodus from our cities been reversed? Does the Secretary of State remember saying that things could only get better?
      Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman constantly forgets that his party was in power for two decades in which there was massive disinvestment in the transport industry. Surely, he must have been aware of that when he was at Railtrack, which made many of the mistakes. When he was a Railtrack director, many of those disinvestment mistakes were already being made. On the question of
      798
      whether we have improved the situation, a £180 billion investment in transport is way beyond what the Tory Administration gave or even planned for.

      Highway Maintenance
      Mr. Ian Stewart: What response he has received from local government to his proposals on highway maintenance. [138938]
      Mr. Ivan Henderson: What plans he has to deal with the repair backlog on roads. [138942]
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Local government has welcomed the significant increases in resources nationally for capital expenditure on local road maintenance. As set out in "Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan", we are committed to providing sufficient funds to tackle the backlog of expenditure—estimated at £9 billion—on carriageway, footway, bridge and street lighting maintenance in the next 10 years.
      Mr. Stewart: That statement will be welcomed by my constituents in Eccles. Does it mean that local government in Salford and Greater Manchester will not have to continue the daft practice of building much-needed road calming measures on roads that are full of potholes and craters? My hon. Friend mentioned street lighting. Will he assure me that the improvement in street lighting will benefit the people of my constituency, particularly the elderly, as it will improve security and safety?
      Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the warm welcome that he gave to our announcement on roads maintenance. He will be aware that the previous Conservative Government left our local roads in their worst state of maintenance since records began. To restore the backlog in roads maintenance, we are providing over the next 10 years an extra £9 billion, which is 41 per cent. above current funding. In the same period, we shall also clear the appalling backlog in street lighting. Next year alone in Eccles and Salford, road maintenance funding will increase by no less than 87 per cent. The end of potholes is in sight for the people of Eccles and Salford, and, in due course, they will be able to see their well maintained roads.
      Mr. Henderson: May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister how welcome the massive increase in road funding is to Essex? By 2003, it will treble to £15 million the amount given to Essex. I hope that my constituents in the villages of Parkeston and Jaywick will benefit from the increases, which should help them with the poor roads and street lighting left by the Conservative party. Has my hon. Friend received any feedback from Essex county council on that good news for Essex?
      Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right; the increase is excellent news for Essex. I am bound, however, to refer to a news release published on the day of the announcement. It appears on Conservative central office notepaper and was written by the leader of Essex council, a certain Lord Hanningfield. It is headed "Too little, too late". The noble Lord went on to say:
      This isn't new money at all.

      799
      That contrasts with the same day's news release from his cabinet member for transportation, Councillor Ron Williams. That document is headed "Major boost for road maintenance". Councillor Williams went on to say:
      This is really good news for Essex. We must now look carefully at how we can invest this large settlement in the most cost-effective way to ensure greatest benefits are achieved.
      I know what I trust—not the knee-jerk propaganda from Tory central office, but the honest view of the local man who really knows: Councillor Ron Williams, God bless him.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: That was great knockabout stuff from the Minister. I am most grateful to him for repeating a press release written by one of his Labour stooges. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is a Tory."] He may call himself a Tory; nevertheless my point remains.
      Will the Minister explain whether we are talking about new money from central Government, or supplementary credit approval, which will mean that local government, rather than central Government, has to incur debt?
      Mr. Hill: Borrowing approvals are the standard means by which the Government fund local authority capital spending. The costs of repayment and interest on the borrowing are funded through the revenue support grant settlement. Using borrowing approvals gives authorities more flexibility in using their resources. Indeed, they have been seeking such flexibility. I suppose that that is why the approvals were introduced by the previous Government.
      Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Will the Minister comment on the ruling in another place that local authorities will not be required to grit their roads this winter? That could have a major effect on my constituents. My area contains the Winsford rock salt mine, the country's sole supplier of rock salt for gritting roads, so jobs could be at stake there. In addition, the ruling raises many serious issues about cutting corners and putting lives at risk.
      Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. We are aware of the judgment to which he referred, and we are studying its implications carefully. We hope to make an announcement in due course.
      Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend have any plans to return to local authorities powers to co-ordinate the disruption caused by utilities? In Cambridge there has been complete gridlock during the past few weeks, as every major road into the city has been dug up by a different utility.
      Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes an extremely serious point that is universally understood. Street works are a problem in all our cities throughout the country. First, my hon. Friend will be aware that the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 allows local authorities to charge utilities for overstaying in street works. We hope to introduce regulations to implement that shortly.
      Secondly, my hon. Friend will know also that the Transport Bill contains provisions for lane rental, which is widely supported. We have said that we will hold those
      800
      provisions as reserve powers for the time being, but if co-ordination of street works by utilities does not improve, those powers may be invoked in due course.

      Rail Service Disruption
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on recent disruption to rail services. [138939]
      The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Following meetings with the Strategic Rail Authority, myself and the Prime Minister, the industry promised a steady improvement in rail services as part of the national track recovery plan. At the most recent meeting, yesterday afternoon, Railtrack told us that it had checked two thirds of the entire track length—about 14,000 miles—including all known sites suffering from gauge corner cracking.
      Railtrack has rerailed more than a third of the track identified for rerailing—that is about 110 miles. It has managed to remove 260 speed restrictions and raised the speed limit from 20 mph to 40 mph on another 139 miles. My right hon. Friend and I restated the need to return the network to normal as soon as possible, get a robust Christmas timetable in place, improve information for passengers and provide greater clarity on compensation for daily and weekly passengers. I am sure that the House will agree that all that must be carried out at the proper level of safety.
      Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that helpful and full answer. He will no doubt have heard of the incident last night in which a journey from London to Nottingham, which should have taken two hours, took nine. A trainload of passengers stayed in the train overnight, in darkness and without any heating. That event, of course, is not unique. Has he made any calculations about the number of people who previously travelled by rail, but who now travel by road? Does he agree with his Department's own statistics, which show that the number of fatalities on the roads is 12 times as high as the number on the railways? What is his assessment of the number of additional fatalities on the roads that will result from the disruption?
      Mr. Prescott: The whole House is concerned about the time that journeys can take, including the incident that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The House wants the railways to return to normal operations on safe railway lines. Hon. Members will be aware from our statements that it is necessary properly to check faults on our railway system. We are doing that as fast as we can, and we are talking to the industry about whether it can be done any faster while maintaining a safe and proper operation.
      Clearly, a lot more people are travelling by car, and congestion will obviously increase—we can already see that happening. I have made no estimate of the increase in death rates, but I shall examine our figures and send an estimate to the hon. Gentleman. In terms of casualties and deaths, we know that railways are safer than roads, but we must keep our eye on the ball and try to improve the railway system.
      Dr. David Clark: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the days leading up to Christmas are among the busiest on the railways. What discussions is he

      801
      having with the rail authorities about establishing contingency plans to meet those needs at this very busy time?
      Mr. Prescott: We have been making it clear to the industry for a couple of weeks that we want a sustainable Christmas timetable. Longer journeys are clearly involved because speed restrictions are placed on lines and because it takes some time for the necessary repair work to be completed. Most passengers do not mind longer journeys, although they would prefer shorter ones, but they want to know reliable times for setting off and arriving. That is what we are trying to provide. We are also talking to the industry about a timetable for the Christmas services, which will be announced shortly.
      Mr. Don Foster: Further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the nine-hour train journey from London to Nottingham provides yet more evidence of the Government's failure to get to grips with the chaos that was caused by the Tory privatisation of our railways? Does not that set alarm bells ringing for the right hon. Gentleman over his continued dogmatic plans to privatise other parts of our transport services, especially National Air Traffic Services? Will he agree to withdraw those plans to show his commitment to a safe transport service?
      Mr. Prescott: I think we shall be debating that later.
      Mr. Eric Martlew: In the context of the present chaos on the railways, which is due mainly to the Conservatives' privatisation, may I point out that it now takes seven hours to travel from my constituency to London? It used to take my father the same time to drive a steam train on that line. Will my right hon. Friend consider proposals to bring Railtrack into public ownership?
      Mr. Prescott: As I have said, I am of course concerned about the length of journeys, but I have explained why I consider it necessary to carry out a thorough investigation of the track, and to invest in safe railway lines. We hope to have completed the investigation by the end of this year, or at least by the beginning of next year.
      As my hon. Friend is well aware, the Government agreed at the outset not to renationalise rail. Our argument, which I have deployed in the House, was that providing £6 billion of compensation was not the right way of using public resources at that time. If we consider the possibility now, we must envisage two years of negotiations in the House. Moreover, I do not think that a renationalisation Bill is the people's first priority. They want a safe, operational railway with proper accountability. That is embodied in the Transport Bill—which we shall debate this afternoon—with the Strategic Rail Authority and other measures allowing us to exercise the necessary controls. It is a pity that the Tories and the Liberals have opposed those measures.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does not the present crisis on the railway demonstrate that railway disruption is a daily crisis for hundreds of thousands of passengers, and, indeed, for the tens of thousands of staff who bear the brunt of passengers' daily complaints?
      802
      Let me point out to the Deputy Prime Minister that the railway was not handed over to him in a state of crisis. But does it not behove all politicians to apologise for the decades of under-investment, and to apologise for the way in which the railway has been handled in recent years? Is it not—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members not to shout at the hon. Gentleman while he is speaking.
      Mr. Jenkin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
      Is it not the responsibility of Ministers now to work with the rail industry, and to help to pull it together in an atmosphere of co-operation? No industry can survive the political assault that the Secretary of State has mounted on this industry year in, year out since coming to office.
      May I also ask whether, having got rid of one chief executive of Railtrack, the right hon. Gentleman will now stop briefing against the new one?
      Mr. Prescott: I think the whole House is aware, from constituents' reports and from their own experience, that travelling by rail is terrible at present. We can only hope to improve that. We apologise to the staff who are working hard to return the system to normal—we admire their efforts—and we apologise to the passengers who are suffering.
      I cannot accept, however, that the rail industry was passed to us in a good state. By whatever means we measure the crisis, if we are talking about resources and investment we must conclude that the real problem with Railtrack—this is why we are spending so much time investigating the track—is the lack of investment during two decades of Tory Government.
      As for the question of whether enough accountability and control existed under the last Administration, I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it did not. I understood him to say that the fragmentation of the industry was wrong, and that the privatisation had proved to be wrong. Now he is trying to tell us that his party passed to us a railway in a good state.
      We have said that we do not want to renationalise the railway. We are introducing a Strategic Rail Authority in legislation that was opposed by the Opposition when it first came to the House of Commons, and also in the House of Lords. The extra powers that we are providing to ensure that we have a proper organisation and can prevent fragmentation, and the £60 billion investment in the railway, are beyond anything that was thought up during two decades of Tory Government.

      Rail Freight
      Mr. David Watts: What plans he has to increase freight by rail in the UK. [138940]
      Mr. Jim Dobbin: What strategy he has to improve freight capacity in the United Kingdom. [138948]
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government have set out their long-term strategy for improving freight capacity in their 10-year plan for transport. We are also establishing the Strategic

      803
      Rail Authority, which will have a duty to promote rail freight. We are aiming for an 80 per cent. increase over the next 10 years. Only today, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport announced the biggest ever grant to the Bristol Port Company to refurbish a section of the disused Portishead branch line and a link into the Royal Portsbury dock, and to establish general cargo and port terminals. It is a good example of the progress that we are making.
      Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and congratulate the Government on their commitment to rail freight. However, the strategy will succeed in the north-west only if we have direct rail routes to Europe and good terminals. Can he assure me that the Government will support Central Railway's proposal to establish a direct line to Europe and the development of terminals in the north-west, especially at Parkside in my constituency?
      Mr. Mullin: To take Parkside first, I understand that Railtrack's plans are in the early stages. It will, of course, need planning permission, and that is a matter for the local authority. As I have said, generous grants are available to potential customers to encourage them to switch from road to rail when it can be justified by environmental benefits.
      As for the fast link to the channel tunnel and the Central Railway proposal, we have not received an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992, but when we do, it will be carefully considered.
      Mr. Dobbin: My constituency is midway between the ports of Liverpool and Hull and the M1 and M6. The M60 goes straight through the middle of it, and it is surrounded by distribution parks. I have asked the local authority to carry out a feasibility study on the development of a rail freight terminal in that vicinity with direct access to and from the motorway to alleviate congestion. Is that in line with the Government's strategy for freight, and, if so, what are the possibilities of achieving it?
      Mr. Mullin: It is certainly in line with the Government's strategy. As far as I am aware, there are no firm proposals for a freight terminal at Rochdale, but as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts), freight facilities grants are available for viable—and I stress viable—propositions.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Not one piece of freight is moved by rail in mid-Wales or rural Wales, despite the fact that that used to happen before privatisation. What plans does the Minister have to increase the movement of freight by rail through and to rural areas?
      Mr. Mullin: As I said, it is certainly our aim to increase the movement of freight by rail. I am not complacent, but we have a reasonably good story to tell. After decades of decline, there has been a 22 per cent. increase since 1997 in the amount of goods moved by rail. In the same period, the volume of road freight has
      804
      remained virtually unchanged. We are heading in the right direction, but I readily acknowledge there is a great deal more to do.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister extend freight facilities grants to smaller operators, so that they are available not just to the big boys such as English, Welsh and Scottish Railways? As for extending freight facilities to rural areas, will he ensure that rail freight heads are built only on industrial sites, not on green belt land?
      Mr. Mullin: I understand that such grants are available to small and large companies, but the hon. Lady should bear in mind the fact that they are available to customers—
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: Be gentle with my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Mullin: I am always nice to the hon. Lady. Indeed, I try to be pleasant to all hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."'
      The hon. Lady should bear in mind the fact that the grants are available to customers to encourage them to switch from road to rail.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Coatbridge freightliner terminal in my constituency serves a number of industries and aspects of commerce throughout the United Kingdom that export their products, especially to Europe? Given the lack of development in the adjacent Gartcosh industrial park, does he accept that there is a need to invest in freightliner transport and in industrial development, which would be in the interests of jobs for the whole of the UK as well as in my constituency?
      Mr. Mullin: I cannot comment on any particular project, but I repeat that we are keen to see investment in rail freight facilities where they are thought to be viable and sustainable. Those are the key objectives.

      Local Government Structures
      Mr. Peter Luff: What recent representations he has received from councils concerning the abolition of the committee system in local government. [138941]
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Following the passage of the Local Government Act 2000, we have received a number of representations from local authorities about the implementation of part II of the Act, which makes provision for councils to adopt new constitutions involving either executive or alternative arrangements, depending on their circumstances.
      Mr. Luff: Why do the Government refuse to allow Wychavon district council to include its leader's panel and streamlined committee system in the enforced consultation on new local government structures? Why,

      805
      as the leader of the council, Malcolm Meikle, says, are the Government refusing to give the citizens a real choice as to how their council is managed?
      Ms Armstrong: I know that Wychavon is working hard to improve its performance, especially in planning matters, where it has a difficult history. In planning, it does not have to change the way in which it does things, although it is seeking to do that to achieve greater efficiency. Like every other council, it needs to demonstrate to its public that it has a system of operating that is efficient, but open and accountable. We are looking forward to working with Wychavon to ensure that it can get a system that delivers that.
      Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister will be aware that the Government have transferred to the Welsh Assembly powers over the structure of local government, and that the Welsh Assembly has gone out to consultation on the matter. Did the Government provide any system of appeal for local authorities that disagreed with the conclusions and recommendations of the Assembly?
      Ms Armstrong: That is a matter for the Welsh Assembly, so it is not one on which I will comment.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is it not true that, throughout the country, councillors of all parties resent being forced to abandon the committee system, as well as the extra cost of so-called modernisation—a cost estimated by the Local Government Association at £175 million? Can the Minister please explain precisely why a council with 85,000 or fewer residents is uniquely placed to deliver open and accountable local government without the new structures? What is the logic of her position, or is not the honest truth that there is none?
      Ms Armstrong: The House had a full debate on that matter. I thought that the hon. Gentleman took part in it, but obviously he did not fully listen or take note. I do not like to upset him, but I have to tell him that councils throughout the land, Conservative as well as Labour and Liberal Democrat, are working with the new agenda because they want to open new ways of working with their public. They know that the public, if they are to appreciate and get the best out of public services, need a new relationship with their councils. Councils are therefore working to achieve that. Perhaps he would like to read Hansard to learn the answers to the rest of his questions.

      Disadvantaged Areas
      Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What resources are being put into funding renewal of disadvantaged areas in the present financial year; and if he will make a statement. [138943]
      Dr. Desmond Turner: What funding his Department is providing to combat disadvantage in the most deprived communities.
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): In addition to spending on key services such as health and education. £1.542 billion is
      806
      being spent on regeneration programmes in this financial year. By 2003-04, key services will receive an extra £33 billion a year, backed by new targets to improve outcomes in deprived areas. In addition, the neighbourhood renewal fund will provide an extra £800 million over the next three years for the most deprived areas and communities.
      Mr. Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Community groups and various organisations in my constituency are pleased with the way in which the Government have responded to the needs of areas such as Great Yarmouth, which is one of the most deprived in the country. It was one of the most deprived areas in the country when the Conservatives were in government, but they did not respond to the needs of such areas. The neighbourhood renewal fund, which provides a total of £4 million to my constituency, is also welcome, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the way in which that money is spent will not be in the hands of politicians, but that the various community groups will participate fully in determining the future of the funds?
      Ms Armstrong: I can confirm that although the money is to be given directly to local government bodies to address their most deprived areas, we recognise that local authorities and Government alone cannot effectively turn around areas and bridge the gap between the most deprived and the rest. We are asking local authorities to establish local strategic partnerships with their partners, including those from the community sector, so that everyone, including those who are most affected, has a part to play in ensuring that all people, wherever they live, get the same opportunities as others to prosper, to obtain educational qualifications, and so on. That is an important priority for the Government and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Great Yarmouth to make real changes there.
      Dr. Desmond Turner: My right hon. Friend will be aware that east Brighton has a new deal for communities partnership—indeed, she visited it early in its development. I am happy to say that the partnership is up and running and that there is already a feeling of development and change. That feeling is very—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members think that dealing with social exclusion is funny.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put his question.
      Dr. Turner: I defer to you, Mr. Speaker. I could not resist responding to the idiots on the other side of the Chamber.
      It is too soon to be able to put numbers to the success of the new deal for communities, but it is clear from the spirit of the community that it is going to succeed. What I want to ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray!"]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat while I am standing. His question should

      807
      have been brief, and 1 am sure that the Minister has picked up the point that he was trying to make. I call the right hon. Lady to reply.
      Ms Armstrong: Brighton has indeed benefited from the new deal for communities; it will also receive money from the neighbourhood renewal fund. We are determined that all people, wherever they live—we have heard Members representing seaside towns put their case today—get real opportunities to share in the prosperity of this country. I pay tribute to the contribution that my hon. Friend has made to the east Brighton communities partnership. It is working well and I look forward to its turning areas of east Brighton around very quickly.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: Are not the Minister's words so much humbug? Why is she intent on creating a new area of disadvantage in east Dorset by imposing from the centre the burden of a concessionary fares scheme on the district council without giving it any grant at all, thereby going against commitments given to East Dorset and other councils by other Ministers in her team?
      Ms Armstrong: There are people in east Dorset who are elderly and disabled and want to benefit from concessionary fares, and they will benefit. The Government have put aside £53 million within the grant to meet those commitments. I hope that the East Dorset council will fulfil its commitments to the elderly and vulnerable in its neighbourhoods.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Minister ask her officers to be a little more flexible, understanding and realistic about the boundaries of deprivation, particularly in densely populated areas such as Portsmouth, where single regeneration funds are so tightly ring-fenced that facilities which are necessary to offer real benefits are left outside the area? Time and again, the Minister's officers have resisted the city's request to stretch the boundaries to include those facilities.
      Will the Minister also seriously consider ways in which we can clean up many of the contaminated sites located in the hearts of inner cities such as Portsmouth? Without Government help, those areas will never be redeveloped. and we will never be able to offer hope, jobs or housing to those who live in them.
      Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman raises a very difficult point. If we spread the jam too thinly, those who are really deprived will not benefit from it. We are determined to ensure that we concentrate effort among the most deprived in our nation, who have been neglected for far too long. The previous Administration gave them very little support.
      We are putting not only effort but money into contaminated sites. Only this morning, I launched a land use database for contaminated sites, so that we know what they contain and thereby make development easier. In the pre-Budget statement, the Chancellor also created specific capital allowances enabling developers to make returns earlier when tackling contaminated sites.
      Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. She will know that in Plymouth we were very concerned about the potential
      808
      impact of updating the area cost adjustment on our efforts to deal with disadvantage, just as we are beginning to get to grips with it after a 20-year legacy of Tory under-investment. Will she confirm that when the type of specific grant that she has just mentioned is taken into account, the total gross settlement for local government funding in Plymouth will very specifically recognise the challenges that we still face? Additionally, has she made any estimate of the impact that £55 million worth of cuts—the Tory spending plans—would have on local government spending in Plymouth?
      Ms Armstrong: I have not made such an estimate, but I have noted the considerable extra investment that the Government have made in Plymouth. Plymouth will benefit from the neighbourhood renewal fund. Additionally, it is receiving about £42 million from European structural funds, in the objective 2 programme, and, for the next two years, it will receive a share of the £120 million for the objective 2 programme for the south-west. Plymouth also receives special funding because of health and education action zones and the new deal for communities funding.
      Moreover, because we have introduced the floor system in the local government settlement, Plymouth will receive a 3.2 per cent. increase, rather than the 2.1 per cent. that it might have expected if we had not provided that funding. The Government are putting substantial extra money into local government to ensure the provision of effective services, so that every citizen can recognise and know the extra value that public services add to his or her quality of life.
      Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the Minister confirm that spending on urban regeneration in deprived areas of £5.7 billion in the first four years of this Government falls short of the £6.1 billion provided in the last four years of the Conservative Government? Furthermore, will she confirm that, on close analysis of the pre-Budget report measures that form the centrepiece of the over-hyped urban White Paper, the number of flats over shops that will be created is estimated at only 1,000 per year over five years, out of the 3.8 million new homes that we supposedly need; that the number of homes derelict for 10 years attracting tax relief is so minimal that she is not able to calculate it; and that the biggest beneficiaries of stamp duty exemptions in the undefined disadvantaged areas are likely to be the £750,000 Georgian terraces owned by Labour luvvies in Islington?
      Ms Armstrong: I never know whether to take the hon. Gentleman seriously; I certainly do not think that anyone else in the House does. He has once again got it wrong. Spending on regeneration programmes will be £1.542 billion in the current year, compared with £1.38 billion in 1996-97. The Government are demonstrating an absolute commitment to regeneration.
      The hon. Gentleman should include in the figures programmes from other Departments that are clearly directed to urban regeneration. Education and investment in skills are part of that. If only the previous Government had understood the importance of education and skills development to some of our poorer areas, the would not

      809
      be in the state that they are in now. That Government had a shameful record and many of us are still paying for it in our communities. We are determined to reverse that.

      Recycling Targets
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What targets he has set local authorities for recycling. [138944]
      The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): We are setting challenging statutory targets for each English local authority, which together will increase recycling and composting of household waste to at least 17 per cent. by 2003-04 and 25 per cent. by 2005-06. We have also set more demanding targets for the longer term: to recycle or compost at least 30 per cent. by 2010 and at least 33 per cent. by 2015. We will keep those under review and raise them if greater benefits can be achieved cost-effectively.
      Mr. Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend realise the vital role that recycling plays in conserving our scarce resources for future generations, and that recycling companies are under strong commercial pressures? What tangible support are the Government giving such companies to ensure that they can continue and expand their activities?
      Mr. Meacher: We are certainly keen to help business to develop markets for recycled, materials. Indeed, there is very little point in collecting and recycling materials if they cannot be sold on for some useful purpose. That is exactly why we have set up WRAP—the waste resources action programme—with backing of £30 million. The programme will focus on new uses and applications for recyclate and tackle the market barriers to increased recycling. All of that should provide considerable new business opportunities for recycling.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Minister understand that one can move very quickly to much higher targets for recycling than the Government have set? In the borough of Reigate and Banstead, for example, we have gone from 0 to 25 per cent. in four years. I urge him to keep the targets under review and to raise them in the light of international and United Kingdom experience as it becomes clear that higher levels can be sustained.
      Mr. Meacher: We are extremely keen to do that and I am very glad to hear of the excellent example of Reigate. We inherited a household recycling rate of 6 per cent. We have already raised that by about 50 per cent. The targets are doubling within three years and trebling within five. I believe that it is possible for many local authorities to
      810
      achieve 35 per cent. or more within a decade. We are certainly keen to learn best practice from areas such as Reigate.
      Mr. Phil Sawford: I applaud my right hon. Friend's efforts to increase the volume of domestic recycling, but is he aware that many small and medium-sized businesses want to play their part but find that the facilities are not readily available for simple items such as office paper? Will he explore ways in which local authorities can co-operate with local business communities to increase the volume of recycling of non-domestic waste?
      Mr. Meacher: We are certainly keen for local authorities to assist and collaborate with business. Indeed, they will have to do so if they are to achieve the very tough recycling targets. Non-domestic waste materials account for most of the waste stream—probably five or six times the level of household waste—and, again through WRAP, we are extremely keen to have an increase in recyclate from businesses as well as from households, and we shall explore the best means of achieving that.

      Mobile Phone Masts
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: If he will make a statement on the operation of planning controls on mobile phone masts. [138945]
      The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Planning controls on telecommunications development are aimed at facilitating the rollout of a modern telecommunications network and at the same time protecting the environment. A consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to these controls ended on 31 October. We are currently analysing responses and we shall announce any changes as soon as is practicable.
      Mr. Atkinson: I hope that the Minister will lift his objection to giving local authorities power to consider such applications properly and repeal their permitted powers in relation to masts. Local residents want these issues to be debated and discussed in full, so that their concerns about health, safety and planning design can be considered properly.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have made one change already to allow greater opportunity for consultation in the general permitted development order procedures. In the consultation that ended on 31 October, we canvassed other possibilities that would allow the recommendations of the Stewart report to be given effect and thus offer greater opportunity for local communities to express their concerns. However, we want to ensure at the same time that there is a continuing rollout of the telecommunications network. That is what all of us, as individual users of mobile telephones, want. There is a tension between people's wish to have access to a service without a poor signal, the need to protect the environment and amenity, and the need to respond to the public's concerns. We are seeking a balanced response.

    Rural White Paper
    3.31 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the White Paper on the future of rural England, published today and produced jointly by my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am also publishing the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on the rural White Paper. Copies have been placed in the Library.
    A common message runs through this White Paper and the urban White Paper. Both are about tackling the real issues that matter to people—jobs, housing, services, transport and having a real say in what happens locally. We want communities in which economic prosperity, social justice and a healthy environment go hand in hand.
    Much of rural Britain is thriving, but there are real problems and many of them have got worse over the past 20 years. For example, farm incomes have fallen by 60 per cent. in five years, many families cannot afford to live in the place where they grew up, and seven out of 10 of our poorest counties are rural.
    Our major consultation with rural communities showed that person after person in rural areas complained that their basic services had disappeared over the past two decades. In that period, thousands of rural bus services were shut down, leaving only one in four parishes with a daily service, and 450 village schools were closed—more than one every two weeks. More than 100 rural post offices closed each year and, while the previous Administration permitted an explosion of out-of-town superstores, more than 4,000 village shops went out of business.
    The countryside is no stranger to change, and our task is to give people the tools to respond to that challenge. This White Paper represents a new and genuine commitment to the rural communities and gives them the powers and resources to manage change. It represents a more comprehensive approach to the needs of the countryside. Increasingly, rural areas will benefit from our main programmes on health, education, housing and employment.
    In addition, we have doubled specific rural spending, from £600 million in 1997-98 to —1.2 billion this year, and we are committing an extra —1 billion to farming and rural programmes over the next three years.
    There are five main elements to our White Paper. It is about improving services, tackling poverty, aiding the rural economy, protecting the countryside and wildlife, and giving more choice to local people. Access to basic services is what people in rural areas really want, and that is the most important element of the White Paper.
    People in rural areas should know what services they are entitled to. So, for the first time, we are to publish a rural service standard. It will set out minimum service standards and targets for the full range of public services from education to health, and child care to emergency services. To improve health care in rural areas, we are providing £100 million for one-stop primary health care centres or mobile units in 100 rural communities.
    To reverse the decline of rural post offices, we are investing —270 million to turn post offices into one-stop shops, with access to banking, prescriptions and local
    812
    authority and other services. Today I can announce that the pilot scheme to test the system will be in Leicestershire, involving 280 post offices and starting next spring.
    Thousands of villages have lost their local shops. We propose to offer mandatory rate relief to more village shops, pubs and garages. We are launching a new £15 million rural community service fund to support local enterprise and help local groups re-establish their lost services. To improve education in rural areas, we have introduced stronger safeguards to protect rural schools from closure. We are providing rural police forces with an extra £45 million over the next two years. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, we are helping local communities which use their local church to provide community services, by reducing the rate of VAT on repairs and maintenance from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent.
    The House will be aware of the importance of transport to rural areas. In his pre-Budget report, the Chancellor froze fuel duty and reduced vehicle excise duty on smaller cars. But public transport is absolutely vital. We have already increased funding for rural buses by £170 million, providing 1,800 new services. We are now going to invest another £192 million over the next three years in rural transport.
    People in rural areas have told us that, in some places, they need much more flexible transport solutions, so we are setting up a new £15 million special transport fund. The fund will give those parishes that want it up to £10,000 each to provide their own small-scale solutions to local transport problems, such as support for car clubs, taxi services and community transport. As announced in our 10-year plan, we will extend the existing fuel duty rebate for buses to community transport schemes. For a typical community minibus that could be worth up to £3,000 a year.
    There is growing concern about controlling speeding traffic in villages and on country roads. We will allow local communities to make villages and rural roads safer by reducing speed limits and investing more in traffic calming. We will also invest more than £1 billion over 10 years in rural bypasses.
    Like urban areas, rural areas require affordable housing. We are doubling the Housing Corporation programme by 2003-04. This, together with local authority investment and planning reforms, will provide a total of 3,000 affordable homes a year in small rural settlements, and a total of around 9,000 homes a year across all rural districts. In some areas, better use of planning rules could provide one affordable home for every new home built. Our new starter home initiative will also help key workers on modest incomes to buy their homes in areas of high prices and high demand.
    There are strong feelings of resentment in some areas that second home owners benefit from a 50 per cent. council tax discount while local people cannot find enough affordable housing. We propose to give local authorities in England the same discretion as those in Wales to end the 50 per cent. discount. As a new departure, we propose to use the proceeds for extra affordable housing. This will of course be discretionary, but it could be worth up to £150 million a year. We are required to consult on that proposal and will do so as soon as possible.
    A strong rural economy benefits both rural and urban areas. Market towns are the heart of economic growth in rural areas. We are investing an extra £37 million over

    813
    the next three years to help create new opportunities, new work spaces, restored high streets, better amenities and good transport links to surrounding areas. With partnership funds, that will create a £100 million package for 100 market towns.
    We are giving the regional development agencies greater flexibility and a more specific rural remit within the additional £500 million in their budgets. There will also be special business support and training tailored for small businesses in rural areas.
    The House has often expressed the view that agriculture plays a crucial role in the countryside and rural economy. The action plan for farming sets out our policies for the future of farming. Farming will continue to produce the bulk of the nation's food and contribute to exports. It also contributes to a good quality environment and the wider local economy, but many farmers want, and indeed need, to diversify to stay in business.
    The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, recently announced a £1.6 billion seven-year package for agriculture in the new England rural development programme. This will increase environmental support for farmers and help them to start new business enterprises. The Government are also making available an extra £500 million to help the farming industry modernise and restructure in addition to the £2.5 billion a year from the European Union.
    Recognising the real difficulties faced by agriculture, we will also reform our planning rules to help farmers diversify. We are today launching a consultation document to give rate relief for rural diversification projects.
    Our consultation has shown a great deal of concern for a small but important part of the rural economy—the maintenance of small rural abattoirs, which have faced increased inspection fees. We will introduce additional targeted help to support local abattoirs, without any detriment to food standards.
    Our beautiful countryside is valued both by people who live in it and by people who visit it. We all recognise the work that rural people have done over generations to protect the countryside and keep it in its present state. We must relieve the pressure of development on the countryside, so we will be building on urban brown fields first and on green fields last. We will build higher quality housing and make better use of land by building at more sustainable densities. Therefore, we now require local authorities to notify me of all major housing developments planned for greenfield sites.
    The House will be aware that we were reviewing our controls over roadside advertising in the countryside. I can announce that we will not change our rules but will maintain our controls over advertisements in the countryside.
    Following this statement, the House will move on to the final stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. This major Bill will give additional protection to our countryside, conserve its wildlife and make it accessible to all—something for which we have waited a long time.
    Our consultation showed that for too long local people have felt they have not been able to take decisions for themselves, especially in rural areas. We want local communities to play a bigger part in shaping their own future because every community has its own priorities, strengths and distinctiveness.
    814
    The performance of our parish councils varies. We will promote new "quality" town or parish councils which will be able to take on a bigger role in providing and managing local services in partnership with principal authorities.
    We will provide £7 million to help parish and town councils to meet the quality standard and shape their future and, for the first time, to help 1,000 communities develop town and village plans which can then feed into the statutory planning process. In addition, the Countryside Agency will equip every town and parish council with access to the internet.
    Town and village plans will allow local people to set design standards and preserve the character of their villages.
    As our consultation revealed, all too often in the past and at all levels of government, rural needs and priorities have been overlooked. We will ensure that the commitments in this White Paper are followed through. To achieve that, an audit will be developed. The Countryside Agency will produce an annual report on how major policies have been assessed for their rural impact. We will establish new rural advisory boards at national and regional level, and will appoint a new rural advocate—Mr. Ewen Cameron, the chairman of the Countryside Agency—who will argue the case on countryside issues at the highest levels in government and outside.
    We are clear that it is impossible to tackle the problems of the countryside in isolation. We need to look at them as a whole across government. The White Paper promotes a living countryside, with thriving rural communities and access to high quality services; a working countryside with a strong economy giving high and stable levels of employment; a protected countryside that we can all enjoy; and a vibrant countryside that can shape its own future and have its voice heard by government at all levels.
    Some people want to divide town and country. We are governing for the whole country. Our aim is a living, working countryside, with better access, for all people to enjoy.
    I commend the White Paper to the House.
    Mr. Archie Norman: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. The White Paper has been long awaited and much delayed. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to divide town and country. It is a pity, therefore, that he was unable to deliver on his promise to issue the urban and rural White Papers simultaneously, so that we could see how they related to each other.
    None the less, we are glad that the rural White Paper is finally here. There is no doubt that, when Conservative Members have studied it, we will welcome some of its proposals—not least tranquillity measures and access to emergency services, about which we have read in the newspapers, and, as we have heard today, help for small abattoirs. All those measures will be welcome.
    However, may I remind the House of the state of rural life under this Government, to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred? We face an unprecedented crisis in farming. It is probable that, during the life of this Government, some 50,000 farmers will lose their livelihoods for good. The suicide rate among farmers is

    815
    the highest on record, and there is a rapid and increasing loss of green fields to development under this Government—[Interruption.] Yes. Crime is rising in the countryside faster than anywhere else, rural pubs are closing at a rate of six a week and post offices at a rate of two a week, and the stealth tax burden is falling most heavily on the shire counties. There has been a 34 per cent. increase in fuel duty and, as we heard yesterday, council tax in the shire counties is likely to rise by 30 per cent. during the life of this Government.
    The test of the White Paper will be whether it addresses the guts of that a crisis. What, if anything, in the White Paper will result in a single farmer staying in business as a farmer? Will anything lead to a single housing estate not being built, or to a single crime being prevented?
    The White Paper relaxes planning restrictions in a number of areas, but does it do anything to reverse the accelerating loss of green fields to development—the vicious circle of the decline of the inner cities and the concreting of the countryside? Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that his commitment to force councils in the south-east to build 900,000 new houses—50 per cent. on green fields—and those in the south-west to build 460,000 new houses, of which more than 60 per cent. will probably be built on green fields, will only perpetuate the loss of the countryside? Proposing in a White Paper to build over it is no solution. We need less interference and more local control over local planning. All the tranquillity measures in the world will be as nothing unless the right hon. Gentleman's central planning diktats on housebuilding are revised.
    Does the Deputy Prime Minister realise how hopelessly superficial some of the measures in the White Paper, such as those on e-inclusion, are? Post offices are closing at rate of two a week. It was the Government's decision to withdraw cash services from post offices, putting them into crisis. Putting a computer terminal into a post office is a perfectly nice idea, but it is completely superficial and will make no substantive difference. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the real issue for e-commerce in the countryside is the rolling out of broadband? Every forecast and everything that the Government have done suggests a permanently disadvantaged countryside—because of the Government's failure to deregulate telecoms in order to ensure that such rolling out takes place.
    Will the Deputy Prime Minister clarify the position on rate relief? He said in the statement that the plan is to ensure that rate relief for village shops and post offices is made mandatory. However, the White Paper states:
    We are consulting in our Green Paper Modernising Local Government Finance on an expansion of the village shop rate relief scheme.
    I do not want the House to be confused about that issue. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clarify whether he is consulting, or whether the scheme will be rolled out on a mandatory basis, and if so, when.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that most people living in the countryside depend not just on buses but on cars? We welcome investment in rural bus services, but does he not understand that less well-off farmers—whose incomes have, as he said, dropped by 65 per cent.—pensioners and parents taking their children to school in
    816
    remote areas rely on the car? They have borne the brunt of stealth taxes. A 3p cut in fuel duty would go much further than any proposal in the White Paper to boost the rural economy.
    Is there anything in the White Paper that will prevent a further rise in rural crime? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—he did not mention it in his statement—that there was a 6 per cent. increase in burglaries in the countryside in the last year alone, which was a reverse of the trend experienced under the Conservative Government; that there was a 23 per cent. increase in car crime; and that the driving force behind the increase in crime is the reduction in the strength of rural policing by 1,750 under this Government? People in the countryside now have to go to town to see what a policeman looks like. Is there anything in the White Paper that will prevent a similar rise in crime next year?
    Is not the £40 million that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned money that had already been announced, representing no real-terms increase in the expenditure on police in the countryside? Is any of the £1 billion-worth of investment in the countryside that he has claimed genuinely new money? If any of it is money that has not been previously announced, what is it and how much does it amount to?
    Does not the White Paper make the Government's attitude to farming clear? Of the 176 pages of the document, only 11 relate even remotely to agriculture. To sum it all up, on page 86, in response to the worst crisis in agriculture since the 1930s, the Deputy Prime Minister unveils—wait for it—the "electronic rural portal". That was not quite what the farmers had in mind.
    Is not the real truth that the urban White Paper was the right hon. Gentleman's top priority? That was seen as something of a flop, and the rural White Paper is the afterthought. It lacks any vision; is fragmented; and is degraded by emphasis on glossy gimmicks. The right hon. Gentleman made his view of country people clear at the Labour party conference. He gave the impression today that he was talking about a foreign country. The fact that he does not understand the countryside may be understandable, but the fact that he does not care about the countryside is unforgivable.
    Mr. Prescott: The more questions the hon. Gentleman asks, the less definitive becomes his approach. I shall respond to some of his questions—I think you would rule me out of order if I attempted to answer every one of them, Mr. Speaker.
    May I deal first with the delay. We announced in 1998 that we would commit ourselves to a White Paper. We are within the timetable for that. I said that the document would possibly be published before the summer. A number of decisions, especially those announced in the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement, made it necessary to publish the White Paper after that statement, and we decided to do so today.
    There has been some debate about whether the urban and rural White Papers should be published at the same time. Different views have been expressed, but I arrived at the view that we should separate them. People in rural areas and Labour Members representing rural constituencies said that if we put the two together it would look as if the urban view was overwhelming the rural view. I did not necessarily accept that view, but I could

    817
    see the difficulty. I accepted that it was better to make two statements, and I hope that the House welcomes that and that we can concentrate on rural matters today.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to a catalogue of decline. After my statement, 1 thought that he might have held back. I have referred to the decline in the number of village schools, shops and transport services, which we are addressing in the White Paper. All of it took place during the Conservative Administration. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a rural White Paper is necessary to deal with these matters, I have to tell him that it took the Conservatives 16 years to produce a rural White Paper, and 12 months later they produced a progress report that said that not much progress had been made. There was plenty of talk but no action, and no policy was implemented. Within three years, the Labour Government have produced White Papers on urban and rural affairs and implemented a series of proposals for change to meet the requirements. That is a far better response than one White Paper in 16 years under the previous Administration.
    On the question whether farming is in decline, that has been pretty evident not only for the past two decades, but for longer than that. The population employed in agriculture has continued to decline. Although Tory Members now represent only a minority of rural areas, they must know from their experience, as do my colleagues, who represent the majority of the rural areas, that there has been considerable decline in the industry and many difficulties resulting from the changes in agriculture policy.
    That is undoubtedly true, and it is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has produced a number of agriculture policies to deal with those difficulties. The most recent is the action programme to tackle the problems facing the industry in the past few months. Yes, the industry is in decline. At the request of the industry and rural communities for more favourable circumstances for diversification, we have produced our proposals and made extra resources available.
    It is true that we have given greater priority to affordable housing. That is largely because many authorities were engaged in selling their housing stock as second houses—or executive homes, as the hon. Gentleman would call them. [Interruption.] Yes, whether we like it or not, the quaint country cottage has become the executive second home, and that has denied people who want to live in the area the chance to have a home.
    Yes, we have increased the amount of money available for affordable housing. We have also increased the possibility of new resources by removing the 50 per cent. discount on council tax. That is a matter on which I must consult, but Wales has already introduced such a measure and shown that it can work. I want to make sure that the extra money taken by local authorities who withdraw that discount will be directed to providing affordable housing. That is a priority and it is one of the matters on which we differ from the Opposition.
    On the question whether we are building on greenfield sites, we have carried out a review of PPG3 and PPG6, which deal with supermarkets—a subject on which the hon. Gentleman has much more experience than I do. Much of the greenfield area was developed for that purpose.
    818
    The same argument applies, whether the planning is for the south-east or the south-west. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on planning arrangements still to be brought before the House. In general, however, as we have made it clear time and again, priority should be given to brownfield sites for housebuilding. We also believe in greater density and better quality design. That, in our view, would meet the demand for housing in the south-east with no greater land take. It is simple mathematics to divide the land by the number of houses and determine the density required. Our proposals will not lead to a greater demand for land.
    We have increased the green belt by 30,000 hectares in three years, whereas the previous Administration added only 1,500 hectares to the green belt. Again, that shows the difference between us. Our record on the green belt, development and planning agreements is far better.
    On rural crime, the hon. Gentleman cites the statistics rather selectively. We all accept the British crime survey report; I have heard it quoted by the Opposition. Let us first remind ourselves that throughout the period of the Tory Government, crime doubled in rural and urban areas. It doubled. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that it had subsequently got worse. The British crime survey report shows that between 1997 and 1999, burglaries went down 20 per cent, rural violence went down 22 per cent. and vehicle theft went down 20 per cent. That is not consistent with the suggestion that crime has got worse in rural areas.
    The statistics deployed by the hon. Gentleman are typical. The greatest hypocrisy in his argument is not only that he asked what new money there is—clearly, there is new money, as I have told the House—but that he made no commitment to continue that extra public expenditure. We know that the Opposition would maintain the expenditure on health and possibly education, but they would not maintain other expenditure. Recently, the Opposition Treasury spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), said:
    We have made it quite clear that we do not intend to match the Government on public spending.
    The question for the Opposition is what they would cut from new expenditure in rural areas. That is the reality. We shall be posing that question in every rural area when we fight the next election.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to the Select Committee's report and for the White Paper. Will he say specifically when he hopes rural post offices, shops and garages will be eligible for rate relief? How soon does he expect money to be available to small market towns to enable their shopping facilities to be enhanced? Does he agree that if these measures are to work, it is essential that those who live in rural areas use their local shops? To that end, will my right hon. Friend look a little harder at the way in which supermarkets still insist on receiving discounts that are not available to small rural shops?
    Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks. As regards rate relief, he will know that first we must complete the consultation process. Timing will be a matter for the Treasury. However, we have committed ourselves to the policy.
    My hon. Friend referred to supermarkets and discount pricing disadvantaging shops selling higher-priced products in rural areas. I have been discussing with

    819
    supermarkets whether they should not consider having shops in rural areas that sell at the same prices, and allow a sort of social service to be provided. To be fair to supermarkets, they have begun to do so in some areas. I hope that we can encourage them to do more.
    Mr. Don Foster: Liberal Democrats unequivocally welcome the broad thrust and many of the details of the White Paper. There has clearly been much parallel thinking between the parties. That is why we welcome plans to allow local authorities to charge full council tax on second homes and to abolish the outrageous privilege of a 50 per cent. discount. I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to speed up implementation of the policy. He need consult us no further on the matter. We entirely agree.
    We welcome the plans for mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief for rural pubs, shops and garages, and the plans for renewing the Post Office network. We are delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has dropped plans to allow the mushrooming of advertising hoardings throughout the countryside. To ensure that there will not be the mushrooming of unnecessary mobile phone masts, is he now willing to accept in full the recommendations of the Stewart report to allow local councils to have full planning control?
    Will the extension of the fuel duty rebate for all forms of community rural transport be introduced immediately? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that implementation of the plans will not be delayed for further unnecessary consultation?
    Having welcomed the bulk of the White Paper, I shall express one deep concern. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of his plans will be brought to fruition only with the support of active and willing local government that is given the necessary resources and the freedom to meet local needs? Will he explain why yesterday the Government further restricted that freedom by tying up yet more funds in specific grants, thus providing more central rather than local control?
    Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I would not want the House to think that there is any joint consultation on these matters—certainly not with me! I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments in support of the ending of the council tax discount and the granting of extra rate relief for shops. There was rate relief under the previous Administration, and we are building on that policy. That policy was right and other shops, areas and services are entitled to that relief. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes our decision on hoardings in the countryside. As he knows, we are consulting about mobile phone masts, although I think that much more could be done in the industry to unify signal stations rather than just duplicating them from place to place.
    The time that it will take to implement the transport plans varies. I announced plans for £10,000 which, in some areas with only 1,000 people, is almost the size of a parish budget, so that is a substantial amount of money. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are more than 8,000 parishes and it is not assumed that they will all get that grant—indeed, from what they have told us, not all of them would want it. Certainly, we are prepared to give
    820
    that grant, but parishes will have to make a case for why they should receive it. As public money is involved, we will want to check properly that their schemes are sound, which, perhaps, will cause some delay.
    I understand the controversial matter raised by the hon. Gentleman because I have had discussions with local authorities, who often make a point about ring-fencing of what were—and still are—local authority resources. However, there were real difficulties when we tried to identify those resources, whether for education or services. When the Government commit themselves to delivery in partnership with a local authority, they have to get the best balance between their responsibility and that of the local authority providing the resources.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the statement. As a Member of Parliament who represents a semi-rural constituency, I have consulted 8,000 of my constituents on these issues in the past year. I assure my right hon. Friend that the vast majority of those people wish to see health, education and transport—which are all included in the White Paper—being tackled. Hon. Members who try to divide the countryside and rural areas from urban areas do a great disservice to the whole country.
    Will my right hon. Friend give further details about the proposed pilot scheme for post offices in Leicestershire? Will he look at speed limits in smaller villages so that they can be reduced as much as possible? Finally, will he look in more detail at ways in which we can assist market towns such as Loughborough and others in my constituency and the rest of Leicestershire, including Shepshed and Sileby, that have suffered from the decline in textiles? [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Will my right hon. Friend look at extending help to those relatively large villages? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a good try, but I suggest that from now on we have one question per Member.
    Mr. Prescott: I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the consultation, which was pretty extensive and cost 12 months of the time that we took to prepare the White Paper. We thought that it was important to find out what people in rural areas felt and, perhaps, to embody their recommendations, views and ideas about policy in the White Paper, which confirms what my hon. Friend said about consultation in his area. I shall write to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Leicestershire with details of the post office scheme.
    Recommendations have been made on speed restrictions, and we shall seek to give local authorities an opportunity to discuss them with the police and the authorities involved to see if speed limit changes can be achieved without the need to go through my Department to confirm a change. That will speed up the process and will be welcome.
    Market towns are an important economic consideration for the development of rural areas. We want to make sure that they get support, even though they may not all want to do what we propose in the White Paper. We have given them an opportunity: they have a choice. The urban and rural White Papers are complementary. The more we can

    821
    help to improve life in our cities, the more we increase the possibility of people wanting to stay there instead of moving out of the area. The urban and rural White Papers both aim to achieve that end, on which the development of market towns and villages depends.
    Sir Richard Body: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us in the countryside, especially those of us who are concerned with farming, would really like form filling, regulatory control and other bureaucracy to be reduced to the level now prevailing in France and other EU countries with which we have to compete?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has a long history of dealing with countryside matters and brings an experienced viewpoint to the House. He will know that we have changed some regulations dealing with environmental requirements in the countryside. However, the common agricultural policy, whether in France or Britain, carries a burden of bureaucracy and red tape. We are required to observe those arrangements. Of course, they were introduced under the previous Administration.
    Mr. Peter Bradley: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the White Paper will be welcomed the length and breadth of this country? That will happen not least because it addresses the agenda of ordinary men and women with ordinary concerns and priorities in rural communities. The White Paper is not limited only to farmers, as one might have imagined after listening to Opposition Members. It is a rural White Paper, not an agriculture White Paper.
    Will my right hon. Friend also accept that people will be delighted that affordable housing and jobs are at the centre of the programme? They are the best, indeed the only way of sustaining rural communities. Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to ensure that local authorities understand that we need a more flexible planning regime? That is necessary to secure affordable housing, as well as the jobs and local services that go with it, and provide the promise of the White Paper.
    Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The White Paper meets the needs of ordinary people in rural areas, men—and women—[Laughter.]—in York and outside it. My hon. Friend will know that many policies that affect rural areas are implemented by different Departments, so it is important to achieve proper co-ordination. That is why we sought to appoint a rural advocate to impose a check and to see how Departments are delivering what the Government promise in the White Paper, as well how they are delivering their policies. Ordinary people can express their views using that sounding board, and so ensure that Departments carry out their responsibilities.
    On flexible planning, we are, as I said, making changes in the planning process to make it easier to deal with the problems of diversification. Members of rural communities, including farmers, are asking for action on that.
    Mr. David Curry: Will the Deputy Prime Minister remember the hidden countryside industry—residential and nursing care for elderly people? Does he realise that residential and care homes are the
    822
    largest employer in many small towns and villages? Many farmers can hang on in business only because members of their families have found employment in such homes. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that industry is under pressure because of inadequate fee income from local authorities and changes in standards? When the right hon. Gentleman deals with local authority finance, which also causes problems, will he bear in mind the importance of those homes, not merely in terms of care for elderly people, but as part of the interdependence of the entire rural economy?
    Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When I consider rural areas, I am sometimes reminded of the city of Hull, which was often said to be a fishing town when only 6 per cent. of its economic activity was associated with fishing. The same can be said of agriculture in rural economies. The care industry is an important part of the diversification that is currently well under way in the farming industry, whether people gain employment in that sector or make a living driving trucks around—as we have seen in the past few weeks.
    Diversification is important in the farming community—and I suspect that it always has been. We are seeking to remove some of the obstacles, to ensure the provision of services that give people jobs. That includes the introduction of extra resources and changes in planning regulations to allow more effective use of buildings than is currently possible.
    Charlotte Atkins: I especially welcome the Government's investment in rural transport, as a quarter of households in rural areas do not have regular access to a car. However, I am anxious about rural school transport, which would be threatened under Tory plans to abolish LEAs. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about charging post-16-year-olds for use of the free bus service? That acts as a tax on learning and staying on at school, and conflicts with the Government's view that we should reduce congestion in the areas around schools.
    Mr. Prescott: I agree a great deal with my hon. Friend's comments. It is true that transport is a critical requirement in those communities. As she said, about a quarter of the people in rural areas, and 30 per cent. in the United Kingdom generally, do not have access to cars. Public transport is critical for them. My hon. Friend also mentioned access to school transport. In rural areas, demands for transport are much more variable than in urban areas. That is why we increased the funding for the provision of rural bus transport, which was originally £170 million. Everybody thinks that that has been quite successful, in producing 1,800 new bus services, plus other services.
    We are trying to provide extra resources: the £230 million plus. I do not know whether the Opposition are prepared to retain that—it is new money to provide more transport services in rural areas. The special transport fund is also relevant as it will allow parishes and smaller communities to adjust to the relevant requirements. I hope that the extra resources will not be the total amount available. Often, extra resources can be used to multiply other resources to get better transport and

    823
    to meet the particular requirements of an area. They can also help to ensure that decisions are made by those most affected by them.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although accessibility to vital services, a reduction in the cost of fuel, the increased availability of affordable housing and an increase in rural policing are essential to the success of rural communities, does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that unless farming is making a profit, there will be no maintenance of our countryside, to which he referred in such glowing terms? Will he co-operate more fully with other Departments and ensure that they introduce policies that will enable our farmers to make a profit? Does not the fact that Heathcote's, a rural abattoir in my constituency, will face an additional bill of £80,000 in the immediate future demonstrate what the Government are doing? Is that the way to ensure the survival of rural abattoirs?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman's opening remarks have already made my case. He catalogued the areas that are important for maintaining strong and good community life£and there was a decline in every one of those categories during the 18 years when he was a member of the previous Government. He obviously accepts his responsibility for the reduction in quality of life.
    Mr. Winterton: I was a Back Bencher.
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman may have been a Back Bencher during that period—I know that he was quite independent on occasion—but he belonged to that Administration and fought under a Tory banner at elections.
    The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the importance of fanning. It may account for a small part of our GDP, but a great deal of the life in those communities is dependent on farming. The new plans and resources that have been announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are directed towards that. The hon. Gentleman must accept that the resources that go from the public purse to farming mean that one cannot argue that the industry is getting a hard deal. It may not be getting enough resources, but if one compares its situation with that of other industries, one sees that a fair share of public resources go towards maintaining agriculture in this country.
    Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend accept warm congratulations from Labour Members, and also the fact that the comments of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the Opposition spokesperson, had nothing to do with what really matters in rural Britain? Will my right hon. Friend also put to rest the canard that we were going to get rid of parish and town councils? Instead, we have shown that we will enhance their powers and give local people a true voice. There will be a proper decision-making process for planning and housing, which is what local people want. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question?"] Will he accept our congratulations?
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. He is a supporter of rural communities and his comments explain
    824
    why the Government have more Members of Parliament representing rural constituencies than do the two main opposition parties—
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Not for long.
    Mr. Prescott:—a fact that shows what people in rural areas thought about 18 years of a Tory Administration. We want to reverse that decline and give people a decent opportunity to enjoy good services.
    The White Paper will give people a choice, and a chance to make their own decisions. One way to do that is through parish councils. My hon. Friend knows, as I do, that the quality of parish councils varies considerably. There are more than 8,000 of them, and I propose in the White Paper to provide more powers and resources for som—but they must come up to a quality standard. They cannot just hope to receive the money.
    We want to see a professional management in control—a management that approaches the provision of services in a professional way. We also want councils to be accountable through elections; councils in many areas do not seek endorsement by that means. We want better councils, and as we say in the White Paper, accountability is at the heart of that.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Much of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said will be welcomed in Herefordshire, but may I raise the subject of real food, which is now a growing aspect of rural life? What is in the White Paper to support farmers markets, which are an increasing and important part of rural life? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider again the compensation that should be offered to organic farmers who lose soil accreditation status because their crops have been affected by genetically modified pollen?
    Mr. Prescott: I think that I have been advised that no one has been affected in that way.
    It is important for us to try to improve rural economies by helping to strengthen agriculture. I have already mentioned some of the resources involved. I have referred to the need to help abattoirs—a point that may seem small in itself, but is really very important. People living in rural communities argue strongly that it is too costly to use abattoirs that are some distance away, and that it would be helpful if we could maintain local abattoirs and enable them to meet both the desired standards and the extra costs. Abattoirs are an essential ingredient in local economies.
    The same is true of what the hon. Gentleman described as "real foods". I assume that he meant organic foods. More needs to be done, and we are doing some of it now. Organic food commands a higher price, which is of interest to local economies. We are doing all that we can to encourage it.
    Jane Griffiths: The inclusion in my right hon. Friend's statement of support for parish and town councils will be warmly welcomed. Can he assure me that that support will assist Woodley town council in my constituency, so that it can maintain the area, which is not urban but nestles against an urban area, as both an inclusive and a distinctive community?
    Mr. Prescott: I am not too sure how to reply to that question, as I only picked up half of it. I apologise to my

    825
    hon. Friend for that, and I will write to her. I assume that she was talking about a town council in the Reading area—I picked that up through natural intelligence.
    Mr. John Gummer: If the right hon. Gentleman wants local people to be able to make bigger decisions about their own future, why, in giving local authorities discretion to charge the full rate on second homes, does he not permit them to use the money as they think fit? Instead, he insists that he must get his hands on it. Is that not merely another stealth tax? The Government make the local authority take the lash, then take the money back so that they can pay for their own housing policy.
    Mr. Prescott: This is about housing policy. The proposal is in the interests of every local authority that I can think of.
    At least I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for deciding that there should be a rural White Paper when he became Secretary of State for the Environment in, I believe, 1995. As he knows, however, his observation document showed that little had been done. Recommendations had been made, but had then been rejected. We have embodied some of his proposals in the White Paper.
    I think that the money is an extra resource that should go towards affordable homes. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's essential point that local authorities should make their own decisions about resources, but as we are removing a discount, I feel that the money is required because of the desperate need for affordable homes—especially in view of the Conservative Government's record.
    Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will know that, with 67 parishes, mine is a truly rural constituency. I can tell him from my surveys of parish councils that 70 per cent. of them will welcome the proposals in the White Paper, and the continuing attention paid to the many deprived rural areas that developed during the 18 years of Conservative government.
    I especially welcome the proposal to evaluate progress on the rural agenda, which I am sure will be welcomed throughout the House. Has my right hon. Friend considered the establishment of an annual report on rural issues, which could be debated annually in the House?
    Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether I should congratulate my hon. Friend on having 67 parishes in his constituency or commiserate with him, but that statistic shows the diversity of the parish council structure. I hope that our proposals will help parish councils to provide a better service by giving them the resources and powers to meet the needs of people in their areas, as I am sure my hon. Friend will explain to them.
    My hon. Friend raises the important issue of whether there should be an annual report. Governments—I do not have one particular Government in mind—often make statements advocating that something be done for rural or urban areas. All too often that commitment is not checked, except from time to time by Select Committees, as was said earlier. We intend to produce an annual report on the state of the countryside, which will be available to
    826
    Departments, Select Committee and hon. Members, so we can have a proper debate in the House on the provision of the services that I have announced and make a proper assessment of their effectiveness.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his statement. It contained many good ideas and I support a great many of the sentiments behind it—and when he said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) had given him those ideas, I understood why the White Paper was so good.
    I have one question. Last July, the European Commission told the Government that grants could no longer be given to clear polluted brownfield sites. That drove a coach and horses through the Government's policy to build on brownfield sites first and greenfield sites second. Has the right hon. Gentleman solved that problem, because if he has not, the green fields of our countryside will be destroyed, whether he likes it or not, with the customary knock-on effects of light and noise pollution?
    Mr. Prescott rose
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Deputy Prime Minister replies, I should remind hon. Members that the shorter the questions, the better for everyone concerned.
    Mr. Prescott: I do not want to leave the impression, nor, I think, would the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Central—[HON. MEMBERS: "Coastal."] Sorry, I meant the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I do not want to leave the impression that even 1 per cent. of the ideas that we are putting forward came from his White Paper. There were ideas in it, but he implemented only one of them. He did not manage to implement the rest, which I have here before me, even after his one-year observation report on his White Paper. Where the ideas make good sense, I have included them. For example, it is right to build on the rate discount for such places as shops and pubs—but perhaps it would be better not to recognise the actions of other politicians by congratulating them on their contributions, because it only leads to silly remarks such as that made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen).
    The EC definition of state aid has concerned the House. It is a real problem. We have cleared much land of pollution by using such resources, especially through English Estates and English Partnerships, and we need to contest the EC's contention that those resources are state aid. We have allowed for that problem and made changes to deal with it while we continue to argue our case. We are not a lone voice in that argument.
    Mr. Mark Todd: I commend in particular the initiative that my right hon. Friend announced for supporting innovation in parish and town councils. A number of parish councils in my area—perhaps in Melbourne and Barrow upon Trent—would welcome the opportunity to develop local plans and new solutions for services. Can he suggest a timetable for that?
    Mr. Prescott: We would be happy to discuss that matter with town and parish councils as soon as possible. It is important to get on with it, and I am sure that many

    827
    of my hon. Friends will want to make that clear to parish councils. The ideas are innovative. I have always believed that parish councils have a role. They clearly do not have the major role of other local authorities, but they have a part to play and we have dismissed them for too long. An effective parish council could play an important part in democratic accountability, which the White Paper seeks to increase.
    Sir Peter Emery: The Deputy Prime Minister and his boss are always saying that they listen to people, so why will he not listen to the local authorities and give district councils the right to decide the level of new housing in their districts, rather than its being dictated by the Ministries?
    Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman attended the debates when the previous Government forced their housing requirements on Kent and other housing authorities.
    Caroline Flint: As Doncaster council claims that it will take it 10 years to introduce 20 mph zones, will my right hon. Friend consider delegating responsibility for such traffic management schemes to parish and town councils, which represent people who are crying out for those zones now, not in 10 years' time?
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those are difficult matters. Certain rights are given under statutory powers to the various authorities involved. I have said that there is an opportunity now for us to decentralise some of those powers to the areas most affected by them. Speed limits may be suitable. It makes sense to give more responsibility to those who are directly affected in the immediate area.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I too welcome the interesting and worthwhile proposals in the White Paper, but does the Secretary of State recall that the main problem in my rural constituency is that the borough council is being required by a four-year-old structure plan to provide land for 14,400 new dwellings over the next 10 years, in a rural setting? Many thousands of commuters will move into new homes, yet the road developments have all been cancelled and the improvement schemes have been postponed. Why does the right hon. Gentleman still refuse to call in those old structure plans and reopen them in the light of the many new policies that he has announced over the past three or four years, which he says are designed to preserve the quality of life and the green fields in our rural environment?
    Mr. Prescott: I think that I can recall demands for that road being made for some time under the previous Administration, who found that they could not provide either the resources or the time to build it—so he is not bringing a new problem to my attention, although it may be made much more difficult by the 14,400 houses. I do not know enough of the details, but I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a meeting with some of my Ministers. Through PPG3—new planning guidance—we are trying to achieve a proper balance between such transport matters and housing development. I will look into the matter and write to him.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend meet the excellent new Minister for rural affairs in Wales to ensure that the best principles of the White Paper will be applied in Wales, too? I represent a rural constituency, and does he agree with me that what people want is a quality environment and access to good quality public services, not the right to hunt animals with dogs for sport, which is the obsession of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Prescott: I think that I will swerve past that one—but I believe that I have made it clear that I shall vote against.
    We are on dangerous ground if we say what people in Scotland or Wales should do under the decentralised Administrations, but I have referred to the fact that we learned something from Wales when it ended the 50 per cent. discount. Both areas have much to learn from each other, and we should take that into account for the sake of improving the lives of people in all our areas.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: When determining the transport policies in the White Paper, did the Deputy Prime Minister declare his interest to his colleagues—a financial interest involving a transport union, which is worth perhaps £1,000 a month—as required by paragraph 110 of the ministerial code?
    Mr. Prescott: Daft question.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Many people in Scarborough and Whitby will be pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have listened to them, but I particularly welcome the new guidance on rural strategy that my right hon. Friend suggested would be issued to regional development agencies, including Yorkshire Forward. Can he say when that guidance will be available, so that I can ensure that I do my best for my rural constituents in dealing with Yorkshire Forward?
    Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. To be honest, I do not know when the advice will be produced. If he will allow me, I shall write to him with more detailed information.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: What new money has the right hon. Gentleman announced today?
    Mr. Prescott: We have announced the £1 billion—the hon. Gentleman can read the statement. We have announced extra money for transport and housing, and extra programmes for housing, education and health. All of those things are important to rural communities, so the hon. Gentleman will have great difficulty explaining to his rural constituents why he would cut back expenditure on those programmes.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: My right hon. Friend's White Paper will be welcome in my semi-rural constituency, especially the Penistone area. Will he say a little about the mechanism whereby market towns might gain access to the extra £37 million that RDAs have been given for regeneration? Is it likely to be available for projects proposed by the market towns?
    Mr. Prescott: The RDAs have a remit to deal with and report on such matters, whether the areas involved are rural, partly rural or partly urban. In some cases the money will be made available by project; in others, other criteria will be used. The RDAs have been instructed to take account of rural areas in their programmes of expenditure.
    Mr. Andrew George: It is wrong that this year, under the existing council tax loophole, £168 million of national taxpayers' money will again be spent subsidising wealthy people's ownership of second homes, when there are many thousands of rural families who do not have their first home. The right hon. Gentleman's announcement will therefore be warmly welcomed. However, my constituents in west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, where there is a high incidence of second home ownership, will want to know how soon the policy can be implemented and whether the consultation process will consider other provisions to ensure that people on rural wages are not priced out by wealthy second home owners.
    Mr. Prescott: As I made clear, we shall consult on the matter as soon as we can. I have announced other resources in connection with key housing and affordable housing. The 50 per cent. discount is not the sole issue, but under the scheme that I have announced, money will be ring-fenced for the development of affordable homes. That extra money will be welcome wherever in England it is applied.
    Dr. Howard Stoate: One of the biggest problems in the rural parts of my constituency is the degradation of the environment caused by illegal fly tipping and encampments. Will my right hon. Friend say how his White Paper will enable the Government to clamp down on illegal fly tipping and improve the environment in rural areas?
    Mr. Prescott: That is a particularly aggravating problem in many areas and it is difficult to deal with, as most hon. Members know. However, as my hon. Friend says, the practice is often illegal, so it is a question of catching offenders and enforcing the law; those are matters for the Home Office.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the countryside would be more reassured by his statement if the Government were not actively working against the interests of British agriculture? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have a hearing.
    Mr. Hogg: Why are the Government supporting the inclusion of sugar in the EBA—everything but arms—initiative? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that that policy will destroy British agriculture, undermine employment and damage the countryside itself?
    Mr. Prescott: I do not know about BEA—[Horn. MEMBERS: "EBA."]—but I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown as much concern about BSE, which affected more rural areas. He has more responsibility—
    Mr. Hogg: You haven't a clue, have you?
    Mr. Prescott: If he had shown greater knowledge and wisdom in respect of BSE, this country would be a lot better off, our agriculture industry would be a lot better off, and so would our people. It is a disgrace that he should make such an announcement.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the past 18 years, one of the most dramatic changes in coalfield rural constituencies such as mine, which has 20 parishes and 20 villages, is that all the pits have been closed? My suggestion to him—I hope that he and the coalfields taskforce will take it on board—is that the accent must be on jobs, jobs and jobs again. And while he is at it, will he accept from me a couple of short sentences that he might want to use in the future? They are, "Ban French beef", and "Stuff the euro".
    Mr. Prescott: I can tell my hon. Friend that those phrases are not in the White Paper. However, the point that he makes about jobs, jobs and jobs has been at the heart of the Government's policy—which has created a million extra jobs when the previous Administration told us that that was not possible. If this Government achieve nothing else, getting a million more people back to work is a record to be proud of. We have done that by recognising the need for social justice.
    Coalfield communities suffered greatly from the previous Administration's policy of closing down 100 pits, which wiped out whole communities. We responded to that by providing £350 million and other resources and powers to coalfield areas, enabling them to begin rebuilding their own communities. The difference between this Government and the previous one is that we are concerned with social justice. We give a lot of time and attention to that.
    Mr. John Hayes: The Deputy Prime Minister will understand the difference between sparsely populated areas and areas with scattered populations. He will also understand the difficulty of providing public services to those different types of communities. What proposals does he envisage will be necessary to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of public services in areas of scattered population, and where in the document does he deal with those proposals?
    Mr. Prescott: A central plank of the White Paper is the need to ensure that local decisions are made by local people. In transport, for example, local people should be able to decide local priorities and how to use the extra resources provided for bus services. We shall also target other services such as health and education, and make it clear—as other Departments already do—that those services have to be provided. However, we do not rest there. We want to ensure that there is an audit of all those services, to be reported in an annual report to Departments, to the House and to Select Committees, so that we can check progress. That way of providing services is substantially different from the way in which the previous Administration did things.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have let the statement run for an hour and 10 minutes, and we must move on.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Let me introduce the new Members first.

    NEW MEMBERS TAKING THE OATH
    The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:
    John Robertson Esq., for Glasgow, Anniesland
    Mark Phillip Hendrick Esq., for Preston
    Adrian Edward Bailey Esq., for West Bromwich, West

    Points of Order
    4.47 pm
    Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance notice of this point of order, but yesterday I received a telephone call from a journalist on a senior regional paper in my constituency, asking me, in some detail, whether the provisions in the White Paper on which we have just heard a statement would have any bearing on the extremely controversial proposal to build a huge container port at Dibden bay, a rural part of my constituency.
    I wonder how that journalist knew in detail what the White Paper contained 24 hours before the statement was made, and whether this is one more case of the Government disregarding your injunction to Ministers not to leak to the press before statements are made in the House.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have to provide some clear evidence that the journalist was in fact in possession of the White Paper before it was presented to the House. I will need more than hearsay evidence. I do not doubt what he says, but it is only hearsay evidence.
    Mr. Robert Walter rose—
    Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait.
    Mr. Walter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret to have to return to a point that I raised with you about two weeks ago, when I sought your guidance on the correct way of referring in the House to the First Secretary and other Secretaries in the National Assembly for Wales. I asked whether we should use the titles in the legislation passed by this House or whether we could call them whatever we liked. You replied:
    Normally, the Table Office would have corrected notices to use the First Secretary's correct title. I hope that the proper designation will appear on the Order Paper in future.—[Official Report, 15 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 939.]
    I may have been mistaken, but I took that to mean that official publications of the House would refer to those people only by their correct titles and that Hansard reporters would, as is their normal practice, correct inaccurate terminology used by hon. Members when referring to officials of the Welsh Assembly.
    The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) later asked a supplementary question about the First Secretary, but the Under-Secretary of State for Wales replied using the term "First Minister". Those who refer to the official record in later years may find that confusing. You wrote to the First Secretary, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), on 21 November. The letter is in the public domain. It says:
    The ruling I gave last week about the designation First Secretary related to the Order Paper, where it is proper that the terminology approved by Parliament should be used. I would not regard the oral use of First Minister as out of order.
    I would be obliged if you could give a definitive ruling on the use of those terms in the House, both in the Chamber and in our official publications.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I did not make myself clear when I answered his point of order on 15 November. In order to remove any doubt, let me emphasise that my ruling referred only to the Order Paper. Hon. Members are free to use the term "First Minister" orally if they wish to do so, and I see no requirement for Hansard to make any correction in these circumstances.
    Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the importance of the need for this House to communicate accurately with outside audiences, was it in order this afternoon for the Government to distribute to several journalists copies not of the rural White Paper, but of the urban White Paper?
    Mr. Speaker: Such matters are nothing to do with the Chair. The paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers was in the public domain.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief, and not take up the House's time, but this morning I received an e-mail from an august journalist who works for a highly regarded journal in my constituency. The e-mail contained a detailed list of questions about the rural White Paper. Would it be helpful to you, Mr. Speaker, if I let you see a copy of that e-mail?
    Mr. Speaker: Yes.

    Town and Country Planning (Amendment)
    4.51 pm
    Mr. Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 31 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so as to allow local planning authorities to determine themselves in the structure plan the amount of new housing, including figures for housing provision in each district.
    In his introduction to the urban White Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister stated:
    Our guiding principle is that people must come first. Our policies, programmes and structures of governance are based on engaging local people in partnerships for change with strong local leadership. This inclusive approach is at the heart of our work
    When he introduced the rural White Paper this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was important for people to have a real say in what was happening locally. Clearly, it is a worthwhile principle, and one worthy of support, that local people and local leaders should make local decisions. The difficulty is that existing planning practice is the complete antithesis of any approach based on local people and local decisions.
    Planning practice for new housing numbers is all top-down, with no local community say from the bottom up. Decisions are imposed from above, rather than taken locally. There is a confusing structure and a succession of regional planning conferences, county structure plans and local development plans. That confusion is compounded by the fact that those processes are often carried out simultaneously in relation to different survey periods, years, and time scales.
    The result is that all too often, people suddenly wake up to discover a proposal to build huge amounts of new housing adjacent to where they live. When they object, the district council tells them, "We're terribly sorry. We know how you feel, but we have no choice. These housing numbers have been imposed on us by the structure plan. All we are doing is carrying out the structure plan's instructions."
    It is hardly surprising that turnout in parliamentary elections and by-elections should be falling, and that participation in local elections is fading away, if local people feel disfranchised and alienated from some of the decisions that affect them most deeply. Not least among those decisions is how far and how fast their communities will grow.
    My constituency contains two market towns, Banbury and Bicester, and a host of villages in surrounding Oxfordshire. Over the past 20 years or so, Banbury and Bicester have taken the lion's share of new housing development in Oxfordshire. In particular, Bicester has been for some time one of the fastest-growing communities in the country. Alas, local facilities do not always keep up with the increase in housing.
    I suspect that the vast majority of people in Banbury and Bicester feel that the towns have grown to their natural geographical limits. Neighbouring villages feel that they are in danger of being caught up in ever increasing development that blurs town and village and destroys local distinctiveness. In Banbury High street and Bicester Sheep street I am not stopped by people saying that substantially more housing should be built in their

    835
    towns and villages. Rather, I am met with increasing numbers of people who feel disfranchised and powerless to prevent large developments that they do not want.
    To planners and local government officials—those within the secret garden—the system of regional planning conferences, regional planning guidance, structure plans and local plans is entirely rational and understandable. But to those who matter—local people and local residents—it is not; it is an alienating system. Moreover, these matters are of increasing importance as the impact of development grows.
    Increasingly, local authorities are expecting developers to meet infrastructure costs, such as the costs of new schools. In the new terminology of local government finance, Oxfordshire was "ceilinged" yesterday; there was a very tight local government settlement. Getting developers to build new schools is obviously attractive to local authorities, but to enable developers to do that, the new housing development must be substantial.
    For example, it would appear that Cherwell district council is having to build 1,100 new houses on the outskirts of Banbury, most of which will be in the parish of Bodicote. It has taken Bodicote since the time of the Domesday book to grow to 1,000 or so homes; this development will double the size of that community almost overnight. How can that be called sustainable development? Other communities around Banbnry—Wroxton and Hanwell, for example—all made it clear that they did not want large volumes of extra new housing built on the edge of Banbury, adjoining their villages.
    All this new housing, whether around Banbury or Bicester, will be built on greenfield sites. There is no question here of greenfield sites being last, as the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier. That statement is entirely meaningless. All the new building in Oxfordshire around Banbury and Bicester will be on greenfield sites.
    What would my Bill do? I want to see more power devolved to local residents, with decisions moving closer to local people and further away from Whitehall and central Government offices. The decisions on how many houses should be built in a local area should be taken by local councils at the behest of local people and local electors. They should not be effectively imposed from above—top-down, a fait accompli. "More choice to local people" is what the Deputy Prime Minister said this afternoon. The real choice that local people want is the choice of the size of their own communities.
    Regional planning bodies should be abolished. Many right hon. and hon. Members—particularly on this side of the House—believe that local councils are best placed to decide the appropriate level of new development in their areas. In his statement on the rural White Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister said that local communities should have a greater say in determining their futures. I listened carefully to his suggestion for how that would be carried out, and he said that there would be town and village plans. Great stuff, but what will those town and village plans do? Will they have an impact on housing numbers and the size of towns and villages? Absolutely not.
    836
    So far as the Government are concerned, all the plans will do is give local people the power to make comments on design standards. For the people in Banbury, Bicester and surrounding villages who are suddenly confronted by huge amounts of new housing developments to be told that they will be able to comment on design standards will hardly console them, or make them feel that they have a greater say.
    Local people, must have a greater opportunity to contribute directly to the formulation of plans and planning discussions, and should receive information well in advance of planning applications. The time has come to restore a say to electors. The public should be allowed to contribute at committee meetings where planning applications are decided. Local objectors should be given time and space in the meetings to interact with applicants in properly organised sensible meetings in which local authorities and local people can reasonably express their concerns.
    Town and parish councils should also be given a greater true role in planning decisions, not tokenism. It is true that local planning authorities have an obligation to take into account submissions from parish councils on planning applications, but parish councils are by no means always consulted during the formulation of development plans. So parish councils should be statutory consultees.
    My overall proposals are very straightforward—a bottom-up approach to planning, the abolition of national and regional rigid planning diktats imposed for housebuilding, an end to regional planning guidance, scrutiny for planning gain agreements, greater participation in the decision-making process, proper warning for local residents about large-scale developments, a greater say for town and parish councils in planning decisions, a right of counter-appeal for local residents, greater scrutiny of local authorities giving themselves planning permission, and fairer compensation to local residents. That is what the Bill would seek to do.
    I appreciate that introducing the Bill at the end of a parliamentary Session means that it has little prospect of making further progress. However, I hope that the House will give leave to introduce it as a signal that such matters will need to be addressed in the next Session of Parliament—and, indeed, in every Session, until local people are truly engaged and enfranchised in local planning and decisions about housing numbers.

    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, Mr. John Butterfill, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. Patrick Nicholls and Mr. Ian Taylor.

    TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to amend section 31 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so as to allow local planning authorities to determine themselves in the structure plan the amount of new housing, including figures for housing provision in each district: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 29 November, and to be printed [Bill 191].
  Orders of the Day

    Countryside and Rights of Ways Bill
    Lords amendments considered.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 19, 33, 100, 124 and 268. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

    Countryside and Rights of Ways Bill
      Clause 1

        PRINCIPAL DEFINITIONS FOR PART I
        Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 13, after ("includes") insert
        (", subject to the following definition,")
        5.2 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 3, 34, 38, 153 to 157 and 171.
        Mr. Mullin: This group of amendments refines the concept of access land and exclusions from it. Before I go into them, let me say that almost all the amendments were tabled that we will be discussing today in response to proposals by one or other of the Opposition parties—whose attention I hope to attract in due course.
        We have bent over backwards to meet the concerns of right hon. and hon. Members and their noble Friends to address the genuine concerns of landowners. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will celebrate the fact that they have helped to make what was already a good Bill even better. That was acknowledged by Opposition Members in the other place. Lord Glentoran, for example, said that the Bill
        is developing into a first-class piece of legislation.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 480.]
        Baroness Byford, also on the Opposition Front Bench in the other place, said on Third Reading:

        The Bill will now give access to millions of people—safe access, because that is what we have been after. It preserves our fauna, flora and wildlife. It improves rights of way. It has added … the areas of outstanding natural beauty. We welcome all that.
        She concluded:
        It has been my great privilege to have taken part in the shaping of a Bill that will give great pleasure to millions of people in the future.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1065-66.]
        All the amendments made in the other place have improved the Bill—almost all in ways that Opposition Members have wanted. I hope that they will welcome them with open arms. I thought that I detected a trace of nit-picking yesterday in one or two Opposition arguments, but I am sure that we are past that stage now.
        838
        Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will specifically provide that
        "mountain, moor, heath or down" does not include land which appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist of improved or semi-improved grassland.
        The amendments will achieve two aims: they will put it beyond doubt that agricultural land other than unimproved and semi-improved grassland will not be treated as mountain, moor, heath and down; and they will enable such land to be excluded from maps of open country at the draft and provisional stages, so that both landowners and walkers can benefit from reasonable clarity as to what is open country.
        Mr. David Kidney: When my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment set out on this legislative procedure, he estimated that the Bill would open up access to about 4 million acres of mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land. Does the amendment make a significant difference to that estimate?
        Mr. Mullin: I do not expect that the amendment will make a significant difference to the estimate. However, it will, as I said, provide some clarity, which is what walkers and landowners wanted.
        Part I provides for a right of access to all common land registered as such under the Commons Registration Act 1965. Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 38 will ensure that access to common land would be preserved if it was de-registered after the Bill had been enacted. They will ensure that any land removed from the registers by virtue of an application made after the date of Royal Assent will continue to be treated as registered common land for the purposes of the statutory right of access. That will not affect access to common land that is removed from the registers as a consequence of powers of exchange or compulsory purchase.
        Lords amendment No. 34 will enable regulations to be made to avoid possible undesirable consequences arising from access land being treated as a public place under other legislation. We do not envisage many circumstances needing to be addressed in this way, but the power is likely to be useful in certain cases.
        We have also recognised the concerns expressed about the impact of the right of access on occupiers' obligations under section 162 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. The Act provides that certain mine shafts and quarries that are accessible to, and pose a danger to, the public are to be regarded as statutory nuisances for the purposes of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 unless they are fenced.
        Issues of occupiers' liability will be addressed later, in the fourth group of amendments that we shall consider. However, Lords amendment No. 34 will enable regulations to be made that would provide that access under the new statutory right may be disregarded in determining whether a disused mine shaft or quarry is a statutory nuisance. Such regulations would, in effect, relieve the owner of any burden to fence it under the 1990 Act, when that might arise under the new statutory right.
        Mr. John Bercow: I do not seek at this stage to cast aspersions on either the purpose or the likely effect of the regulations to which the Minister has just

        839
        referred, but it would be helpful if he explained whether they will be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure.
        Mr. Mullin: I believe that they will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
        Mr. Kevin Hughes: It is the negative procedure.
        Mr. Mullin: I am being advised that I am wrong, and that the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. There has been a lot of debate on these matters.
        Lords amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 156 except from the right of access any land within 20 m of a dwelling or a building used for housing livestock—that is just over 65 ft, to any Euro-sceptics. I do not think there are many present. Oh, yes, I see that there are. The amendments reflect the Government's response to genuine concerns about the impact of access on the privacy and security of people living on or adjacent to access land, and on the security of farm buildings. However, the exclusion of access from around farm buildings will not apply where the position of such buildings would effectively frustrate access.
        Lords amendments Nos. 155 and 157 recognise the special needs of the racehorse training industry. We accept that there are real concerns about how best to reconcile the new right of access with the training of racehorses on land that qualifies as access land. We have listened to the racing industry and tabled the amendments to target action where it is needed. I believe that there is common ground between the Government and the racing industry that the exclusion of access from training gallops should not be more than is required to ensure the safety of employees, their horses and the public. The amendments therefore provide for land used for training racehorses to be excepted from access between sunrise and midday and at other times when the land is in use for that purpose.
        Schedule 13 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 imposes an obligation on the Countryside Agency to make an annual report to the Secretary of State on the exercise of its functions arising under the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949, the Countryside Act 1968 and the 1981 Act. Lords amendment No. 171 extends those obligations to require a report on the exercise of those functions under the Bill.
        Mr. James Paice: I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the amendments and I place on record my appreciation of the courteous note that I received from the Minister for the Environment to explain his absence at the beginning of our proceedings.
        I do not wish to repeat last night's debate, but the Opposition are concerned that the fractionally under five hours allowed for this large number of amendments is inadequate if we are to give them the attention that they deserve. The Minister rightly said that many of the amendments had been tabled in response to views expressed in Committee, but, as I shall show in a moment, the Government vigorously and robustly rejected many of those views, but did a U-turn when the Bill got to the other place.
        840
        We welcome the amendments. As hon. Members will have seen, we have tabled a few amendments to the Lords amendments and we will deal with them as we proceed. The purpose of our amendments is to clarify or refine the amendments made by their Lordships, which in general we welcome.
        As the Minister rightly said, Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 exclude improved or semi-improved grassland from the definition of mountain, moor, heath and down. I think that the Minister used the phrase, "It will put beyond doubt" the fact that improved and semi-improved grassland is not included. In Committee, the Minister for the Environment said clearly:
        the cultivated land exception is not intended to be the mechanism for excluding improved or semi-improved pastures and fields from a right of access. Such land will not qualify as open country and should not appear on the statutory maps … If cultivated land were given a broader definition, to include any improved grassland, for instance, that would result in a considerable uncertainty and confusion as to whether such an area was excepted land or open country.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 April 2000; c. 167-68.]
        There seems to be a gulf between the remarks made by the Minister for the Environment in Committee and the warmth with which the Under-Secretary introduced the amendments today. Their purpose, he said, was to clarify and put beyond doubt.
        The Opposition welcome the decision clearly to exclude improved and semi-improved grassland. The issue was debated at length in Committee with reference not only to England but to Wales, although the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is not with us this evening.
        5.15 pm
        Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 2 is intended to press the Minister. The amendment would replace the words
        appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist
        with the word "consists". The purpose of the amendment is to allow us to investigate with the Minister what is meant by "appears to" consist of improved or semi-improved grassland, particularly in the case of legal challenge. Not being a lawyer, I can approach the matter only as a layman. If the law states that it is sufficient for land to "appear to" or, conversely, not to "appear to" the relevant countryside body to be improved or semi-improved grassland, it is difficult to see how that could be challenged, whereas if that body ruled that the land consisted or did not consist of such grassland, that could be challenged.
        Mr. David Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sorry to interrupt him, but I hope that he will draw attention to the fact that the definition in the amendment flies in the face of the other definitions in part I. "Mountain" is described as including
        any land situated more than 600 metres above sea level.
        Nowhere in the Bill is it described as land which appears to the Countryside Agency to be above 600 m. The Minister must explain why the "appearing to the Countryside Agency" definition applies to open grassland, when no other definition in clause 1 is similarly phrased.
        Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point, which demonstrates the validity of my

        841
        argument. In fairness, there are parts of the Bill in which the phrase "appears to" occurs. In the debate in the other place, the noble Lord Whitty supported the choice of phrase by saying:
        We are talking about "improved or semi-improved" grassland, but there will be some semi-natural grassland which is essentially unimproved. It is grassland which, theoretically, might be able to produce a crop of hay but would not be included in this definition.—[Official Report. House of Lords, 23 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 955.]
        That is the justification that Lord Whitty gave—
        Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Paice: Let me finish the point, please. That was the justification given by Lord Whitty for the wording
        appears to the appropriate countryside body.
        As I said in my opening remarks, I shall not make a great deal of the matter. I am simply concerned about whether the definition will be contestable if the wording "appears to" is used.
        Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that most people can tell whether grassland has been improved or not? That is what the Bill suggests. The danger with the old definition is that someone will say, "In the old records, the War Ag at some point insisted that a piece of inby land or ffrith were ploughed up." Sixty-odd years afterwards, it can be argued whether that still counts as improved pasture. The common-sense approach is that one can tell by looking where it has been improved or not.
        Mr. Paice: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I do not dissent from the general view. We hope that many people will use the rights given by the Bill—many who are not entirely familiar with the differences. Those of us who have lived and worked in the countryside will be able to appreciate the distinction that the hon. Gentleman has made. My concern is whether the decision that the Countryside Agency will make in the mapping process will be contestable. If the matter rests on how matters appear to the agency, I question whether there can be a contest. I hope that the Minister will respond.
        I accept entirely what the Minister said about Lords amendment No. 3. Lords amendment No. 34 relates to the reference to "public places" in existing enactments. The Minister referred to redundant or former mine workings. I must draw his attention to the concern expressed to me by the Country Landowners Association this morning. It comes under the heading of occupiers' liability, but it is appropriate to raise the matter now, given that the Minister refers specifically to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954. The CLA states:
        It is important to be clear that while Government amendment No. 19—
        it is in the second group—
        to clause 42 would provide for regulations to exclude liability for mines and quarries under the Mines and Quarries Act, it will not remove liability in respect of these features under the Occupiers Liability Act. If this latter liability is not removed, owners will still have to undertake risk assessments and to fence off mines and quarries on access land.
        The CLA refers to the costs of compensation, for example, that would stem from that.
        842
        The Minister referred specifically to Lords amendment No. 34 as it relates to the Mines and Quarries Act. Perhaps he will explain more fully how he sees the relationship that I have outlined being established, and whether liability under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 will remain.
        Lords amendments Nos. 153 to 157 relate to schedule 1, which we debated at great length in Committee. Again, Ministers were not prepared to take time to consider our amendments and rejected the arguments advanced by myself, my hon. Friends and hon. Members representing other Opposition parties.
        The first issue relates to curtilage. We tried to define its meaning in Committee, and the Government resisted intensely our every attempt to do so. The Minister for the Environment said:
        I, too, have the advice of learned lawyers. They say that a recent judicial decision on curtilage was given in the Court of Appeal in February in the case of Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd. v. the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
        The right hon. Gentleman concluded:
        Curtilage therefore has a meaning that can be flexibly applied to the facts of each case. There is no reason to suppose that a statutory definition of curtilage will be any more helpful than the court's interpretation.
        However, the Government have introduced a statutory definition, by including 20 m, or, as the Minister kindly told the House, 66 ft in imperial language. What has happened between 4 April—
        Mr. Kevin Hughes: We listened to your argument.
        Mr. Paice: That I would happily accept if I genuinely believed it, but I do not. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] As the Government Whip is kindly saying from a sedentary position, I am a cynic in these matters. In Committee, Environment Ministers did not say, "That is a point worth thinking about", as they did in other cases. They did not say that they would think about it. Some of the amendments that we shall deal with later are definitely the result of further consideration by the Government. Instead, the Minister quoted legal justification for resisting our amendment. I am interested to know what has changed since then.
        Other amendments to which the Minister referred relate to horse racing and training grounds. The House is familiar with my constituency interests. I represent a large proportion of the Newmarket training grounds as well as the racecourse. Again, my hon. Friends and I repeatedly advanced in Committee the risks associated with allowing the right of free access to training gallops. Ministers resented that and resisted as hard as they could. Unfortunately, the Minister for the Environment is not here to rebut his assertions, but perhaps that is why he has conveniently found something else to do at the beginning of our proceedings. However, in Committee he said:
        Opposition Members seem to be unwilling to accept that access might be compatible with the training of horses. They should visit Epsom Downs, where the training gallops are situated on land to which a statutory right of access applies.
        Despite the numerous examples that my hon. Friends and I adduced, the Minister went on to say:
        Newmarket, however, has a vastly greater number.

        843
        That refers to the number of trainers in comparison with Epsom. The Minister continued:
        That is why the same rules should not apply, irrespective of the size of the enterprise.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B. 4 April 2000;c. 143-521
        Now, however, an amendment has been tabled that does precisely that and makes rules, irrespective of the size of the enterprise.
        The Government are right and I do not understand why they did not accept our argument at the beginning. Why did they perform a volte face? Later groups of amendments will provide several examples of how the Government changed their mind, not because they went away and considered the issue but, perhaps, because it was expedient. I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Minister for the Environment will apologise to Committee members for all the time that was wasted while they resisted amendments only to roll over and accept them in the other place.
        We support these sensible amendments and, with the exception of amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 2, to which I hope the Under-Secretary will respond, we shall not oppose them. At the risk of repetition, it beggars belief that so much time was wasted in Committee on amendments that were considered again in the other place before the Government were persuaded to accept them in the face of the power of their lordships' arguments. However, I welcome the amendments—with the exception that I mentioned—and look forward to the Minister's response.
        Mr. David Heath: Coming to debate Lords amendments to a Bill of this nature and size, which took so long to consider in Committee, is almost like revisiting an old friend. In this case, the old friend appears to have changed since we last saw him or her, having undergone major cosmetic surgery that has been all to the good. In the Bill's long Committee stage and later stages in the House, we gave admonitions that it should to go away, smarten up and put on new clothes. It is as if all those admonitions had been taken to heart and, I am pleased to say, the Bill is much better as a result.
        There may be several reasons for that, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said. We made substantial arguments in Committee and during the Bill's later stages, but perhaps their effect was delayed and it took time for Ministers to see the good sense of our proposals. Perhaps we should accept the possibility that the greater skills of advocacy of Members of the other place were responsible. I should like to put on the record a tribute to Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer and my other noble Friends who did an admirable job on the Bill. I should also like to record my thanks to Ministers for listening to us. It would be otiose to list all our amendments that were accepted, but had they not been, the Bill would have remained deeply flawed. It is much less flawed now, and I wish it well. Some points of contention remain, but on the whole, it is a much better Bill.
        5.30 pm
        The group of amendments that we are currently considering includes a new definition of agricultural land,
        844
        and exemptions from the definition of open country. We pressed for that in Committee. I am not persuaded by amendment (a), which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire tabled, because—contrary to the comments of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—it would introduce a new anomaly.
        It was suggested that there was no qualification of amendment No. 2, which includes the phrase,
        appears to the appropriate countryside body.
        However, the next definition of open country in the Bill uses exactly the same formulation. Removing those words from amendment No. 2 would differentiate between the two provisions. I am not sure whether that is helpful. Although I understand the spirit in which the amendment was tabled, I do not believe that amendment (a) would add to the clarity of the definition.
        Amendments Nos. 153 to 157, which apply to the area immediately surrounding dwelling houses, and—following moves by my noble Friends and others in another place—extend the provisions to cover buildings in which animals are kept, are extremely welcome. They will do a great deal to allay the fears of those who are worried about night access. I stress that the original measure needed to provide for a right to challenge someone who acts suspiciously near a property or domestic animals. The amendments would allow that because the land that immediately surrounds the buildings will not constitute part of the land to which people have access. That is an important consideration, which is now incorporated in the Bill.
        1 welcome amendments Nos. 155 and 157, which deal with racehorse gallops. Those sensible provisions should have been included in the original measure. The matter could have been tackled quickly in Committee; that would have been preferable to the protracted process that occurred. However, we got them in the end. Racehorse trainers in my constituency, as well as in that of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, will welcome the amendments because they improve safety and will allow them to carry on their business appropriately and safely.
        We are considering a good group of amendments, which improves the Bill. The amendments were tabled largely at the suggestion of Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members. I hope that they will be incorporated in the Bill.
        Mr. Maclean: The amendments constitute an improvement, as far as they go. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), I have some anxieties about them. Of course, one welcomes an amendment that exempts "improved or semi-improved grassland". However, I am worried that such exemption will be at the discretion of the appropriate countryside body, which would be the Countryside Agency.
        The Countryside Agency is skilled in many ways and has some expertise; it would have more expertise if the Government were less parsimonious with funding. It is currently suffering dire cuts. Perhaps proper funding would enable it to be the "appropriate countryside body" and to exercise perfect discretion in determining what

        845
        constitutes "improved or semi-improved grassland". However, the Minister could be laying himself open to legal challenges in future.
        Mr. Mullin: The right hon. Gentleman may know that an extra —17 million has been announced for the Countryside Agency today. Some —10 million will be used for initiatives that were announced in the rural White Paper, which was published today. Additional resources include —2.2 million for rural transport and —3.5 million for areas of outstanding natural beauty and for preparations for the introduction of access to open country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that, far from facing cuts, the Countryside Agency will benefit from a substantial increase in its budget.
        Mr. Maclean: The Countryside Agency has been thrown a few sweeties and bawbees today, but they do not make up for the cuts that it has suffered during the past three years under this Government, especially since the previous bodies were amalgamated. The amalgamated agency did not have double the budget of the two agencies that it replaced. I shall not discuss the —2.5 million rural transport budget because I do not want to stray from the amendment. The new transport initiative of —15 million, which was announced today, involves about —300,000 per county, which should buy us a few scooters and mopeds in Cumbria, but that is all.

        As for improved and semi-improved grassland, I suggest to the Minister that there will be many circumstances—I can think of hundreds in my constituency—in which it would be a matter of dispute whether grassland was improved, or semi-improved. The land around many hill farms is flat, or flatter, land—it may not be low-level land—and it is clearly improved or subject to cultivation. It may even be arable. At the tops of the mountains, one clearly reaches completely unimproved mountain land. However, there is a grey area, which in Cumbria is known as "inby" land.
        The lower level of such inby land certainly looks like improved grassland. Anyone could see that bracken had been controlled and stones removed and one could guess from the difference in the grass quality that nitrogen had been put on it at some point during the past 30 years. However, it would probably not have been improved during the past few years, because farmers have had no money to make such an input. Higher up, however, inby land has not been improved, particularly during the past few years, because of the dire situation in farming. Grants would have been given in the 1950s and 1960s to deal with bracken, take the land in hand and improve it and to turn more of the mountainside into better quality grassland. However, if land is not touched for 20 or 30 years, bracken makes a quick comeback, as do brambles, whins—or gorse, as I should say in England—and birch trees.
        To the uninitiated—to many people—inby land will resemble cleanish mountain land; it will certainly not resemble arable fields or the grass fields that many people expect to see in the countryside. The question is whether such land is improved or semi-improved grassland. Unless the Countryside Agency allows experts from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service or other qualified organisations and farm advisory services to say, "Yes, that is improved or semi-improved grassland," and allows a nitrogen reading or a soil sample to be taken, how will it determine the matter?
        846
        The appropriate countryside agency will have to determine whether land is improved or semi-improved grassland, and I would be content to leave it to make that judgment if the Minister guaranteed that, even if the agency were minded to say, "No, it ain't," representations would be heard or evidence taken that, at some point in the past 30 years nitrogen had been put on the land in question, the brambles and bracken had been cut or other measures had been taken to improve it.
        Mr. John M. Taylor: In my part of England, where we refer to gorse rather than whins, although I like the latter word, there has been an increasing tendency for grassland—or, for that matter, shrubland or woodland—to be converted into golf courses. I have no great objection to that because golf is a game that I like, but the number of courses is increasing at an alarming pace. Does my right hon. Friend have a view on that, in terms of ecology, habitat and the use of the natural environment?
        Mr. Maclean: I certainly have, and I could expatiate on it at length, but I shall not do so in the context of the amendment, except to say that schedule 1 deals with golf courses. In Cumbria, we have some golf courses that are quite high up the hillside and, because they are 1,800 ft above sea level, they might almost fall under the definition of "mountain".
        Mr. Bercow: Courses or gorses?
        Mr. Maclean: Courses, not gorses.
        I want an assurance from the Minister that the Countryside Agency will not reach a judgment relating to improved or semi-improved grassland merely by looking at a map, or by looking at the land in question. Yes, in many cases it has been possible to tell what is a mountain and what is improved grassland; but that is not true of thousands of acres of inby land in Cumbria which are halfway up the fell sides, between the farm buildings and the fell tops.
        An uninitiated person, or someone having a cursory glance, would say, "That is not improved or semi-improved grassland. Look at the gorse bushes; look at the trees; look at the bracken. That is wild mountainside". Nevertheless, 10, 15 or 20 years earlier, the farmers owning the inby land might have put considerable resources into making it improved or semi-improved grassland. We need to hear from the Minister whether evidence of that nature will be acceptable.
        I do not want the Minister to say, "It is what the land looks like now that counts". I do not want to be told that it does not matter that five years ago farmers improved the land by cutting down all the bracken and gorse and spending a fortune on nitrogen, and that now, because nature has partly reclaimed the land, the agency will say, "Tough luck. It does not look like improved grassland to us, so it has not been exempted."
        Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and it is rare for me to cavil at anything he says in the Chamber; but what he is describing, at least on the face of it, suggests to me that a great deal of labour-intensive activity will be required. Is he confident

        847

        that that activity will be feasible, even in the context of the largesse for the Countryside Agency about which the Minister boasted a few minutes ago?
        Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention—and I would cavil with him. The largesse of which the Minister boasted would certainly not cover the cost of the additional civil servants who would need to be hired to draw up the maps required to implement the legislation, and to inspect all improved or semi—improved grassland that is the subject of dispute—and there may be hundreds of thousands of acres.
        The difficulty that the amendment poses for the Minister and the Countryside Agency is that it would insert a clause dealing with some of the most contentious land. There can be little dispute about what constitutes a mountain: according to the definition, it is land situated more than 600 m above sea level—whatever that is in proper measures of height. That definition is clearly indisputable: it is possible, through the Ordnance Survey—and by means of certain navigation equipment that some Members may possess—to reach an exact determination of the height of any piece of land above sea level.
        The amendment, however—although I welcome it in general—introduces an area of potentially great dispute. Many of my constituents will be willing to testify that they have improved their grassland over the years. They may not have improved it much over the past few years, because they are suffering: the Government have driven them into crisis in rural areas, and they have no money to make improvements. However, we need to ensure that all the work that they, and their fathers and forebears, did to improve the land will not be discounted because some hard-pressed official from the Countryside Agency, suffering under the grossly inadequate funding provided by the Government, has to give that land a cursory glance and then reach a decision that he might not have made had he been allowed to hear proper evidence and representations from farming organisations and properly qualified country and soil experts.
        Under Lords amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 155, land more than about 66 ft away from a building will not be regarded as open access land. I think that that is about the length of the Chamber. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if you lived in a little cottage or a house on a hillside in Cumbria, the world and his dog—or dogs—would be allowed to roam at a distance about the same as that from where you are sitting to the main entrance of the Chamber, but could get no closer. You are welcome to visit my constituency, and I hope that you will be reassured to know that on a dark winter's night in Cumbria people will be allowed to ramble at night on land but will not be able to get any closer to a building than the length of the Chamber.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. John M. Taylor: This is when an Englishman might be able to help a Scotsman. A length of 66 ft is better known as 22 yd, which is also known as a chain. It is precisely the length of a cricket pitch. I say that as someone who played cricket for well over 20 years.
        Mr. Maclean: It is always helpful to have experts. My hon. Friend is a lawyer and that was the first helpful
        848
        intervention I have had from him in 20 years in the House. Although it seemed to have been given for free, no doubt we shall get a bill in due course.
        Mr. Edward Leigh: Is it not too hilly to play cricket in my right hon. Friend's constituency?
        Mr. Maclean: I do not wish to go down that route, but we have champion cricket teams in Cumbria, and that includes my constituency. It is a pretty good team that can play cricket in the hillier areas. We do not play on the flat lands of Gainsborough.
        I do not want to labour the point. Although it is good that an exemption is built into the Bill so that people who wander over someone else's land in the dead of night are prevented by the new access rules from coming close to someone's home, a distance of 66 ft, or one chain—the length of the Chamber or a cricket pitch—is inadequate. It will not reassure country people.
        If I understand the Minister correctly, the exemption will not apply when a house is at the entrance or main access to the land. Open moorland is on the other side of stone walls and fences. If the main route or stile to it is beside someone's home, the 66 ft exemption will not apply. If the main access, or one of the most convenient routes of access, on to open land is 2 yd from someone's house—and may mean brushing up against its wall—the exemption will not apply and people will be allowed to get that close, which worries my constituents more than anything else.
        The vast majority of my constituents who live in upland areas or on footpaths have no objection to people properly using footpaths or walking sensibly on open land or hillsides. They have no objection to people passing through their fields provided that they do not let dogs roam or leave rubbish that pollutes the area and harms their animals. My constituents' one objection is when people push right past their windows and kitchens or go through the middle of their farmyards to get on to land. That is not a rare occurrence. It happens in hundreds if not thousands of cases.
        When the so-called definitive map was drawn up years ago, the footpaths on it were mostly private paths between one farm and another, between the farm and church and between the farm and the village hall. They formed a network of little paths between farm buildings, farm workers' buildings and rural communities—the school, church, pub and hall. All those private paths are now public footpaths on the definitive map. It is understandable that, in the vast majority of cases, the public are able to walk through someone's farmyard and past someone's front door when they are exercising their legitimate right to use a footpath.
        We can do nothing about it now. That grave injustice was created 30 years ago. It is difficult to move a footpath out of someone's garden or backyard, or away from someone's kitchen window. When you come to Cumbria, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can take you to homes where the public footpath goes right past the kitchen, bathroom or bedroom window. With the Bill and the amendment, we are creating a new problem. We are saying that the public will not be allowed to roam all over someone's home or building and must be kept 66 ft away—unless the building happens to be situated where the public want access to land.

        849
        There is one other difficulty that always arises in my constituency in respect of access to land. If people who wished to climb mountains and hills—I try to do so a little occasionally—used the Pennine way, for example, and spread themselves out evenly over it, there would be little damage and few problems. If all the people who used the Pennine way entered it at fairly spread-out points along its route, there would be little difficulty.
        The problem is that people honey-pot. They go to areas where there is a nice little village and a pub that is close to an access point to the Pennine way. The same occurs on our hills and mountains. There is a heavy traffic problem in the Lake district. It is not that the traffic is spread out everywhere: it concentrates on the small roads that give easy access to the mountains. Those idle people who wish to walk on hills, but who are not properly dressed and have no proper footwear, drive halfway up the hillside, park at someone's farm gate, in someone's yard, at the school or at the mountain rescue station and enter through the nearest convenient route. Those areas become honey pots.
        Some buildings are probably situated at the convenient entrances to open land and moorland. Those are the places where people go at night to park their car and to stroll up the hillside, or they park elsewhere and enter the land, going right past someone's house. That is the difficulty with the amendment. That is why it does not go far enough. People are allowed to come too close to someone's house at night. The distance should be much more than 66 ft. Those homes should still have an exemption, even though the pathway that runs past them is an access point. They should not be penalised just because people want to walk through their garden or right past their house at two in the morning to climb a hill.
        Mr. Bercow: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting, for this is what I construe from his last remark, that the restriction on people going past other people's windows should apply only at night? At least arguably, a good case could be made for a comparable restriction during the daytime, especially in so far as we are concerned about elderly people at home who could be fearful of what they regard as an unwarranted intrusion.
        Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. I would argue for the exemption and for the distance to be increased during the day as well as at night. I would argue, too, that pushing right past a home even if it is on the access route should be forbidden during the day as well as the evening. However, it is much more frightening for rural people during the evening or during hours of darkness. [Interruption.]
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Whoever has that mobile phone should switch it off.
        Mr. David Wilshire: My apologies.
        Mr. Maclean rose—
        Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Maclean: I hope that my hon. Friend will have a chance to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I wish to conclude my remarks, if he does not mind. I have taken more interventions than I had intended.
        850
        I have made my points as forcefully as I can. They are serious. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me.
        Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I shall not go over the previous debates in Committee about inby land, ffridd, coed cae land and all the other esoteric definitions that we might come across. Suffice it to say that I give amendment No. 2 a guarded welcome because it is likely to include much land that is used for hay and silage making, an issue that many Opposition Members were concerned about in Committee. Unfortunately, however—in my view anyway—other areas of permanent grassland will not be covered under the definition. I seek an assurance from the Minister that all land used for hay, permanent grassland and silage will be outwith the new right of access. That is important.
        In the interests of brevity, I say that amendments Nos. 153 to 155 are a step in the right direction. I believe that 66 ft is three chains, not one, but that is perhaps an esoteric point—
        Mr. John M. Taylor: No, it is one.
        Mr. Llwyd: I am corrected.
        Mr. Taylor: Politely, I hope.
        Mr. Llwyd: Indeed. I would expect nothing else from the hon. Gentleman.
        Those amendments are a step in the right direction. Some of us on the Committee were concerned that, during the lambing season, for example, or during inclement weather, animals would need to be brought into the buildings near the farmstead, or perhaps even into the farmyard for a limited period. During the first discussions of the Bill, that situation was not exempted, so it was open to anyone to walk through and do as they wished, but at least there has been a move in the right direction.
        Some of the fears expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) about the countryside body may be without foundation. I say that to try to be helpful. The access forum—I have one local access forum in shadow form in my constituency—is extremely important. It is important that not only the farming unions but all interests are on the forum—individuals, too. If the quality of the discussion in the forum is adequate, that will inform the countryside body in due course. However, even if I am wrong, there is a right of appeal if the countryside body gets it wrong. The right hon. Gentleman is right—there is concern, but I am trying to offer some explanation that I have picked up during the passage of the Bill. I may be wrong. The Minister will no doubt give the definitive answer, but I give the amendments a guarded welcome.
        I echo what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said. During the passage of the Bill, time and again the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I raised those points. As both hon. Gentlemen have said, much time could have been saved had concessions been given in Committee. It was a rather pleasurable Committee all in all, but unfortunately, whenever a reasonable point was put, we were met with either a blank stare or the reply, "We will go away and think about it." [Interruption.] Well, possibly not a blank

        851
        stare. We were met with an animated stare from the Minister—it was not at all blank, to be fair, but often there was not much progress. That is the point. With that guarded welcome, I accept that the amendments are a step in the right direction, at least.
        Mr. Leigh: I am a keen walker. I live in the countryside and there is nothing I enjoy more than walking. Country people are reasonable about these issues. They recognise that, increasingly in the modern world, many people who live in cities want access to the countryside, particularly the beautiful countryside represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—the Lake district. Country people understand that, but there must be a sense of balance.
        The point that has been made about the concentration of visitors in certain spots needs to be borne in mind. I understand the difficulties under which the Government are labouring. Rightly, from their point of view, they want to open up access, but I emphasise a point that is of particular concern to country people, who respect the rights of city dwellers to walk in the countryside.
        A point has been made about people walking close to isolated houses or visiting the countryside during twilight, or perhaps even when it is getting dark. In the city, there is no difficulty: everybody closes their curtains and people are accustomed to street lights and to people walking up and down the pavement. However, the House must be aware that there is a far greater sense of isolation in the countryside. I live in Lincolnshire in a completely isolated spot, so I know that rural people—perhaps unreasonably—have a fear of people walking close to their houses.
        6 pm
        Mr. John M. Taylor: I know of a house that has a footpath running right through the garden: Chequers. I do not know whether the Government have taken that into account, or whether my hon. Friend and I might take a walk through the garden of Chequers next weekend.
        Mr. Leigh: I suspect that if my hon. Friend were to take a walk at night through the garden of Chequers, he would find the long arm of the law clobbering him in rather severe fashion.
        My point about the sense of isolation is a serious one. In addition, many who live in isolated rural cottages do not close their curtains. After all, why should they? They do not overlook anyone and no one overlooks them. Most of the ground floor windows of my home do not have curtains. At night, one cannot see out because there is complete blackness outside, but there is a not unreasonable concern, especially among elderly people, that the world outside may be looking in on them. The House must be sensitive to such feelings, although I do not know what the solution might be.
        Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is part of the rationale for the access forum? Finding the right access points to land will require considerable
        852
        sensitivity. We want the forum to take all such matters into account and to propose access points that will not give rise to such problems.
        Mr. Leigh: That is reasonable. I am sure that, with good will on all sides, it will be possible to achieve both access to the countryside and preservation of the sense of privacy of those who live in isolated cottages and farmhouses. Unfortunately, we all know from personal experience of the difficult positions that various countryside interests sometimes adopt, how difficult it is to re-route paths; doing so often becomes a long and complicated procedure. I do not know what the solution is.
        Mr. Bercow: We know that the fear of crime is greater than the likelihood of it affecting us personally, but does my hon. Friend agree that the concern felt by people in the countryside at the prospect or the approach of unwarranted intruders is heightened by their knowledge that one of the side effects of the successful use of closed circuit television in town centres in the past few years has been that career criminals tend to seek new and better opportunities in outlying villages? Although we do not want to exaggerate the problem, that concern is justified and should be respected in public policy.
        Mr. Leigh: That is a serious point. In discussions with rural Members of Parliament, local chief constables make the point that they have to put their resources where most crime takes place, which is in cities. Therefore, country people feel that local police are withdrawing from the countryside—which, in fact, they are. Such a feeling, coupled with access points, gives rise to concern.
        I do not want to over-labour the point. I am a keen rambler and I want to have increased access to the countryside. However, if there is to be greater access and the distance from houses that people can walk is to be only 60 ft or so, I hope that there will be better procedures for re-routing paths. In areas such as the Lake district, there is plenty of room to do so. With good will on both sides, it should be possible both to ensure access to the countryside and to reassure country people. That is all I ask the Minister to try to achieve.
        Mr. Mullin: I shall try to deal with the points raised in the debate. I do not want to get bogged down in who said what to whom in Committee. True, there are some issues on which the Government have changed their mind—we received an enormous numbers of representations—but there are others on which we are anxious to reassure those who are worried. In some cases, we believe that their fears are exaggerated, but we still want to reassure them, so we have erred on the side of caution.
        The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that, in some cases, we have changed our mind. Well, in some cases, while the sentiments underlying the Opposition's proposals were reasonable, the amendments, they tabled were not helpful. Curtilage is one example of that. What we have done is quite different from what was discussed in Committee, but if we had done nothing, we would have been accused today of not listening, whereas in fact, we have taken into account people's concerns—indeed, we have bent over backwards to reassure them and to take account of the

        853
        interests of all the relevant parties. There has been some acknowledgement of that in the debate, but I should like to hear a little more from the official Opposition.
        Mr. Paice: I assure the Minister that however late the sinner repenteth, we are pleased to hear of it, so the fact that the Government have changed their mind on several issues is important. However, on the issue of curtilage, in Committee—I have quoted the relevant passages—the Minister said that defining curtilage in any form would not be helpful, yet that is what the Government are now doing. It is not that our form of words was inappropriate; our entire approach was rejected by the Government—but they now concede it.
        Mr. Mullin: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Amendment No. 153 does not define curtilage, but provides a separate exclusion around certain buildings. We were convinced of the need for such an area, but that is quite different from curtilage. The curtilage may extend further than 20 m or not so far, but it will still be accepted.
        The hon. Gentleman asked about mines and quarries. We must not dwell on the matter now, as we shall debate occupier's liability in due course, but it is correct to say that a minimum level of liability remains in respect of mines and quarries on access land, and we believe that it should remain. We shall address the matter further at the appropriate point.
        As the hon. Gentleman knows, we received strong representations from the horse racing industry regarding horse training and gallops. Our amendment does not exclude people permanently from horse training areas, only from areas that are habitually used for training, and only in the morning and when the areas are in use. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
        The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) provided an example of the sort of filibuster that might have faced us had we not had the foresight to impose a guillotine. In an intervention, he asked why there was a clear definition of mountains, but not of improved or semi-improved grassland. The answer is simple: unlike some other categories of open country, mountain terrain can be simply defined. Such land is clearly shown in the Ordnance Survey map by reference to the 600 m contour.
        As for the Countryside Agency, we believe that that is the right body to make the necessary decisions. It is an expert, neutral body. We are leaving it neither to walkers nor to landowners to decide what land falls into which category. The countryside body will examine any relevant evidence when deciding whether land constitutes open country and it will be for that body to draw up the relevant criteria.
        I thought that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made his points very reasonably, and he touched on the fears of some people who live in isolated areas. Many of the amendments that we are making are an attempt to reassure those people.
        The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border made quite an issue of people who live in remote parts of his constituency—which I, too, have walked from time to time. Most people in the United Kingdom live within a metre or two of a public road, and they are happy to tolerate occasional intrusions on their privacy. Nevertheless, I do understand and accept the point.
        854
        I think that the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough is really the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—it is for the access forums to try to take some of the issues into account. As the hon. Gentleman conceded, there are no simple solutions. In any case, these problems would arise regardless of whether this Bill existed. Countryside access has usually not caused much problem in areas where it has long existed, and we do not believe that it will cause much problem in this case—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire trying to intervene?
        Mr. Paice indicated assent.
        Mr. Mullin: Please do.
        Mr. Paice: I am always willing to help the Minister find his place. He has dealt with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on the agency's role in deciding what is improved or unimproved grassland, but he has not dealt with my amendment (a).
        Mr. Mullin indicated assent.
        Mr. Paice: I should be grateful if he would explain whether the agency's opinion will be contestable by, for example, landowners who may believe that their land should not be mapped as open country.
        Mr. Mullin: Yes, a legal challenge is still possible. The courts could quash any decision if irrelevant considerations are taken into account or the conclusion is wholly unreasonable. I shall deal in a moment with the hon. Gentleman's amendment (a).
        I am grateful for the guarded welcome given by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) who, like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), played a very intelligent and constructive role in our Committee proceedings. I am glad that they accept that we have attempted to deal with many of their concerns.
        The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked about all land capable of producing a crop of hay. We do not believe that it would be satisfactory to exclude all such land from maps of open country, as potentially that would disallow access to most areas of traditional semi-natural down. In practice, because unimproved grassland tends to be of low productivity, there is very little downland that is used for hay.
        We understand that there is a small number of unimproved grassland sites that are cut for hay, or that are periodically cut for hay, that may qualify. We do not, however, believe that the potential for generating a crop of hay on downland makes it inconsistent with the right of access. Where, infrequently, farmers intend to take a crop of hay, they may use voluntary measures to promote the use of paths, or use their discretionary 28 days to require the restriction or exclusion of access. If such measures are insufficient, farmers may seek directions under chapter II of the Bill for the purposes of land management where a hay crop is regularly taken from the land, and the relevant authority can make a direction

        855
        which has effect for the appropriate period every spring or summer. Therefore, there is not really any reason why problems should arise.
        Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 provides that, in deciding whether land consists of improved or semi-improved grassland, the test should not be whether the land appeared to the countryside body to so consist, but simply whether it was improved or semi-improved grassland. The Bill already provides, in clause 1(2), that open country is land which
        appears to the appropriate countryside body to consist wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down.
        6.15 pm
        It is both important and desirable for the bodies charged with mapping open countryside to be able to take sensible decisions about the extent of open countryside on the basis of careful and reasoned analysis. In the same way, it is sensible for the same principles to apply to the identification of land that does not form part of mountain, moor, heath or down because it is improved or semi-improved grassland.
        Lords amendment No. 2 is, therefore, consistent with the Bill. We envisage that the countryside bodies will publish the criteria that they will use to identify improved and semi-improved grassland in the same way as they have already published draft criteria for the identification of mountain, moor, heath or down. However, the identification of such land is not an automatic exercise, and involves more than the simple application of a set of rules.
        The countryside bodies will need to exercise a degree of expert judgment. The words of the Bill reflect that, and—incidentally—are derived from similar expressions used in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Countryside Act 1968, both of which were much quoted in Committee. To miss out the words "appearing to them" might well mislead people into thinking that no element of judgment is involved. The countryside bodies will exercise their discretion impartially, favouring neither landowners nor walkers.
        Landowners will, however, also have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales if they do not believe that their land consists wholly or predominantly of open country, including if they believe that the land is improved grassland and therefore not mountain, moor, heath or down at all. That right of appeal—which, of course, is not available to walkers—will provide a safeguard for their interests.
        Therefore, Lords amendment No. 2—I think that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is satisfied on this point—is intended to provide reassurance to land managers that the right of access is primarily about access to unimproved, semi-natural and open countryside.
        I suggest that amendment (a) is therefore unnecessary, and I should be grateful if he did not press it.
        Lords amendment agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

        Clause 2

          RIGHTS OF PUBLIC IN RELATION TO ACCESS LAND
          Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 35, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
          ("(4) If a person becomes a trespasser on any access land by failing to comply with—

          (a) subsection (l)(a),

          (b) the general restrictions in Schedule 2, or

          (c) any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II,

          he may not, within 72 hours after leaving that land, exercise his right under subsection (1) to enter that land again or to enter other land in the same ownership.")
          Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a), Lords amendments Nos. 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18, Lords amendment No. 19, Amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 23, Lords amendment No. 24, amendments (a) and (b) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 25, 28, 29, 35 to 37 and 158 to 170.
          Mr. Mullin: This group of amendments deals with restrictions on the right of access, the behaviour of those exercising the right of access, and the consequences of a breach of any restriction.
          Lords amendment No. 4 and consequential Lords amendment No. 5 extend the period during which those who breach restrictions lose the statutory right of access. The amendments will ensure that a user who fails to comply with clause 2(1)(a)—by damaging a wall or fence and so on—or who breaches a schedule 2 restriction or any other restriction imposed under chapter II, will lose the statutory right for 72 hours after leaving the land. We believe that 72 hours is a reasonable time for the right to be lost in those circumstances.
          The Bill provides a power in clause 16(6) to enable an owner dedicating land as access land to lift any of the restrictions in schedule 2 in so far as they relate to the land dedicated. Similarly, paragraph 6 of schedule 2 allows the relevant authority, with the consent of the owner of the land, to remove any of the restrictions in schedule 2.
          Lords amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 170 make it clear that, in either circumstance, as well as the removing entirely of any restriction, it will be possible partially to lift that restriction.
          Lords amendment No. 14 enables access authorities to make byelaws in anticipation of the right coming into force. It provides that the Secretary of State may not confirm byelaws until the land is access land.
          Lords amendment No. 15 allows parish and town councils to enforce byelaws made on access land under clause 17 by another authority—either the access authority or a district council. We believe that it makes a modest improvement to the Bill, and we agreed to accept it. It was moved from the Opposition Front Bench on Report in another place.
          Lords amendment No. 17 provides that wardens may be appointed to secure compliance with any restriction or exclusion imposed under chapter II. It is sensible that

          857
          access authorities should be able to appoint wardens for such purposes and the amendment makes it clear that it is possible.
          Lords amendment No. 18 provides that, before an access authority erects a notice on access land under its powers in clause 19, it should, where reasonably practicable, consult the owner or the occupier of the land.
          Lords amendment No. 19 introduces a new clause intended to ensure that the public and landowners have adequate information about their rights and responsibilities under the new right of access. It gives a duty to the countryside bodies to issue a code of conduct for the guidance of those exercising the new right, and to take the steps that they believe are necessary to ensure that the public are informed of the extent of, and means of access to, access land. It also places a duty on them to take the necessary steps to ensure that the public and landowners are informed of their rights and obligations under the new right of access and in relation to rights of way and nature conservation on access land.
          The code of conduct issued under the new clause may also contain information that goes beyond the new right of access, relating to national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and long-distance walking routes.
          We concluded, not without considerable deliberation, that within the 28 days allowed in clause 21 for discretionary closures, we should include a number of days on which closures can take place at the weekend. Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 22 provide that, as part of the discretionary allowance, those entitled to that allowance should be able to restrict access or close their land, without seeking approval, on up to four days at the weekend, although not on Saturdays between 1 June and 11 August and not on Sundays between 1 June and 30 September. I believe that this represents a sensible compromise between the needs of land managers and the interests of those wishing to benefit from the new right of access.
          As well as entitling landowners to exclude or restrict access on up to four days at the weekend, Lords amendment No. 21 removes the regulation-making power set out in clause 21(7), which would have enabled the days on which the discretion to exclude or restrict access may be exercised to be varied. This fulfils a recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.
          Lords amendment No. 23, which was moved by my noble Friend Lord Dubs on Report in another place, is a useful amendment that allows regulations to be made to ensure that the discretion is applied in relation to properly identified units of land. We consider that it will help to ensure clarity and certainty in the exercise of the discretion under clause 21.
          The question of restrictions on dogs exercised us somewhat in Committee. Lords amendment No. 24 provides new targeted measures to protect fully the interests of land management, particularly in relation to grouse shooting and lambing. Landowners will be given a new power to exclude dogs from grouse moors for specified periods of up to five years. That is intended to protect the economic interests of those who manage the land for grouse shooting. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is not here to express his gratitude, as he pressed the Committee hard on the matter. We will take his gratitude as read.
          858
          Farmers will be able to exclude dogs from fields or enclosures of up to 15 hectares if they believe it to be necessary in connection with lambing. They may seek exclusion for a period of up to six weeks in a calendar year. In notifying restrictions under the new provisions, landowners will be required to follow procedures that will be set out in regulations. Lords amendment No. 29 provides for the making of those regulations under clause 30. Lords amendment No. 20 is consequential on No. 21, and provides that the discretionary power to exclude dogs from grouse moors is exercisable by the landowner.
          Lords amendment No. 25 relates to closures because of the risk of fire. Clause 23 allows for directions to be made excluding or restricting access for the purpose of fire prevention, by reason of any exceptional weather conditions. The amendment provides that directions may also be made by reason of any exceptional change in the condition of the land. We believe that this will go a long way towards addressing concerns expressed both here and in another place about the risk of fire on access land.
          Lords amendment No. 28 requires the Secretary of State for Defence to prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on all reviews of defence directions under clause 26 that have been undertaken in a given year. This is a response to an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
          Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36 were tabled in the light of advice from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. They require that regulations made to vary the list of general restrictions in schedule 2 must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The addition—and, more important, the removal—of activities should be subject to the scrutiny of both Houses.
          Lords amendment No. 37 relates to the definition of livestock in Clause 41. It is a technical amendment, consequential on an amendment made on Report in the Commons.
          Lords amendments Nos. 158, 164 and 167 are intended to bring greater clarity to the effect of the restrictions in schedule 2, by making the wording more consistent with that in clause 2(1). Lords amendment No. 159 adds the feeding of livestock to the list of restricted activities under schedule 2. Lords amendment No. 160 adds trapping to the list and Lords amendment No. 161 ensures that a person on access land who has with him an "engine, instrument or apparatus" used for trapping will also be in breach of the restriction in paragraph 1(i). Lords amendment No. 162 adds a restriction on tampering with mine shaft covers, protective guards and fences used to enclose livestock.
          Lords amendment No. 163 extends the period during which dogs must be on leads to five months, so that it covers the period from 1 March to 31 July. The issue was hotly debated, but that should be satisfactory to all who expressed their views in Committee. The amendment was tabled after further consultation with English Nature, in the light of concerns that the Bill did not provide adequate protection to deal, in particular, with lambing and the breeding season for ground-nesting birds.
          6.30 pm.
          Mr. Llwyd: I welcome the amendments. They respond to a very reasonable debate earlier in our proceedings. However, it has come to my notice that the constitutions of some ramblers groups contain a rule that they do not take dogs with them. If such groups were to be represented on local forums and were to agree with landowners and other interested parties that they would not take dogs into the countryside, what would be the Government's response? That is likely to happen in one area in my constituency.
          Mr. Mullin: The Bill does not provide for that. It is quite restrictive in relation to dogs, and we have made it a great deal more restrictive. For example, dogs will be excluded from grouse moors altogether, and I was about to come to yet another restriction on the use of dogs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will settle for that: we will just have to see how things work out when the Bill is implemented.
          Lords amendments Nos. 165, 168 and 169 provide that, where dogs are required to be on leads under schedule 2, those leads must be of a fixed length of no more than 2 m. The Bill therefore contains plenty to satisfy those who raised that legitimate point in Committee.
          Lords amendment No. 166 implements the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in relation to the period when dogs must be kept on leads. The Committee recommended that the regulatory power to vary that provision should be deleted, as the power could be used to skew the balance of the Bill. We are content with the Committee's recommendations, and are happy to implement that recommendation in full.
          Mr. Paice: I give a considerable welcome to the amendments. I shall not go through them all, but the Minister should not imagine that Opposition Members do not appreciate what lies behind them. Many of the amendments are minor, but they are steps in the right direction. However, there is still room for improvement, and that is why we have tabled some further amendments.
          As the Minister said, Lords amendment No. 4 changes from 24 hours to 72 hours the period of banishment for someone who breaches the regulations under schedule 2. I do not want to tire the House, but I refer hon. Members to what the Minister for the Environment said on 13 June on this matter:
          It is not realistic to assume that landowners will know whether a walker has breached restrictions in the previous 72 hours on someone else's land; nor would it always be appropriate to impose such a sanction on a walker whose breach of restriction might be extremely minor. Therefore, there is no reason why the ban on returning to access land should extend beyond the rest of the day, or to access land in different ownership.—[Official Report. 13 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 826.]
          We are grateful for the Minister's repentance, but it is a complete volte face from the position that he used to hold. The change is welcome, but some shamefacedness would be appropriate.
          Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 would change the period of banishment and increase the extent of the land from which a person would be banished. It would ensure that he would be banished from a particular parcel of land, and from other land in the same ownership. That was resisted in Committee, but the fact that it has been accepted now is welcome.
          860
          However, that is not enough. As the Minister said in the statement that I read out earlier, it is not going to be easy for a person to know what land belongs to whom. That is why we suggest that the application of Lords amendment No. 4 be increased, marginally, to cover adjoining land. That would put beyond doubt the area of land from which a person was banished. By definition, a person walking over open country will see no obvious delineation of ownership, so stipulating all adjoining land would remove the possibility of a person unwittingly continuing to walk on land owned by the same person as land from which he had been banished. The National Farmers Union has strongly supported the amendment.
          Information is another important matter. A question widely debated in Committee concerned how people who want to use the rights enshrined in the Bill can be informed about the various minor regulations that apply to particular pieces of land. Such regulations would have to do with when the land was closed, or whether dogs had to be on leads or were forbidden. The Minister noted that some of the later amendments are very specific to pieces of land, and another matter that caused debate in Committee was whether an owner would be able to close off parts of his land.
          There is a clear need for potential walkers to know what rules pertain to a piece of land on any given day. That is why our amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19 would incorporate into the amendment the phrase
          and appropriate points of access to, …
          The result would be that the Countryside Agency would have the duty to ensure that the public were informed of
          the situation and extent of, and means of access to, and appropriate points of access to, access land.
          That would be a sensible and small addition, and would require merely that the Countryside Agency tell people the location of the main access points.
          In Committee, we argued that access should be restricted to certain points. Although amendment (b) does not go so far, it concentrates the mind on the concept that access is preferable at certain points. Those are the points about which information would have to be provided. I hope that the Minister will accept that that amendment is sensible and worth while.
          Our amendments (a) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 19 deal with the requirement for consultation in the information provided by the Countryside Agency.
          We welcome the Government's change of heart with regard to Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 23 and the question of Saturdays and Sundays. We did not press for Sundays to be included, as field sports do not take place on Sundays. The Minister has been more generous than we expected, but although we would be happy to trade all the Sundays when access is restricted for more Saturdays, that option is not on the table. The move to allow four Saturdays of exclusion is welcome: it may not be as many as we would have preferred, but it is a step forward. I spoke earlier about information and the need for access points. This is another example of how, day by day, the rules governing access to a piece of land may change.
          Lords amendment No. 24 concerns dogs, and I welcome the Minister's change of heart on this point. Owners of grouse moors—and gamekeepers, who take such pride in their role—will welcome the amendment. However, I am puzzled by the significance of the

          861
          five-year period. Does it mean that after five years, the grouse moor in question can never again be closed off? The Minister shakes his head but perhaps he could clarify that issue.
          Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 24 seeks to change the word "lambing" to "livestock breeding". The inclusion of lambing and the exclusion of dogs for the period of six weeks is welcome. But in Committee, we discussed other forms of livestock farming which are becoming more common in the hills of this country. Mention was made of llamas, alpacas, angora goats and deer, and yesterday I attended the launch of the bison industry in this country. On top of that, there are cattle. [Interruption.] The Minister of State laughs, but the point is that the Deputy Prime Minister earlier was exhorting people to diversify. Many farmers are diversifying into different forms of livestock.
          The sensible decision to exclude dogs from fields of up to 15 hectares during the lambing period should apply to the period when cows are calving, deer are calving and llamas are doing whatever they do. [Interruption.] Goats are kidding—that is one I do know. I have no idea what llamas and alpacas do, but it no doubt consists of the same motions. This is a time of immense sensitivity for livestock, when baby animals are at considerable risk—as a walker would be. Some animals are exceptionally good mothers and would resist and resent any intrusion into what they see as their territory by someone walking, let alone someone with a dog. [Interruption.] The Minister suggests that people could walk around them, but a field of 15 hectares is not particularly large and the scope to walk round could be limited.
          We propose also that the period of six weeks be increased to eight. The principal lambing period should be over in six weeks but, with any flock, it will straggle a bit. However, we should not assume that once every ewe has had a lamb, the risk is over. Those first few days are a period of great risk to the lamb—and, with some breeds, there can be a risk to anyone else who appears. Cattle breeds such as the Galloway can become extremely fierce in protection of their young. It would be very unwise for someone to take a dog into a field where a herd of Galloways had recently calved.
          Mr. Llwyd: Nowadays many farmers stagger the breeding season to try to catch the market. Also, some farmers have a variety of breeds.
          Mr. Paice: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has come to my rescue and he is right to refer to a point that I omitted.
          Lords amendments Nos. 158 to 170 are generally welcome. The Minister referred to trapping and the rather quaint language that has been inserted in the Bill; he will find that references to engines and instruments go back to the 19th-century poaching Acts. Obviously Ministers were convinced in Committee by our arguments for including interference with fences, and extending the dog ban to 31 July, and I am grateful for that.
          6.45 pm
          The proposals for short leads came as a welcome surprise to me. In Committee, Ministers seemed to resist strongly the idea of fixing a lead length, and spent time saying why it was not necessary to define a short lead.
          862
          Overall, we welcome the Lords amendments, although some could be improved. We have put genuine propositions to the Government. I hope that Ministers feel that they are serious and worthy of inclusion in the Bill to add the final refinement to the improvements made by other amendments.
          Mr. David Heath: In this group, some of the wording of some of the amendments has a certain familiarity to it, which I welcome. I am pleased to see a formulation for closures at weekends; it bears more than a passing resemblance to amendments that I tabled in Committee and on Report. I welcome its inclusion, as I do the provisions on the condition of land and the issue of reporting to this House on Ministry of Defence land.
          As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has said, we had an engaging debate in Committee on the thorny question of short fixed leads. Our proposals were stoutly resisted, but have now been accepted. I am pleased about that.
          Lords amendment No. 4 refers to exclusion for a period of time after an "offence" against the code of conduct. That is a move in the right direction. I always thought that the 24-hour exclusion was nonsense, and effectively unworkable. The 72-hour period is better, not least because it can cover the weekend. If people go off for a weekend and cause trouble, they will be excluded from the land in question for the remainder of the weekend. That is clearly understandable.
          What is not understandable is why the amendment refers to land within a particular ownership. I cannot for the life of me see how people who are excluded in that way can know whether the land they are on is under the same ownership. It would be far more sensible if they were excluded from any access land during that period. That is simple and readily understandable. It is no less workable than the Government's formulation, and would be clearer. It has not been proposed, which I regret, but even at this late stage, perhaps the Minister will explain why he prefers his wording.
          Codes of conduct are a crucial aspect of the Bill. During proceedings on the Bill, I, and others, have argued for the need for good communication and clarity of purpose, for the benefit of landowners and those who wish to have access. As long as everybody understands what the rules are, how they will be applied, what the land in question is and how it is defined, there will be no trouble. If people are not clear about those matters, however, that is a recipe for confrontation. That is why it is so important that we deal with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire.
          Having particular identified points of access is not a new notion—we have pursued it throughout our consideration of the Bill. We have accepted that it is not the Government's intention to make a designated point of access that is obligatory for those seeking access. However, identifying somewhere as the point of access will make it easier for people to have access to land safely and sensibly and to put up signposts and notices about restrictions that may apply because of temporary closures. The codes of conduct provide a way of doing that, so if the hon. Gentleman presses his amendment at a later stage, I will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

          863
          I have little to say about grouse moors—I do not have the expertise of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on the subject. However, I am sure that the Government's proposals are sensible.
          Finally, I welcome the prohibition of the feeding of livestock. We did not cover the subject properly in Committee, and I give the Government credit for having picked it up. With regard to the communicable diseases of livestock, such a prohibition is clearly one of the precautions that should be taken to prevent animals from being fed who knows what by who knows who, when people have access to open countryside.
          All in all, I strongly commend the amendments to the House. This is a sensible group of amendments and would be improved still further if the Government, even at this late stage, were to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire.
          Mr. Llwyd: I too broadly welcome the amendments. Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 increase to 72 hours the time for which a trespasser can be banned from land. How will the ban be enforced? I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—it would be far better to ban trespassers from all access land, because there will be problems of definition. If people behave reprehensibly on one parcel of land, what is to stop them behaving in the same way on the land adjoining? I prefer the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but that is not to say that I disagree with the Conservative amendment (a) to cover adjoining land. That would improve the Bill; in fact, either suggestion would improve the Bill. As it stands, it needs improving, because otherwise there will be problems.
          We should be thinking about problems of definition throughout the Bill. Much work has been done over the past few months, and the Bill has been greatly improved, but I honestly think that there is still a potential area of conflict. A person banned from one small parcel of land may well hop over on to the next and carry on doing what he or she should not have been doing in the first place.
          Mr. Paice: I shall try to explain, very succinctly, why we decided to refer to adjoining land rather than all access land. We felt that "all access land" would include all access land throughout England and Wales. That may be stretching a point, but there is nothing to say that someone banished from access land in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on a Saturday might not appear in the Lake district on a Sunday. The provision would be unenforceable—nobody would know, or could be expected to know, whether that person had been banned from land in Snowdonia. So we chose the phrase in the amendment to mean, effectively, a particular whole parcel of access land.
          Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I believe that his wording is preferable, and I do not know why the Government do not adopt it. If not, there will be an area of conflict, which is, I am sure, the last thing that anybody here wants.
          I welcome Lords amendment No. 18, which places a duty on an access authority to consult the owner or occupier of the land before erecting notices. That subject
          864
          was also hotly debated in Committee, and I am pleased that at the eleventh hour the Government have seen the good sense of the suggestion.
          It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is not here to speak about closures on Saturdays for shooting. However, I am sure that he is here in spirit, and that he will be delighted when he finds out that his well reasoned and well presented arguments have found favour with the Government, even at this stage.
          It is important to improve the Bill, inasmuch as access points would mean that people did not have to scramble over walls. We have been through this before. We know that people using access land should not interfere without reasonable excuse with any fence, barrier or other device, including stone walls. However, amending the Bill so that some access points would be identified would not only make things simple for those using access but would contribute to what the Deputy Prime Minister referred to earlier today as diversification. Farmers could charge for car parking, and perhaps provide other services, at access points. It might be a way of earning extra income and providing a service at the same time. That is a further argument in favour of the amendment.
          I welcome the Opposition's amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment No. 19, which aim to increase consultation between relevant bodies. Consultation is one of the mainsprings of the Bill. The quality of consultation is very important, as is the need to ensure that it is as wide as possible.
          Lords amendment No. 24 would allow an occupier or owner to exclude dogs from a field or enclosure of not more than 15 hectares for a period of up to six weeks in any calendar year. I am not restating what has been said, although the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has already made the case. I suggest, as he did, that six weeks is not very long if various types of sheep are breeding at different times. Mountain sheep, lowland sheep and other breeds all go on to the ffridd and inby land at some point. It is important to look at that again.
          I know that the Minister will say that it will be possible to apply for an exemption at that stage. I certainly hope so. If that is the case, and if the hon. Gentleman is confident that an extension of, say, another couple of months would be possible—[Interruption.] Seriously, there are farmers in my constituency for whom the lambing season lasts four and a half months. That is the point that I am getting at. I hope that a missive will arrive from some corner of the Chamber with some information on that matter. No doubt it will be possible to apply for an exemption.
          7 pm
          The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said that 15 hectares did not make a very large field. In my neck of the woods, that is a huge field. Often, ffridd land will stretch from one farm to another, and not be fenced, as in the idea of community farming, joint sharing, and so on. There are many places in Wales where such land will consist of considerably more than 15 hectares, but will not necessarily be enclosed. Such land might not be a field as such, but would still be subject to the Act.

          865
          I seek an assurance from the Government that there will be some effort—be it a publicity campaign or something else—actively to discourage people from taking dogs on to the land during the breeding season. The Minister will know how important it is for young or pregnant animals not to be disturbed.
          Will the Minister please respond to a point that I made earlier, which I shall restate now? I, and other Opposition Members, argued in Committee for a 2 m lead to be required—as proposed in Lords amendment No. 169—and I am pleased that the Government have given way on that issue. As I said, there is an access forum—albeit in shadow form—in my constituency, on which the Ramblers Association is represented, as it should be. The association has an internal rule that its members do not take dogs with them when they ramble. Obviously, farmers and occupiers would find such a rule preferable, as it would do away with any question of danger during lambing. If that forum were to decide, totally of its own free will, that it wished to ban dogs on those lands, what would be the Government's response? That question must be addressed, because the problem might also occur in other areas.
          It is important to consider the definition of livestock again. I shall not go through the whole gamut of alpacas, llamas, buffalos and even wild boars, but we are dealing with more than simply deer, sheep and cattle. With those remarks, and subject to my questions being answered, I welcome the amendments.
          Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief. I have sat through the whole debate and I have only one query that I would like the Minister to elucidate. It relates to the five-year limit for the ban on dogs on a grouse moor. Obviously, that will be either possible or not possible to implement. I happen to believe that if one is to manage a grouse moor sensibly, it will not be possible. I cannot therefore understand the proposed limit of five years. The Minister appeared to shake his head when my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked whether there would be such a limit. I should be delighted if the Minister explained why.
          I shall not detain the House much longer. Any Government who guillotine debate on 280 amendments are expecting a great deal of the House. I speak as someone who was Chairman of the Procedure Committee for many years. No Leader of the House believes that such guillotines are good. Every Leader of the House, whatever his or her party, would attempt to ensure that legislation was not dealt with in that way.
          Mr. Mullin: On the final point made by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), the guillotine is rather fortunate for the Conservative party, because he is its only Back-Bench Member present.
          Sir Peter Emery: At this moment.
          Mr. Mullin: At this moment and through most, although not quite all, of the debate. We have spared Opposition Members the embarrassment of having to scrutinise us in too much detail. I believe that the time allocated will be quite sufficient.
          866
          On the question of the five-year limit raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), every landowner will have to take certain steps after five years to renew the exclusion—for example, by notifying the Countryside Agency that the moor is still used for grouse. We would not want suddenly to find that the moor had stopped being used for grouse some time ago, but that the exclusion still prevailed. The landowner will have to demonstrate that the restriction is still needed, and, provided that he can do so, it can be renewed. I do not think that Opposition Members—who are as keen as we are to dispose of unnecessary regulation—would want that to happen every year. We therefore chose a period of five years. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire at least agrees that that is reasonable, and I am grateful for that.
          Sir Peter Emery: The Minister makes the point that if the moor has ceased to be a grouse moor, the restriction will be lifted, and that is absolutely right. However, if the same conditions exist as existed when the licence was originally granted, would the Minister expect it to be extended?
          Mr. Mullin: Yes, I would.
          Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 4 would provide that the loss of a statutory right of access following a breach of the general restrictions in chapter II would extend not only to land in the same ownership but to adjoining land. Our concern is that the approach should be fair both to users of the new right and to landowners, and that it should be practical to enforce. The exclusion is going to be difficult to enforce in any case—let us be realistic about that.
          The amendment is both impractical and unenforceable. It is very unlikely that the owner of the adjoining land would even know that the walker had breached a restriction on other land, and he would therefore have no reason to ask him to leave. Even a walker might not know of the breach, if the owner of the land on which the breach took place was not bothered by it and allowed the person to remain on the land. Let us remember that a breach of a restriction may amount to no more than giving a carrot to a horse or bathing in a stream. These are going be some of the most regulated walkers on the planet, and we do not want to extend the degree of restriction under which they will be placed.
          Mr. Paice: Is the Minister really saying that if a landowner has not apprehended somebody committing a misdemeanour, that the individual is unaware that he has committed one, and that there has therefore been no banishment, that would be a justification for not including adjoining land? Obviously, we are discussing circumstances in which someone has engaged in one of the forbidden activities and has been apprehended by the landowner or his agent, who has told him that he must get off the land for 24 hours. The reason for our amendment is not so much so that adjoining landowners will know whether someone has been banned, but so that the individual who has been banned knows that he must get off all of that parcel of open country. As I tried to explain to the Minister, it is difficult—often impossible—to tell where ownership changes in open country.
          Mr. Mullin: We are in danger of making fairly heavy weather of this. We want to ensure that the restrictions—penalties, one might call them—are both practical and enforceable, and that there is some clarity about them. We honestly think that if a walker moves on to land in different ownership, he must continue to abide by the restrictions or he will lose his rights on that land, too. It is a practical requirement that both landowners and walkers will understand. We cannot go further.
          Mr. Paice: Will the Minister give way?
          Mr. Mullin: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was anxious to get on. We are making awfully heavy weather of this.
          Mr. Paice: Any heavy weather is because the Minister does not seem able to accept what is blatantly obvious to us. If a landowner apprehends someone on his land who is contravening the obligations and he says, "Get off my land for the rest of today", or for 72 hours, and the chap wanders off across Snowdonia, how does the walker know when he has got off that landowner's land?
          Mr. Mullin: No doubt the landowner will tell him.
          Amendments (a) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 19 would give a duty to the countryside bodies to consult representatives of landowners and relevant conservation bodies before issuing codes of conduct under clause 19. We do not need to prescribe the way in which the countryside bodies should go about producing codes. They have considerable experience in producing such material. The Countryside Agency, for example, already has a duty to prepare a country code relating to national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and long-distance routes. Clause 19 allows the agency to use the new code of conduct to fulfil the existing duty in section 86(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, in addition to providing new information about the right of access. Similarly, the Countryside Agency is already under a duty to provide information about the countryside, including information about prevention of damage and a proper standard of behaviour on the part of those visiting the countryside.
          The new countryside access forum will no doubt have views on the code, and the countryside bodies will undoubtedly want to listen to those views. Were we to give the countryside bodies a specific duty to consult landowners and conservation groups, we would invite questions as to why the Bill contained no duty to consult other groups, such as those representing walkers or local authorities. They, too, would have an interest in ensuring that the code was balanced and comprehensive. I believe that the countryside bodies are best suited to decide who should be consulted. We shall expect them to consult as broadly as possible. They are extremely experienced in undertaking duties such as that imposed by clause 19 and in consulting the relevant bodies. Amendments (a) and (c) are unnecessary.
          I am pleased to be able to offer the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire reassurance on amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19, relating to appropriate points of access. Lords amendment No. 19 is explicit in placing a duty on the Countryside Agency to take steps to ensure that the public are informed of the situation,
          868
          extent and means of access to access land. The term "means of access" is given a wide meaning in the Bill. It comprises
          any opening in a wall, fence or hedge
          whether or not such an opening has a stile or gate. Means of access therefore include any appropriate points of access. We expect the Countryside Agency to promote the most convenient and suitable means of access when it provides information to the public about how they might benefit from the new opportunities offered by the new right of access. I hope that that reassurance will enable the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.
          Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for the conciliatory way in which he has approached our amendment. Will he explain a little more? The purpose of our amendment on points of access was that the information should indicate the best places to access the moor. That is where the code of conduct and all the rules and regulations would be displayed for the information of the public. As the Minister rightly said, the term "means of access" is much more widely defined. There may be many means of access. On an open moorland with a road through it, the whole lot is a means of access. We tabled the amendment to provide suggested, not statutory, access points at which walkers could be given information. I am not sure that the Minister has fully taken that on board.
          7.15 pm
          Mr. Mullin: It is perfectly sensible to direct people to the most logical points of access. I can only repeat that we expect the Countryside Agency to provide information about the most appropriate access points. The hon. Gentleman will have to think about it, but I honestly think that we have met that point.
          Amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 24 would amend the provision in clause 23 for landowners to exclude dogs from fields and enclosures if they believe it to be necessary in connection with lambing. Amendment (a) would broaden the exclusion of dogs for the purposes of lambing so that dogs could be excluded for the purposes of any livestock breeding. Amendment (b) would extend the six-week period to eight weeks.
          I shall deal first with amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 24. It is not necessary to provide blanket powers to exclude dogs where livestock breeding takes place. The Countryside Agency has recently produced a report on the impact of public access on livestock management. The report supports our view that sheep are significantly more likely to suffer disturbance from the mere presence of dogs at sensitive times of the year than are other livestock such as cattle. The cattle are much more likely to pose a danger to walkers and their dogs than the other way around. Sheep are by far the most common livestock to be found in open countryside. It is inconceivable that bison or alpaca would be raised in open country rather than on improved pastures, but if restrictions are needed, directions may be sought from the relevant authorities.
          Mr. Damian Green: I am not clear about the logic of the Minister's argument. It does not seem a strong argument to say that sheep and lambs will be more affected by interference than cattle and that in the latter case the danger would be to walkers. That seems a strong

          869
          argument for widening the restrictions, as we propose. To do so would protect walkers. I am puzzled that the Minister advances that argument in favour of keeping the restrictions narrow.
          Mr. Mullin: As a walker, when I come across cattle, particularly—
          Mr. Llwyd: Of the male variety.—
          Mr. Mullin—:or of the female variety when they have calves, I steer a wide circle round them, and I recommend any other sensible walker to do the same.
          The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked whether the local access forum could extend the restriction to ban dogs. I repeat that it would be for the relevant authority to impose tighter restrictions on dogs, but it must have regard to any representations made by the local access forum.
          Let me emphasise that, under schedule 2, dogs are required to be on leads in the vicinity of all livestock at all times. We have introduced an amendment that provides that leads should be short; so on any access land on which livestock was present, dogs would already be under tight control. Where there is a genuine case for stronger restrictions, or even a complete ban, the Bill provides for local arrangements to be put in place.
          Clause 23 is intended to provide a simple and quick mechanism for those landowners who are most likely to need to exclude dogs to do so with the minimum of red tape. It is not the only mechanism whereby dogs may be excluded, and I believe that it is right that it should be targeted. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will forgive me, I cannot support that amendment.
          As for amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 24, I do not believe that it is necessary to extend the period that dogs may be excluded from six to eight weeks, but I think that I can answer the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. I appreciate that six weeks is not sufficient to cover the entire lambing season, and it is not intended to be.
          I understand that the way in which lambing is managed means that sheep in any one field or enclosure would have been grouped according to their likely delivery date, and would be expected to lamb within a three-week period. In any one field or enclosure, therefore, it would be rare for the entire six-week closure allowance to be needed, and it would, of course, be open to farmers—this is the key point—to close different fields for different six-week periods.
          We believe that the provision is more than adequate to allow farmers to continue with existing lambing practices unhindered by walkers' dogs. As I have already said, where, exceptionally, closure beyond six weeks was required, landowners could apply to the relevant body.
          We believe that clause 23, in conjunction with the other controls on dogs for which the Bill provides, comprises an effective package of measures for the control of dogs near livestock. We do not believe that it is necessary to go further.
          Mr. Paice: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fear that some of those responses were wholly
          870
          inadequate. When the appropriate moment arrives, I should like formally to move amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is quite acceptable.
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

        Clause 11

          REGULATIONS RELATING TO MAPS
          Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 6, line 44, after ("authorities") insert (", local access forums")
          Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 13, Lords amendment No. 16 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 27, 127 and 128.
          Mr. Mullin: These Lords amendments together deliver the Government's commitments, expressed in another place, to give statutory status to local access forums. This is a matter to which the Liberal Democrats gave high priority.
          We had from the outset intended that forums, whether statutory or non-statutory, should play a key role in helping to improve public access to the countryside. We were persuaded, however, that unless we made them statutory, there would be concern that forums would not be set up everywhere they ought to be, and that the weight accorded to their views might be less. We accordingly tabled an amendment on Report, writing local access forums clearly into the Bill.
          The role of local access forums will go wider than part I. They will have a key advisory role in helping access authorities determine how best to make the countryside more accessible and enjoyable for recreation, in ways that take proper account of social, economic and environmental interests. Forums will, for example, be involved in improving the rights of way network and in the development of local recreation and access strategies.
          We are keen to ensure that forums should be sufficiently flexible in their make-up and operation to take account of varying circumstances and needs in different areas of the country. For example, the issues relevant to a heavily populated area with relatively little open countryside might be very different from those in a more remote rural area.
          The amendments place a duty on access authorities to establish forums in their area. Forums will need to include a balanced representation both of users of the right of access under part I and rights of way generally, and of landowners, managers and occupiers of land.
          Due weight will be given to the forums' advice. The amendments require relevant decision-making authorities to have proper regard to forums' views in reaching decisions—for example, in relation to draft maps, the imposition of byelaws, proposals for long-term restrictions and closures of access land, as well as on wider access issues contained in new right of way improvement plans.

          871
          In providing their views, forums will need to take into account relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales. The amendments demonstrate the central role that we intend forums will play in advising on the operation and implementation of the new right of access.
          Mr. Green: I shall comment briefly on the wider issue of local access forums and speak particularly to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 16.
          Broadly speaking, we welcome the improvements that their Lordships have made to the Bill. Local access forums will provide a useful injection of local knowledge into the administration of access land and will help the access authorities to ensure that decisions are taken at a suitably local level.
          Amendment (a) calls for the local access authority to consult the local access forum about the adequacy of the provision of wardens.
          It was widely agreed on both sides in Committee that adequate wardening is an extremely important part of ensuring the success of the new access regime. The local access forums can thus play a valuable role in what will otherwise become the weak point—or the weakest link, as we topically say—in the arrangement, simply because there will not be funding for adequate wardening, unless people argue forcefully for it at a local level.
          Clearly, different areas will require differing amounts of wardening, and that will be an easy cut for a local access authority to make, as wardening will be one of the more expensive procedures involved in creating an adequate new access regime. In local authorities that cover both urban and rural areas, the focus on the rural areas may well go by default.
          It is crucial for a wardening system to be adequate not just in the early stages of the new regime, but throughout. If the Bill is successful, many new people will be attracted to walking in open country.
          "Warden" is an unfortunately negative term. Perhaps we should have spoken of rangers throughout.
          Mr. Mullin: Or warders.
          Mr. Green: I hope not warders, although the Minister seems to take a rather insouciant view of people committing offences, as his reaction to the previous group of amendments showed. Perhaps he thinks that warders may be necessary, but rangers would have been a better word to use, as it gives the impression of help, rather than control.
          Whatever the terminology, it would be helpful to have experts around the access areas, and local access forums would be a powerful voice encouraging that.
          The Minister will know that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has stated that so far, in land where there is access, one warden for every 400 hectares is a sensible use of resources. It is equally clear from all our debates on previous stages of the Bill that the amount of money that the Government have put aside for implementing the new system would not allow such a wardening effort.
          Mr. Bennett: In most national parks that have a ranger service in place, a large proportion of that service is
          872
          provided by volunteers. Although there is a cost in training and supervising, it is not the same as the cost involved in paying wages to those people.
          Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman is right. However, the number of volunteers is, by definition, limited, and those who are most enthusiastic have probably already volunteered. The new access regime will cover an enormously expanded area of land. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is unlikely that people will volunteer to the extent that they do for national parks.
          The hon. Gentleman almost encourages me to argue that if one wanted to pay small sums to encourage people to volunteer—they would be semi-volunteers, semi-paid—the minimum wage legislation would prevent that. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I expect that you would not want me to go down that route.—[Interruption.] The Minister says that he would be happy with that. I think that other hon. Members would be less happy.
          Wardening is clearly an issue. We will need far more wardens than previously. With due respect to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I suspect that there will not be enough volunteers. Therefore local authorities will have to find the money, or the Government will have to subsidise them. We need a powerful local voice to say, "To make this work properly and to encourage people to behave safely and well, a large-scale effort should be made to provide wardens"—or rangers, or whatever we wish to call them. That would be yet another practical improvement.
          Throughout the passage of the Bill we have sought to improve it in small, practical ways. The amendment is just another effort in that direction, and I hope that the Government can accept it.
          7.30 pm
          Mr. David Heath: I am delighted with the Government for accepting the proposition that local access forums should be referred to in the Bill. I am even prepared to forgo the opportunity of a debate on what is the proper plural of forum—a matter which we considered at some length in Committee.
          It was obvious to me from the start that we needed to have a statutory reference to local access forums if they were to be established throughout the country and to succeed. That reference has been put in place, and that I wholeheartedly welcome, although it might have been nicer if it had been included a little earlier.
          Since we last discussed these matters, I had the opportunity to attend the local access forum for the Exmoor national park at Dulverton. It was extremely useful to exchange with its members experiences of how they work. It was clear that there was no unanimity of view. People were representing different interests, some of which were occasionally in conflict with those of others. However, there was respect between landowners, land users and those seeking to use land for recreational purposes. Surely that is at the core of what we are trying to achieve.
          I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in finding an opportunity to discuss the important issue of wardening and ranger services at this stage in our deliberations. I do not think that anything will stop local access forums talking about warden and ranger

          873
          services in their areas. That issue will be at the forefront of their considerations, and much of the discussion will be led by people who are employed or who volunteer to do the work. That is the experience in the national parks. However, there is real concern about whether local authorities throughout the country will be able to devote sufficient resources to enable a specific job to be done if we are to make a success of the Bill.
          I suspect that we shall not see the amendment pressed to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will clearly understand the concerns that have been expressed by Members on both sides of the House about the adequacy of warden services and the adequacy of the funding that will underpin those services, and about whether it will be possible to achieve the results that we want to see. I wholly welcome this group of Lords amendments.
          Mr. Llwyd: I add my voice to what has just been said. Statutory life has been given to the concept of local access forums, which I welcome. However, the Government should ensure that authorities are guided to implement proposals in consultation with key interests such as farmers and landowners within a pre-determined time scale. Experience of the Countryside Agency's so-called name-and-shame approach has not proved an effective method of maintaining implementation pressure on authorities. For example, in preparing rights of way improvement plans, authorities are not required to consider the potential for creating, diverting or stopping-up, or otherwise improving the network on a local scale. That is a significant omission.
          Individuals should be able to propose such works during the preparation of plans. It is vital that local authorities consult farmers and landowners, especially as the status of the plans is to become a material consideration in highway authority decision making. I am pleased that the argument has prevailed and that local access forums appear in the Bill. They must work properly if the Act is to work properly. Proper consultation will ensure the minimum potential for conflict, as we would all wish to see when the Act is implemented.
          I fully support Conservative amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 16, which seeks to implement occasional consultation between the access authority and the local access forums about the provision of wardens. It is eminently sensible and most desirable.
          Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for the general welcome that has been accorded to the amendments. It will not come as a surprise to hon. Members that the Government will resist amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 16. It is not necessary. Lords amendment No. 16 places a duty on access authorities to consult the relevant local access forums before exercising their power to appoint wardens to help manage the right of access, and from time to time after that. That ensures that local access forums will be appropriately consulted. We do not need a further duty to consult access forums on the adequacy of the provision of wardens. We would expect consultation between forums and access authorities about the provision of wardens as part of the normal consultation about the operation and management of the right of access. That is already provided for in the Bill.
          874
          There has been debate in the House and in another place about whether the access authorities should be under a duty to appoint wardens. We have made it clear that authorities should have a power, not a duty, to decide whether to appoint wardens, and if so, how many.
          The amendment would not impose a duty, but I suspect that it is yet another attempt to exert pressure on access authorities to appoint wardens, even where they may not be needed. We must remember that the sort of land that will be subject to the new right of access is often in the more remote areas, which will remain inaccessible to all but the most adventurous. We do not want or need a veritable army of wardens in such areas. Instead, all that may be needed is a few signs or information boards placed at the appropriate entry. I am sure that the party of deregulation, the Conservative party, would not want me to labour that point.
          In the areas that are subject to the most pressure from walkers, more intensive management measures may be appropriate, including wardening services. We intend to provide adequate funding—I mentioned some figures earlier—to help to ensure that the right of access is managed effectively and avoids interference with day-to-day management. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept that the amendment is not necessary.
          Lords amendment agreed to.

        Clause 13

          OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY
          Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 8, line 6, leave out ("("the 2000 Act")").
          The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 8, Lords amendment No. 9 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 10.
          Mr. Meacher: I am conscious that time is moving on fast, and I will be as brief as I can be.
          The group of amendments deals with the extent to which occupiers should have liability for harm sustained to other people exercising a right of access to their land. Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 remove liability in relation to personal injuries suffered by people climbing over, through, or under a wall, fence or gate, except by the proper use of the gate or stile.
          The amendments respond to the concerns that have been expressed by landowners that there would be problems with people hurting themselves when climbing over man-made features that are extremely common in open country, such as dry stone walls. We do not believe that the courts would hold landowners liable in such cases, but we accept that in this increasingly litigious age there might be people who tried to bring cases, however unjustified. It is therefore reasonable that we should reduce the risk of the consequent hassle by excluding from liability particularly common features that are unlikely to cause injury to anybody but the careless.
          Lords amendment no. 9 removes liability regarding any river, stream, ditch or pond, whether or not it is a natural feature, and addresses concerns expressed by landowners

          875
          and conservation interests that occupiers should bear no responsibility in relation to such features, even when they have been made or changed by man. In particular, we accept that it may often be difficult to tell whether a pond was originally man-made or is partly man-made.
          Lords amendment no. 10 does two things. It confirms that an occupier retains a minimal liability when he does something that creates a danger on his land with the intention of creating that risk, or is reckless as to whether such a risk is created. The provision requires the courts to have regard to the particular importance of not placing an undue burden—whether financial or otherwise—on the occupier. It also requires the courts to take into account the need to maintain the character of the countryside, including features of historical, traditional or archaeological interest. We want to make it clear that we do not want the countryside littered with forests of signs and miles of fences.
          Finally, the courts are required to have regard to any code or guidance issued by the countryside bodies—for example, a warning in the code to walkers to inform themselves about hazards and be on the lookout for them. That should make it even more unlikely that a landowner would be held liable except in the most exceptional circumstances. I hope therefore that the amendments are acceptable.
          Mr. Paice: May I express our general support for this group of amendments and for the considerable distance that the Minister has travelled from his obsession with the term "natural features", which we debated in Committee? I welcome unreservedly the moves that he has made. However, we have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 9, which would add to clause 13 the words
          a risk resulting from a feature of historic, traditional or archaeological interest.
          That was discussed widely in the other place, but after reflection on that debate—I do not doubt that the Minister was closely involved in that consideration—it is worth pushing the matter once again. Many features of open country, such as iron age forts, do not fit the Minister's expanded criteria to absolve occupiers from liability. The terminology of amendment (a) would not widen massively the exemption from liability, but would reflect the reality of what is situated in open country. I hope that the Minister will find that constructive and be prepared to accept our amendment.
          Mr. David Heath: Very briefly, I too welcome the Government's move from their original formulation, which was unnecessarily restrictive. The amendments helpfully expand the Government's intention from what it was in the initial stages of the Bill. I share the concern of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) that a bias against Celtic and Saxon Britain may be maintained. As we explored in Committee, those features could cause problems, but the hon. Gentleman's formulation, which was discussed in another place, as he says, is an open-ended definition that is also open to an enormous amount of legal challenge. Lords amendment No. 10, which refers to the code of conduct, deals with the matter. However, if it does that insufficiently in future, Parliament will clearly need to return to it.
          7.45 pm
          Mr. Meacher: Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has expressed a view that is shared by the Government. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 9 would extend the exclusion of liability to any historical, traditional or archaeological feature. I have already referred to the guidance in Lords amendment No. 10, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and will require the courts to have regard to the importance of maintaining such features. That will ensure that the probability of liability arising from those features is very low indeed. However, there is no reason why we should make a special case for the exclusion of all liability from such features, especially if they have been buried, either partly or completely, when they would be virtually indistinguishable from any other access land.
          There has been much complaint about the need to identify natural features. However, a rigid rule automatically excluding all historical or traditional features would be impossible to apply. I give great credit to Conservative Front Benchers, Liberal Democrat Members and Plaid Cymru, as they have influenced us. Under the pressure, we have moved a considerable distance from our original argument. Despite all that we have done to reduce liability to a bare minimum, and given the lack of evidence that there is a problem, the issue of liability will remain a concern unless the Bill eliminates liability totally. For the reasons that I have already given, we do not believe that that can ever be right. We have gone as far as we reasonably can. To remove all liability of occupiers of access land to those responsibly exercising the right of access, including children, would be a step too far and could not be justified.
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 18 agreed to.

          After clause 19
          Lords amendment: No. 19, to insert the following new clause—Codes of conduct and other information—
          ".—(1) In relation to England, it shall be the duty of the Countryside Agency to issue, and from time to time revise, a code of conduct for the guidance of persons exercising the right conferred by section 2(1) and of persons interested in access land, and to take such other steps as appear to them expedient for securing—

          (a) that the public are informed of the situation and extent of, and means of access to, access land, and

          (b) that the public and persons interested in access land are informed

          (i) of their respective rights and obligations under this Part, and

          (ii) with regard to public rights of way on, and nature conservation in relation to, access land.

          (2) In relation to Wales, it shall be the duty of the Countryside Council for Wales to issue, and from time to time revise, a code of conduct for the guidance of persons exercising the right conferred by section 2(1) and of persons interested in access land, and to take such other steps as appear to them expedient for securing the results mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).
          (3) A code of conduct issued by the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales may include provisions in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) and in pursuance of section 86(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
          (4) The powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) include power to contribute towards expenses incurred by other persons."
          Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (b), in subsection (1)(a), after "means of access to", insert
          'and appropriate points of access to,'.—[Mr. Paice]
          Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made—
          The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 327.

          Division No. 358]

          [7.47 pm

          AYES

          Allan, Richard

          Greenway, John

          Amess, David

          Grieve, Dominic

          Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

          Gummer, Rt Hon John

          Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

          Hague, Rt Hon William

          Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

          Hammond, Philip

          Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

          Hancock, Mike

          Baker, Norman

          Harvey, Nick

          Baldry, Tony

          Hawkins, Nick

          Ballard, Jackie

          Hayes, John

          Bercow, John

          Heald, Oliver

          Beresford, Sir Paul

          Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

          Blunt, Crispin

          Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

          Body, Sir Richard

          Horam, John

          Boswell, Tim

          Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

          Brady, Graham

          Jack, Rt Hon Michael

          Brand, Dr Peter

          Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

          Brazier, Julian

          Keetch, Paul

          Breed, Colin

          Key, Robert

          Browning, Mrs Angela

          Kirkbride, Miss Julie

          Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

          Kirkwood, Archy

          Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

          Lait, Mrs Jaacqui

          Burnett, John

          Lansley, Andrew

          Burns, Simon

          Leigh, Edward

          Butterfill, John

          Letwin, Oliver

          Cash, William

          Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

          Chidgey, David

          Lidington, David

          Chope, Christopher

          Livsey, Richard

          Clappison, James

          Lloyd, Rt Hon sir Peter (Fareham)

          Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

          Llwyd, Elfyn

          Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

          Loughton, Tim

          (Rushcliffe)

          Luff, Peter

          Cotter, Brian

          Macgregor, Rt Hon John

          Cran, James

          MacKay, Rt Hon John

          Davey, Edward (Kingston)

          Maclean, Rt Hon David

          Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

          McLoughlin, patrick

          Day, Stephen

          Madel, Sir David

          Donaldson, Jeffrey

          Maples, John

          Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

          Maude, Rt Hon Francis

          Duncan, Alan

          Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

          Duncan Smith, Iain

          Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

          Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

          Moore, Michael

          Fabricant, Michael

          Moss, Malcolm

          Fallon, Michael

          Nicholls, Patrick

          Fearn, Ronnie

          Norman, Archie

          Flight, Howard

          Oaten, Mark

          Forth, Rt Hon Eric

          O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

          Foster, Don (Bath)

          Öpik, Lembit

          Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

          Ottaway, Richard

          Fox, Dr Liam

          Page, Richard

          Gale, Roger

          Paice, James

          George, Andrew (St Ives)

          Pickles, Eric

          Gibb, Nick

          Prior, David

          Gidley, Sandra

          Randall, John

          Gill, Christopher

          Redwood, Rt Hon John

          Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

          Rendel, David

          Gorman, Mrs Teresa

          Robathan, Andrew

          Green, Damian

          Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

          878

          Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

          Townend, John

          Ross, William (E Lond'y)

          Trend, Michael

          Ruffley, David

          Tyler, Paul

          Russell, Bob (Colchester)

          Tyrie, Andrew

          St Aubyn, Nick

          Viggers, Peter

          Sanders, Adrian

          Waterson, Nigel

          Sayeed, Jonathan

          Webb, Steve

          Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

          Wells, Bowen

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

          Whitney, Sir Raymond

          Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

          Whittingdale, John

          Soames, Nicholas

          Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

          Spelman, Mrs Caroline

          Wilkinson, John

          Spicer, Sir Michael

          Willetts, David

          Spring, Richard

          Willis, Phil

          Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

          Wilshire, David

          Streeter, Gary

          Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

          Stunell, Andrew

          Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

          Swayne, Desmond

          Yeo, Tim

          Syms, Robert

          Young, Rt Hon Sir George

          Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

          Taylor, John M (Solihull)

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Taylor, Sir Teddy

          Mr. James Gray and

          Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

          Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

          NOES

          Abbott, Ms Diane

          Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

          Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

          Clark, Dr Lynda

          Ainger, Nick

          (Edinburgh Pentlands)

          Alexander, Douglas

          Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

          Allen, Graham

          Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

          Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

          Clelland, David

          Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

          Clwyd, Ann

          Ashton, Joe

          Coaker, Vernon

          Atherton, Ms Candy

          Coffey, Ms Ann

          Austin, John

          Cohen,Harry

          Bailey, Adrian

          Coleman, Iain

          Barron, Kevin

          Colman, Tony

          Battle, John

          Connarty, Michael

          Bayley, Hugh

          Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

          Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

          Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

          Begg, Miss Anne

          Cooper, Yvette

          Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

          Corbett, Robin

          Bennett, Andrew F

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Benton, Joe

          Corston, Jean

          Bermingham, Gerald

          Cousins, Jim

          Berry, Roger

          Cranston, Ross

          Best, Harold

          Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

          Betts, Clive

          Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

          Blackman, Liz

          Cummings, John

          Blizzard, Bob

          Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

          Blunkett, Rt Hon David

          Dalyell, Tam

          Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

          Darling, Ft Hon Alistair

          Borrow, David

          Darvill, Keith

          Bradley, Keith (Withington)

          Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

          Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

          Davidson, Ian

          Bradshaw, Ben

          Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

          Brinton, Mrs Helen

          Davis, Rt Hon Terry

          Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

          (B'ham Hodge H)

          Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

          Dawson, Hilton

          Browne, Desmond

          Dean, Mrs Janet

          Buck, Ms Karen

          Denham, John

          Burgon, Colin

          Dismore,Andrew

          Butler, Mrs Christine

          Dobbin, Jim

          Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

          Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

          Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

          Donohoe, Brian H

          Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

          Doran, Frank

          Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

          Dowd, Jim

          Campbell-Savours, Dale

          Drew, David

          Cann, Jamie

          Drown, Ms Julia

          Caplin, Ivor

          Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

          Casale, Roger

          Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

          Caton, Martin

          Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

          Cawsey, Ian

          Edwards, Huw

          Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

          Efford, Clive

          Chaytor, David

          Ellman, Mrs Louise

          Clapham, Michael

          Ennis, Jeff

          879

          Fitzpatrick, Jim

          Leslie, Christopher

          Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

          Levitt, Tom

          Flint, Caroline

          Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

          Flynn, Paul

          Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

          Foster, Rt Hon Derek

          Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

          Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

          Lock, David

          Foulkes, George

          Love, Andrew

          Galloway, George

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Gardiner, Barry

          McCabe, Steve

          George, Bruce (Walsall S)

          McCafferty, Ms Chris

          Gerrard, Neil

          McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

          Gibson, Dr Ian

          (Makerfield)

          Gilroy, Mrs Linda

          McDonagh, Siobhain

          Godman, Dr Norman A

          Macdonald, Calum

          Godsiff, Roger

          McDonnell, John

          Goggins, Paul

          McFall, John

          Golding, Mrs Llin

          McGuire, Mrs Anne

          Gordon, Mrs Eileen

          McGuire, Mrs Anne

          Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

          McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

          Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

          Mackinlay, Andrew

          Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

          McNamara, Kevin

          Grocott, Bruce

          McNulty, Tony

          Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

          Macshane, Denis

          Hanson, David

          Mactaggart, Fiona

          Healey, John

          McWalter, Tony

          Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

          Mallaber, Judy

          Hendrick, Mark

          Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

          Hepburn, Stephen

          Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

          Heppell, John

          Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

          Hesford, Stephen

          Marshall-Andrews, Robert

          Hewitt, Ms Patricia

          Martlew, Eric

          Hinchliffe, David

          Maxton, John

          Hodge, Ms Margaret

          Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

          Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

          Meale, Alan

          Hope, Phil

          Merron, Gillian

          Hopkins, Kelvin

          Michael, Rt Hon Alun

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

          Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

          Howells, Dr Kim

          Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

          Hoyle, Lindsay

          Miller, Andrew

          Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

          Moffatt, Laura

          Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

          Moonie, Dr Lewis

          Humble, Mrs Joan

          Moran, Ms Margaret

          Hurst, Alan

          Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

          Hutton, John

          Morley, Elliot

          Iddon, Dr Brian

          Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

          Illsley, Eric

          (B'ham yardley)

          Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

          Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

          Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

          (Aberavon)

          Jamieson, David

          Mudie, George

          Jenkins, Brian

          Mullin, Chris

          Johnson, Miss Melanie

          Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

          (Welwyn Hatfield)

          Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

          Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

          Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

          Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

          Norris, Dan

          Jones, Ms Jenny

          O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

          (Wolverh'ton SW)

          O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

          Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

          Organ, Mrs Diana

          Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

          Osborne, Ms Sandra

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

          Palmer, Dr Nick

          Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

          Pearson, Ian

          Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

          Pendry, Tom

          Keeble, Ms Sally

          Pickthall, Colin

          Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

          Plaskitt, James

          Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

          Pollard, Kerry

          Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

          Pope, Greg

          Khabra, Piara S

          Powell, Sir Raymond

          Kidney, David

          Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

          Kilfoyle, Peter

          Prescott, Rt Hon John

          King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

          Primarolo, Dawn

          King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

          Prosser, Gwyn

          Kingham, Ms Tess

          Purchase, Ken

          Ladyman, Dr Stephen

          Quinn, Lawrie

          Lammy, David

          Rammell, Bill

          Laxton, Bob

          Raynsford, Nick

          Lepper, David

          Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

          880

          Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

          Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

          Robertson, John

          Stringer, Graham

          (Glasgow Anniesland)

          Stuart, Ms Gisela

          Roche, Mrs Barbara

          Sutcliffe, Gerry

          Rogers, Allan

          Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

          Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

          (Dewsbury)

          Rooney, Terry

          Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

          Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

          Taylor, David (NW Leics)

          Rowlands, Ted

          Temple-Morris, Peter

          Roy, Frank

          Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

          Ruane, Chris

          Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

          Ruddock, Joan

          Timms, Stephen

          Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

          Tipping, Paddy

          Ryan, Ms Joan

          Todd, Mark

          Salter, Martin

          Touhig, Don

          Sarwar, Mohammad

          Trickett, Jon

          Savidge, Malcolm

          Truswell, Paul

          Sawford, Phil

          Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

          Shaw, Jonathan

          Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

          Sheerman, Barry

          Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

          Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

          Turner, Neil (Wigan)

          Shipley, Ms Debra

          Twigg, Derek (Halton)

          Short, Rt Hon Clare

          Vis, Dr Rudi

          Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

          Walley, Ms Joan

          Singh, Marsha

          Ward, Ms Claire

          Skinner, Dennis

          Wareing, Robert N

          Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

          White, Brian

          Smith, Angela (Basildon)

          Whitehead, Dr Alan

          Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

          Wicks, Malcolm

          Smith, Miss Geraldine

          Williams, Rt Hon Alan

          (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

          (Swansea W)

          Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

          Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

          Smith, John (Glamorgan)

          Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

          Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

          Wills, Michael

          Snape, Peter

          Winnick, David

          Soley, Clive

          Woolas, Phil

          Southworth, Ms Helen

          Wray, James

          Squire, Ms Rachel

          Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

          Starkey, Dr Phyllis

          Wright, Tony (Cannock)

          Steinberg, Gerry

          Wyatt, Derek

          Stewart, David (Inverness E)

          Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Stinchcombe, Paul

          Mr. Mike Hall and

          Stoate, Dr Howard

          Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

          Question accordingly negatived.
          Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to [Special Entry].
          Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 25 agreed to.

          Clause 24

            NATURE CONSERVATION AND HERITAGE PRESERVATION
            Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 15, line 29, leave out ("the Nature Conservancy Council for England") and insert ("English Nature")
            8 pm
            Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
            Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 103, 106, 108 to 110, 139, 212, 214 and 237.
            Mr. Mullin: The Nature Conservancy Council (England) was one of the three country councils established by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They replaced the former Nature Conservancy Council, which exercised powers in relation to Great Britain. Since

            881
            the Nature Conservancy Council (England) came into existence in 1991, it has been known colloquially as English Nature.
            The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised in Committee the question of English Nature's name. Government amendments introduced in another place respond to that and will formally change the name of the Nature Conservancy Council (England) to English Nature. They will also make the necessary consequential amendments elsewhere.
            Mr. Green: I welcome the amendments. A peculiarity that struck many of us, led by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), in the early stages of our consideration was that the Bill did not accept the colloquialism whose use had grown up during the past nine years. The Nature Conservancy Council (England) is referred to as English Nature, so the amendments are entirely sensible and we welcome them.
            Mr. David Heath: It falls to me to thank Ministers for listening to my arguments. My first work in this place, as an employee of the World Wide Fund for Nature, was on the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I have seen that element of the nomenclature of English Nature through from beginning to end. I am glad that the change is being introduced. It will make life a lot simpler for the organisation itself and for those who work with and for it.
            Lords amendment agreed to.
            Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29 agreed to.

          Clause 35

            PROVISION OF ACCESS BY ACCESS AUTHORITY IN ABSENCE OF AGREEMENT
            Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 21, line 21, after ("land") insert
            (", or to other access land,")
            Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
            Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 31, Lords amendment No. 32, amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 33 and 129.
            Mr. Mullin: This modest group of amendments was moved in another place and modifies the provisions relating to improving and securing public access to access land. For example, Lords amendment No. 30 clarifies the fact that access authorities may serve a notice of intention to carry out works relating to a means of access where it is needed to facilitate access to any access land. The Bill currently provides that such a notice may be served only to secure means of access to the access land in question.
            Lords amendment No. 31 provides an additional ground of appeal for owners and occupiers against notices under clause 35(1) that a different means of access, such as a gate rather than a stile, should be provided.
            Lords amendments Nos. 32 and 33 make consistent what public bodies may do under parts I and III in carrying out their legal responsibilities, and what provision should be made for compensation if they cause
            882
            damage. Lords amendment No. 33 reflects our agreement to address points raised by the Opposition in another place and our acceptance of the principle that, if damage is caused by a public body in carrying out its legal responsibility, a person suffering such damage should be entitled to compensation. It is phrased in similar terms to an amendment that we accepted in the House in relation to part III. Lords amendment No. 32 clarifies what an authorised person may do in exercising his or her powers under this part of the Bill. The provision is similar to clause 70(6).
            Lords amendment No. 129 makes a minor modification to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Section 39(1) of that Act allows local planning authorities to enter into management agreements with landowners. Clause 72 will allow the countryside bodies to enter into such agreements and enable them to help protect open countryside, so ensuring the permanence of the right of access. The amendment allows section 39 agreements to be made in relation to any land, not just that in the countryside. It means, for example, that the Countryside Agency, in particular, can enter into such agreements to provide permanent protection for millennium greens in towns and villages.
            Mr. Green: We welcome some of the changes, although the Minister set off some warning signals when he described them as minor. He was here yesterday, during our debate on the Bill's guillotine motion, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made the salient point that whenever amendments are described as minor or technical or he is told that they will clean up legislation, his hackles rise and he instantly reads the legislation particularly carefully because he is sure that an imposition by the Executive is involved.
            Heaven forfend that I should accuse the Minister of having unworthy motives in describing the amendments as technical. Amendment No. 32, to which we have tabled amendment (a), will give an agent of the authority the power to enter private land. The matter is therefore worthy of scrutiny by the House and, we believe, of improvement; that is the point of our amendment. Amendment No. 32 will give the agent of the authority the power not simply to enter the land, but to use a "vehicle" to do so, to take police with him, to take
            equipment and materials needed for the purpose for which he is exercising the power of entry
            and, finally, to
            take samples of the land and of anything on it.
            By any standards, those are draconian powers. Anyone who might be on the receiving end of them should feel that they were being exercised only with the degree of force absolutely necessary for the purpose for which the entry was made. That is why we have produced the brief but, I hope, helpful amendment (a), which would insert the word "relevant" in proposed new subsection (4A)(d). For an agent to be able to take samples of land—or of anything—under any circumstances involves extending what may be necessary powers, although the Minister chose not to explain the circumstances under which the powers would be exercised. Even so, the Bill would be improved if it was made clear that the only samples of land that could be taken away would be those relevant to the particular purpose.

            883
            Apart from the general consideration about giving people only the absolutely minimum powers necessary to enforce the law, a wider point is involved. The Minister will be aware that, throughout our debates, there has been a natural tension between landowners whose rights will be removed by the Bill and those who will benefit from it. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have sought to avoid conflict. We have sought, by improving it in practical ways, to minimise any tension that could arise following its implementation. As the Minister will know, there have been sporadic outbreaks of class warfare among Labour Members who consider it moral and dutiful to cause pain to landowners. Conservative Members have tried to be much more inclusive, and to reconcile those involved in any conflicts.
            A simple practicality is also involved, however. If we give too much power to those who trample over private land, resentment will build up and there will be a possibility of problems in the future. I hope that the Minister will explain what kind of warrant will be needed for the exercise of power of entry, and in what circumstances he envisages the exercise of that power.
            As I said at the outset, I consider this to be a draconian power. Our amendment seeks to focus it much better, so that there can be no doubt that it is being exercised reasonably and sensibly.
            Mr. Mullin: I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) that his concerns have already been dealt with. He is right to say that it is important for any samples taken to be relevant to the purpose. We have used the same wording as is used in part III, to which no objection has been made. I have no doubt that if the samples taken were not relevant to the functions for which an authorised person was exercising his power of entry, that would be unlawful. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by that.
            The hon. Gentleman asked me why samples might be taken. They might be taken, for example, if it was necessary to check the status of grassland, in circumstances that we discussed earlier. I am advised, however, that an irrelevant sample would not be lawful in the first place. The hon. Gentleman's amendment is therefore unnecessary.
            Mr. Green: It is not clear to me how the Bill can include words permitting behaviour that would be unlawful in another Bill. Can the Minister tell me which Bill would make taking irrelevant samples illegal?
            Mr. Mullin: I cannot do so off the top of my head, but I am advised that samples taken that were not relevant to the functions for which an authorised person was exercising his power of entry would be unlawful—so, presumably, the answer is "this Bill".
            Lords amendment agreed to.
            Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 38 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

          Clause 43

            REDESIGNATION OF ROADS USED AS PUBLIC PATHS
            Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 26, line 29, leave out subsection (3).
            8.15 pm
            Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
            Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 70, 102 and 172 to 189.
            Mr. Meacher: This group of amendments deals with provisions relating to restricted byways, definitive maps and the extinguishment of rights of way. Most are technical, or correct minor errors, and in view of the time I propose to deal only with the most substantive.
            Lords amendments Nos. 48 to 56 relate to the powers in clause 48 enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations amending a wide range of primary and secondary legislation to take account of the creation of restricted byways as a new category of highway. Lords amendments Nos. 181 and 186 include measures to streamline the process of recording rights of way on definitive maps. Lords amendment No. 181 provides a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to require local authorities to keep and make available to the public and other local authorities relevant documents about the status of rights of way.
            I want to say something about Lords amendment No. 186, because the issue arose in Committee. The amendment is intended, inter alia, to filter out irrelevant objections to orders modifying definitive maps. Decisions on definitive map orders are a matter of fact and law: they do not call for judgments on whether, for example, the recording of a bridleway on a definitive map would cause environmental damage. However, schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to hold a public inquiry or hearing into any opposed definitive map order, even if the only objections are objections that are not material to the decision on whether to confirm the order.
            The amendment requires any objection or representation in respect of a definitive map modification order to include particulars of the grounds on which the objection or representation is made. It also empowers the Secretary of State or the Assembly to decline to hold an inquiry or hearing into an opposed order if either considers that the only objections or representations that have been made, and not withdrawn, are not relevant to a decision on whether to confirm an order. That, I think, closes a loophole identified in our lengthy discussions in Committee, and I hope it is acceptable.
            The remaining amendments are technical.
            Mr. Paice: I appreciate what the Minister has said, especially his remarks about the closing of the loophole. I merely wish to challenge him on Lords amendment No. 40. What does it actually mean? It would insert a subsection referring to a highway beside
            a river, canal or other inland navigation.
            It says that such a highway should not be excluded from the definition of a restricted byway
            because the public have a right to use the highway for purposes of navigation.
            It puzzles me how it would be possible to navigate a highway. I know that some people's driving might be construed as navigation, but the word clearly relates to

            885
            the use of a waterway, so the reference to using a highway for the purposes of navigation makes no sense. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that.
            Mr. Bennett: As I understand it, the Government originally intended to simplify the law on rights of way. I am not certain that they have managed to achieve that and still believe that a cut-off date for historic paths is wrong. However, they are committed to that approach and have said that they will provide extra resources to enable local authorities to carry out their work. How will that money be allocated to local authorities?
            It should be borne in mind that some local authorities—perhaps because of earlier neglect in that regard—have more to do than others. In addition, various parts of the country have different problems. As president of the Ramblers Association—that is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests—I recently went to Suffolk on its behalf. It was concerned about a historical backlog and wanted to know what extra help the Government would provide to enable it to carry out its work. Is my right hon. Friend able to say how much money will be available and how it will be allocated?
            Mr. David Heath: If there is one aspect of the Bill that has clearly not been thought through, it is the part that deals with rights of way. The fact that many amendments have been tabled to it suggests not only that it is technically incorrect but that it is something of a mess. I am disappointed that they do not deal with some of the issues that I had hoped would be raised.
            Mr. Richard Livsey: The Minister will know that we discussed bridleways when I came to see him. There is an event in my constituency that attracts 500 people from all over the world, but they have been prevented from cycling on a bridleway for the past 12 years because of the Highways Act 1980. Such matters need sorting out.
            Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation because it is an example of what the Bill and the amendments do not address. There would have been no problem dealing with the cycle race that he mentioned. In addition, the amendments do not deal with the relationship between cycling and recreational riding, which should have been properly addressed, or with the carriage riders who do not have access to appropriate roads. Having made that cavil, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for listening to the argument about the difficulties of discounting irrelevant objections. Some objections, although relevant to the objector, are, in law, irrelevant and have to be passed to the Secretary of State. I hope that the relevant amendment will be accepted.
            Mr. Meacher: In so far as I understand the question that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked about amendment No. 40, I think the answer is that it ensures that highways with a right of towage are not excluded from the definition of a restricted byway. I believe that a similar provision in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Highways Act 1980 relates to other highways. I shall write to him if that is not correct.
            As for the more substantive policy points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I was not sure whether he wanted to
            886
            reignite the issue of the 25-year time limit. We believe that there is a fair balance between the desirability of giving certainty to landowners and ensuring that all evidence of historic rights—given the extra assistance that we have promised—should be made available within that time scale.
            My hon. Friend asked about resources. We estimate that part II will cost local authorities a maximum of £19 million a year. The Department will cover that cost. The main element of local authority funding will be provided probably in 2002-03 to coincide with the implementation of most of the provisions in part II and in line with the so-called new burdens arrangements.
            However, in recognition of the time limit on completing the historic record of rights of way, we are not waiting until 2002. Some £750,000 of the £3.5 million allocated to areas of outstanding natural beauty—access to which is to be channelled through the Countryside Agency next year—is to assist non-governmental organisations to research rights of way. Those are considerable sums. Local authorities are unlikely to face a significant increase in applications for such work during the next financial year. However, an extra £400,000 for recording rights of way has been included in the local authority settlement for England that was announced yesterday. As we have committed extra resources, I hope that my hon. Friend will be assured that we are implementing the provisions.
            Mr. Bennett: I was trying to find out how far the allocation of the extra resources will take into account the needs of particular areas. Some areas might be in greater need of assistance, because of the poor state of their definitive maps, than areas that have almost completed their definitive maps.
            Mr. Meacher: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. It is common sense that not all local authorities will need an equal allocation of resources. We need to take account of the areas where more resources are needed because much more work needs to be done. I could mention one or two local authorities for which that is the case. I assure him that the allocation will take account of the requirements of research and archival work, according to our best knowledge.
            Lords amendment agreed to.
            Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 70 agreed to.

          Clause 54

            APPLICATION FOR PATH CREATION ORDER FOR PURPOSES OF PART I
            Lords amendment: No. 71, in page 33, line 38, leave out from ("any") to end of line 39 and insert
            ("local highway authority whose area includes land over which the proposed footpath or bridleway would be created.")
            Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
            Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 72, 190 to 211, 213 and 215 to 233.
            Mr. Mullin: The group of amendments deals with provisions relating to the creation, extinguishment and

            887
            diversion of rights of way. At the risk of arousing the suspicions of Opposition Members, I have to say that the amendments are for the most part technical, or for the correction of minor errors. I have several pages of explanation, which I am happy to read to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), but if he is satisfied and will accept my word about the technical nature of the amendments, I shall desist. Otherwise, the time threat will hang over the debate.
            8.30 pm
            Mr. Green: The Minister's invitation is irresistible, but I will relieve him of any question in his mind that I do not believe him when he says that the amendments are technical. 1 am, however, puzzled by one of the technicalities. Amendment No. 72 is:
            in clause 55, page 34, leave out line 27.
            We are talking about stopping up and diversion. Line 27 as it currently exists in the Bill says that
            `highway' includes part of a highway.
            On the surface, that seems a sensible provision as, clearly, one would not necessarily wish to stop up or to divert an entire highway. One can easily envisage circumstances in which it would be useful to divert part of a highway. I am therefore puzzled as to why the Government have chosen to leave out the provision.
            I thought that rescue might be arriving for the Minister. Sadly, it is not, so I shall keep questioning why the amendment should have been tabled. As I say, on the surface, it seems to make life too inflexible for the implementation of that part of the legislation. I should be grateful if the Minister would reply on that amendment.
            Mr. Mullin: It may be that help will not arrive in time. In the event that it does not, I shall undertake to provide the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) with a written explanation of his query. If that is not acceptable, I will be happy to read out the three pages I have in front of me. [interruption.] Here comes some help. The provision is replaced in a new interpretation clause at the end of part II. I hope that that makes as much sense to the hon. Gentleman as it makes to me.
            Lords amendment agreed to.
            Lords amendment No. 72 agreed to.

          Clause 56

            RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS
            Lords amendment: No. 73, in page 34, line 43, leave out ("which local rights of way provide") and insert
            ("provided by local rights of way (and in particular by those within paragraph (a) of the definition in subsection (5))")
            Mr. Mullin: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
            Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 74 to 79 and 100.
            Mr. Mullin: This group of Lords amendments relates to the rights of way improvement plans which the Bill requires local highway authorities to prepare and to
            888
            publish. Lords amendment No. 73 places additional emphasis on the recreational opportunities provided by footpaths, cycle tracks, bridleways and restricted byways in the context of local authorities' assessment of the opportunities for open-air recreation provided by local rights of way.
            Lords amendment No. 74 provides that, when local highway authorities are assessing the opportunities provided by local rights of way for open-air recreation, particular emphasis should be given to exercise. Lords amendments Nos. 75 and 76 bring cycle tracks, other than those which form part of, or run alongside, a made-up carriageway, within the ambit of rights of way improvement plans.
            Lords amendment No. 78 requires local highway authorities, when preparing their rights of way improvement plans, to consult the local access forums whose establishment is proposed under Lords amendment No. 127.
            Lords amendment No. 100 relates to clause 64, which currently requires local authorities to have regard to the needs of people with mobility problems when authorising the erection of stiles, gates and other stockproof barriers on footpaths and bridleways under section 147 of the Highways Act 1980. Section 147 is concerned solely with approvals for the erection of new structures. Lords amendment No. 100 enables the authorities which at present have the power to authorise new stockproof structures to enter into agreements with owners or occupiers to alter or to replace existing structures to make them safer or more convenient for people with mobility problems.
            Mr. David Heath: I welcome the gist of the amendments, especially the last one, whose genesis lies in discussions we had in Committee about ways to improve access to rights of way for people with mobility problems.
            How does the Minister construe the amendment that makes a distinction between exercise and other forms of open-air recreation? How does adding the words
            exercise and other forms of
            assist our understanding of the purpose of the improvement plans? If it means that the plans will make a significant effort to improve the network of bridleways for recreational riding and available rights of way for carriage driving, so allowing cycling and riding to co-exist, I wholeheartedly welcome it. However, if there is another meaning, I ask the Minister to tell the House what it is, so that we can arrive at a view.
            Mr. Mullin: As I said, Lords amendment No. 74 provides that when local highway authorities are assessing the opportunities provided by local rights of way for open-air recreation, particular emphasis should be given to exercise. I think that that means exactly what it says—healthy outdoor activity.
            Mr. Heath: Is the Minister saying that open-air recreation can be something other than exercise for the purposes of using a right of way, or can exercise be something other than open-air recreation? Perhaps the distinction should not detain the House at this time of night, but I merely want to understand the meaning of the amendment, and interpretation has so far been lacking.
            Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I think we will have to follow the matter up later. He is pursuing me down all sorts of alleyways where I am not currently equipped to travel. May I get back to him at an appropriate moment?
            Mr. Heath indicated assent.
            Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman generously accepts. I am grateful.
            Lords amendment agreed to.
            Lords amendments Nos. 74 to 79 agreed to.

          Clause 59

            ENFORCEMENT OF DUTY TO PREVENT OBSTRUCTION
            Lords amendment: No. 80, in page 37, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
            ("(a) it is or forms part of—

            (i) a building (whether temporary or permanent) or works for the construction of a building, or

            (ii) any other structure (including a tent, caravan, vehicle or other temporary or movable structure) which is designed, adapted or used for human habitation,")

            Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
            Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 81 to 98, 101, and 234 to 236.
            Mr. Meacher: Because of the time, I shall speak only briefly, and to the more important amendments.
            Lords amendments Nos. 80 to 95 relate to clause 59, which enables a person to trigger action by a local highway authority to remove obstructions from rights of way, if necessary by seeking an order from the magistrates court. Buildings or structures are excluded from clause 59. Lords amendments Nos. 80 and 92 make clear which buildings or structures are excluded and remove the rather extraordinary possibility that someone might block a right of way with an empty vehicle, not designed as a dwelling, and argue that it could conceivably be lived in and was therefore exempt from the provisions. I am sure that the whole House is delighted to learn that that is now preventable.
            Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 91 and 93 to 95 give a person who is responsible for the obstruction, including its owner, a right to give evidence to the court on those matters on which it must be satisfied before it can make an order. The aim is to ensure that the court is provided with as much relevant information as possible when deciding whether to make an order. The Lords amendments also give the person responsible for the obstruction a right to appeal to the Crown court against a decision of the magistrates court. Of course, the complainant and the highway authority already have such a right.
            I shall briefly deal with Lords amendment No. 234, as it relates to the Grimsell lane case, which was of interest in Committee. Lords amendment No. 234 relates to section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which is amended by schedule 7 to the Bill. Among other things, schedule 7 extends to restricted byways the current
            890
            offence of driving a motor vehicle without lawful authority on a footpath or bridleway. For the purposes of prosecutions under section 34, a new subsection (2) creates a presumption that a way shown on a definitive map as a footpath, bridleway, or restricted byway is to be treated as such a way unless a defendant produces evidence to the contrary.
            Lords amendment No. 234 also raises the evidential burden from a prima facie one to one of the balance of probabilities, which is the same level as that required to secure a modification to the definitive map. That is the highest evidential burden placed on a defendant in criminal proceedings.
            The effect of Lords amendment No. 236 is to make it an offence, in certain circumstances, to drive on a way shown as a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway, regardless of whether it carries full public vehicular rights of way. It inserts a new section 34A into the Road Traffic Act 1988 requiring a defendant, in addition to proving the existence of full vehicular rights of way, to show that it was reasonably necessary to drive the vehicle to gain access to land in which he has an interest or on which he is a visitor but not a trespasser, or that it was reasonably necessary for him to drive the vehicle for the purposes of any business, trade or profession.
            The amendments deal with a vexed issue that has concerned both the courts and the Committee, and I hope that the issue is now satisfactorily addressed.
            Mr. Green: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the amendments and for mentioning our lengthy debates on the Grimsell lane case. This is an opportune moment to pay tribute to one of the groups that has provided so much information for our debates, GLEAM—the green lanes environmental action movement—which is quite rightly concerned with the preservation of green lanes. I declare an interest as a GLEAM member.
            The measures that the Minister has described sound adequate. However, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that GLEAM itself has said that, although progress was made in the Bill's early stages, it was not at all convinced that sufficient progress had been made in protecting green lanes from inappropriate vehicular use. We shall have to see how the legislation pans out in practice. Although I am aware that the Minister has, as he just said, strengthened many of the provisions, I suspect that, at this stage, we can only hope that enough has been done and that we will not have to revisit the issue in future legislation.
            The Minister also said that the legislation does not permit someone to park an empty vehicle across a right of way and thereby claim that there is a building obstructing the way. One wonders what would happen if someone parked a caravan in such a location and lived in it very occasionally. Would that constitute a building under the legislation? Could the legislation be obstructed by that particular ruse?
            Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has asked a very interesting question, to which I am not sure of the answer. I should have thought that, because a caravan is mobile, that would not constitute entitlement to exemption from the provisions. However, although that is my opinion of

            891
            what would make common sense, the law is never quite the same as common sense. If I am incorrect in that opinion, I shall let the hon. Gentleman know by letter.
            Lords amendment agreed to.
            Lords amendments Nos. 81 to 98 agreed to.

          Before Clause 64
          Lords amendment: No. 99, to 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 no such regulations shall be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
          8.45 pm
          Sir George Young: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendments (a) to (c) and consequential amendment (d), and Lords amendment No. 132.
          Sir George Young: I support Lords amendment No. 99, but I believe that the legislative landscape would also be enhanced by the planting of amendments (a) and (c). When we debated this matter on 14 June, I described the plight of my constituents in Newtown common, who suddenly found that the common had changed hands and that the new owner was seeking to charge them between 6 and 10 per cent. of the value of their homes—tens of thousands of pounds—for the privilege of driving a few yards from the main road to their front doors across common land, which they had been crossing for nothing from time immemorial.
          Both Government and Opposition Members spoke in favour of the amendments that I had tabled, because the problem goes far wider than Newtown common. People who had done all the necessary searches when they bought their homes were confronted with unexpected, and in my view unjustified, bills. At the end of that debate, the Minister was clearly moved by what he had heard. He used language even stronger than the language that I had used. He spoke without restraint, and the words "outrageous", "spivvery" and "blackmail" crossed his lips—and, indeed, appeared in Hansard at column 975.
          The Minister then looked down at his script, prepared for him by his civil servants, and discovered to his dismay that he was briefed to resist the amendments that would have ended the outrage that he had condemned. He told us that none of the options was straightforward and said:
          If I could think of a solution to it now, I would offer it.—[Official Report, 14 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 978.]
          He then invited the people's party to vote for this indefensible feudal practice, which it did.
          Happily, the injustice has been put right in another place, thanks to my noble Friend the Earl of Selborne. The Labour party may find it odd that two old Etonians, one an hereditary baronet and the other an hereditary earl, have had to do battle with the Labour Government on behalf of those living in the old cottages off Newtown common, to defend them against its rapacious owner. Life is full of paradoxes.
          In fairness to the Minister, I must say that he has played a key part in finding a solution, for which I thank him. He patiently listened to a delegation that I brought to his office and he gave me encouragement at crucial stages.
          On 2 October, the Government began consultations on a solution that would have capped at 4 per cent. the charges that people had to pay to drive over common land. After the consultations ended—I commend the Newtown Residents Association for its representations—the Government made further welcome concessions, and on

          893
          3 November they proposed that post-1930 houses would attract a charge of 3 per cent. and pre-1930 houses 1 per cent. Those are welcome steps in the right direction.
          I tabled amendments (a) and (c) to tidy up two loose ends. I am no longer pressing the proposal to defer the payment of the charges until the property next changes hands, nor am I seeking further to lower the percentage, but I must press the Government on the date by which the regulations under Lords amendment No. 99 are to be introduced.
          Without the regulations there is no protection, and people will find it difficult to sell their houses until the problem is sorted out, because the purchasers will not want the uncertainty. Amendment (c) gives the Government six months in which to make the regulations. We must maintain the momentum and not let the issue run into the sand. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort on the crucial question of the timetable.
          Amendment (a) would require specific provision to be made for those living in pre-1906 houses. My noble Friend Lord Selborne made the case well in his speech last Thursday. In my view, those with pre-1906 houses will have acquired a prescriptive right to drive back and forth before 1926, when the law changed—but I am not a lawyer, and there may be some doubt about the matter.
          Ideally, those with the older houses should have their position made clear in the regulations by its being made explicit that nothing is payable. The clarity of everyone else's position, thanks to the Lords amendment, now contrasts with the lack of clarity about the pre-1906 houses.
          There is another matter that the Minister in another place said that he would consider sympathetically: the length of time that people have before they serve a notice on the common owner. Six months may be all right for the 1 per cent. and 3 per cent. people, but those who believe that they may have to pay nothing may need a little longer to resolve the uncertainty.
          If the Minister can say something helpful about the amendments, we may be able to move on and make progress with the remaining stages of the Bill.
          Mr. John Maples: I support the amendments. Yarningdale common, in the village of Claverdon in my constituency, is owned by the parish council. The Minister has been helpful with regard to the problem there, and I hope that it can be resolved by means of local government legislation, as he has suggested.
          I did not expect that a clause and draft regulations would be available by this time to deal with the difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) described, and I am grateful to the Minister on behalf of about 26 of my constituents. They are quite seriously affected and are being held to ransom by the parish council. Sums of up to £30,000 have been demanded from some of them, although some settlements have been lower.
          I have a few small questions about the draft regulations, about which I hope that there will be further consultation. What is the timing for the regulations? I do not see why we should have to wait six months for their introduction, given that they already exist in draft form. Amendment (b) would change the period to three months, and I hope that the Minister will say why that is not appropriate.
          894
          I am also worried about the requirement that applications be made within six months. That should be relaxed slightly, especially, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire noted, in the case of houses built before 1906. They belong to a different category. At least 25 of the 27-odd houses on Yarningdale common were built in the 1880s. They were sold by the then lord of the manor to their tenants in 1885 or 1886. It is difficult to see how the new owners could not have acquired a prescriptive right by the time that the Law of Property Act 1925 came into effect.
          Those people would have had nearly 40 years of adverse possession by the time the 1925 Act came into effect, but that is, of course, impossible to prove now. Many of the properties have been through four, five, six or more owners since then. Those changes of ownership limit the potential for gathering the necessary evidence, and a person would have to be more than 100 years old to be able to give first-hand evidence.
          Although it is almost impossible for the people involved to prove that they acquired the prescriptive right of way, it is also almost impossible to argue that they did not. For that reason, I believe that a special category should be drawn up to cover pre-1906 houses. It is difficult to imagine that their owners should have to pay anything in relation to the value of the property. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps they should pay some administrative fee instead. They should certainly be expected to cover legal expenses, and perhaps to pay something to the landlord for his time and trouble. Basically, however, those people should be able to get their title confirmed and acquire a rectifying deed for nothing.
          My final point has to do with a reference in the draft regulations to land where the number and use of buildings and land served by the access is materially unchanged. Most of the properties around Yarningdale common are well over 100 years old, and change has probably taken place there—for example, a barn may have been converted into a house in a place where previously there was only one dwelling.
          In many cases, too, houses may have been rebuilt. Although a house may have one access to a piece of land, there might originally have been a cottage built in the early 19th century that was knocked down and rebuilt. The same provisions should apply in those circumstances, because in the context of the Law of Property Act 1925, the time for which the right of access has been used will depend on when the original house was built, not on when it was rebuilt.
          I hope that the Minister can deal with those points. I hope, too, that the regulations can be brought into effect as soon as possible, and that we can consult on them in advance. That will probably represent our only opportunity to deal with the problems that have arisen, so we must ensure that the regulations cover all eventualities.
          I end by thanking the Minister again for his extremely constructive and open approach to the matter.
          Mr. David Heath: I echo what has been said by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). This is a welcome move on the part of the Government to deal with a long-standing problem. A great deal of effort has been put into finding

          895
          an appropriate solution. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman both talked about the early introduction of the regulations, and I support their view that an early introduction is to be desired.
          I am also concerned about the tiered structure of compensation, which will be a matter for further discussion when the regulations are introduced. There is an argument that 3 per cent. for a post-war house—although modest in comparison with what might otherwise have been levied—may still represent a substantial amount for a householder to find. Perhaps 2 per cent. might be more appropriate. However, now is not the time to debate that in detail. Now is the time to welcome what the Government have done, and to support the inclusion of the provision in the Bill.
          Mr. David Prior: I, too, thank the Under-Secretary of State for what he has done to bring about the amendment. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for all the work that he has put into this matter. The regulations are not ideal and give the Minister enormous discretion, allowing him to make different provision for different circumstances. However, given the complexity of the status of common land and vehicular access over it, that is perhaps not surprising.
          I do not understand the difference between the 1 per cent. compensation for properties built before 1930 and the 3 per cent. for properties built thereafter. Three per cent. is still a big figure; it is a windfall to the owner of the access and a liability that the property owners had no idea they had. Could that 3 per cent. be reduced—perhaps to 2 per cent.? Also, could part of the consideration we are talking about be set aside to help pay for the upkeep of access roads across common land?
          Reference has been made to when the regulations will come in, and it is extremely important that they come in as soon as possible. A number of my constituents in West Runton are considering selling their properties, while other people are considering buying and taking out a mortgage. They all find that their transactions are effectively frozen for the time being.
          We have discussed the definition of property. The regulations do not address that problem, although it was addressed in another place. It is important that it is made explicit that "property" includes agricultural land, market gardens and other similar properties. We have heard today about deferring payment, and I hope that it will be deferred until the property is sold. It is often only at that point that the owner has ready cash to make the payment. There has also been talk of making payments by instalment. Given that in some cases payment will be being made for the first time for hundreds of years, I do not see why the owner of the access way cannot wait until the property is sold.
          Finally, it would be helpful for the Minister to confirm that those who had access to property prior to 1906 acquired a prescriptive right thereby. When we are looking at records that go back through the mists of time—perhaps over 200 years—it is important to know exactly where access paths of right went; often these would be cart tracks to farms. It may not be easy to
          896
          establish where the prescriptive right exists, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that there is such a right.
          Mr. Dominic Grieve: I, too, welcome the fact that the Minister has taken on board, appreciated and acted on the representations made when this matter was last debated. Lords amendment No. 99, to be inserted before clause 64, goes a long way to meeting all the points that I raised on the previous occasion.
          9 pm
          I should simply like to endorse two important points. The first is about properties built before 1906. I do not believe, and I do not believe that the Minister believes, that people should get something for nothing, yet that is what will happen if some percentage is levied to grant the easement. It should be able to be granted simply on payment of the legal fees. Under the Law of Property Act 1925 and its associated legislation, Parliament, quite intentionally, deprived people of an existing right. It is for us to put that wrong right today.
          I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that for properties built before 1906, no charge will be levied. That would be justice in a situation that has been riddled with gross injustice. Some landlords, particularly in Gerrards Cross in my constituency, have effectively sought to blackmail the owners of properties, many of which predate 1906.
          Secondly, may I urge speed on the Minister? This problem has caused a lot of real hardship. Some of the people who occupy such properties are not wealthy. They may have a capital asset, but that does not mean that they have ready cash. Some cannot sell their property because of the difficulties of obtaining the easement. I very much hope that it will not be long before the legislation is introduced and the regulations made.
          I repeat my thanks to the Minister for having listened to and acted on the representations that many right hon. and hon. Members have made on this matter.
          Mr. Richard Page: I echo the words of my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in thanking the Minister for listening to our pleas and for coming forward with this solution.
          I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). He is the general in this campaign and has argued the case with great dexterity. I am but a mere spear carrier who has supported his army in this debate. I know that my constituents who had lived in sweet innocence in Chorleywood common for a number of years until this bombshell burst on them are grateful for the reduction that has been obtained.
          My parish council is also grateful for what has happened. Its members found themselves in the difficult position of having to charge inflated and increased prices, to the detriment of people in Chorleywood common. I know that they are glad that a much more reasonable figure can be charged. A number of people feel that even the figures involved now are too high. Nevertheless, compared with what the percentage was, and what it could have been, they are much better.

          897
          On my right hon. Friend's amendment (c), which I support, I put it to the Government—again in the sweet innocence that characterises my approach to life—that if they are prepared to offer three months for consideration of a change in the air traffic control regulations and rules, the proposed period of six months is positively generous. I am sure that the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment.
          Mr. Eric Forth: I, too, join my hon. Friends in thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for the work that he has done in this matter and for bringing us to this stage. In doing so, I support his amendment (c) which would provide for a six-month period. That is not only more realistic but would probably give the optimum opportunity for proper consultation. Frankly, it would be better to give right hon. and hon. Members and those with a legitimate interest the opportunity for further discussions with the Minister and his Department to ensure that we get this matter right than to rush at it. I thus prefer a six-month time scale to one of three months.
          I am slightly—in fact, more than slightly—worried about the percentages that have been bandied about. Is a uniform percentage appropriate, given the enormous variation in property values up and down the country? It might not be untypical for a property in Chislehurst in my constituency to be worth —400,000 or —500,000. If one applies a 3 per cent. rate to such a property value, people in their later years, who are on fixed incomes, have already made proper provision for their retirement and thought that they could look forward to a comfortable if modest existence, could suddenly find themselves facing rather unexpected hardship. Most people looking at the setting and the houses involved might find that rather difficult to believe, but such circumstances have been brought about by means completely outside the owners' control. Not just the percentage rate but the very variable effect of its application across the country requires careful consideration.
          I join others who believe that the Government have been prepared to look sympathetically at the issue. The Minister has played his part. I hope that, having reached this stage, we can make progress and find a resolution that, as far as possible in such circumstances, balances all interests involved.
          Mr. Green: I add my thanks to those of others, both to the Minister for the way in which the Government have shown a degree of flexibility, and particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who has indeed marshalled his troops with skill and aplomb, as one would expect.
          There is still a point at issue about the appropriate period before the Government implement the regulations. As has been said, the draft regulations are now out for consultation. So, on the surface, a three-month period seems preferable to a six-month period. If, however, the Minister gave some cogent reasons why a six-month period would be preferable, we would of course listen to him.
          The underlying point that must be made is that some end must be included in the provision. Clearly, the many people who are affected by the matter will want to know how long the uncertainty will last. As has been said, many
          898
          of them will be elderly people. Therefore, such uncertainty stretching for months and years will cause them particular distress.
          To some extent, the issue of whether the period lasts for three or six months is secondary, but the matter of urgency is clearly a first-order issue. Since the Government have so far acted so constructively, under the influence of the persuasive arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I urge them to take that final step to reassure people about when the new rules will be implemented.
          Mr. Mullin: It gives me particular pleasure to agree with the Lords amendments and to respond to Opposition amendments. From the moment the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) raised the subject with me, I was alive to the iniquity of the situation. As he will recall, I attempted, by meeting those involved in his constituency case, to reach a solution to the problem as it then stood. I am particularly pleased that it has now proved possible, as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's assiduous and skilful campaigning, to amend the law to ensure that the circumstances with which his constituent and others were faced cannot be repeated. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the way he has conducted his campaign.
          The purpose of Lords amendment No. 99 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 the right to do so. I think that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that we are not talking only about cases such as the one in Newtown, in which someone was in business to make a lot of money as quickly as possible. That is not the only circumstance. Local authorities and the National Trust also manage commons, and they have some rights that must be considered. Therefore, we have tried to arrive at a solution that is fair to everyone. In other cases, the sort of problem that arose in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency has never arisen.
          The solution that we are considering—this is why it is not possible entirely to write off the charge—has to take into account the interests of those commons that have been properly managed and about which there is no particular complaint. The Lords amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that will contain the details of the scheme. The main elements of the scheme will include establishing that the access way has been used in such a manner and for such a time that the prescriptive right of access through long use would have been acquired, a limit on the amount of compensation that the property owner has to pay the landowner, and comprehensive dispute resolution procedures.
          I am glad to say that there is welcome agreement on both sides of the House about the need to provide such protection, although there is some dispute about the details. We shall return to the details in subsequent debates on the regulations, so this is not the final say on the matter. There is still scope to affect the drafting of the regulations. They have yet to be drafted, and they will require consultation with all the affected parties. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, it will be necessary to draft the regulations carefully. We want to get the matter right, and once we have done so, I hope it will no longer be a source of grievance for the constituents of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and others.

          899
          Lords amendment No. 132 clarifies the definition of "town or village green" contained in the Commons Registration Act 1965 and provides for regulations to be made that will clarify when the applications for registration have to be made. I repeat that the Government will consult widely on the content of the regulations.
          I shall try to respond to some of the points raised. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that 3 per cent. was too high. That is something that we can consider when the regulations are drafted, but we are trying to reach a fair balance between the parties and take into account the interests of those commons where there is no dispute and the National Trust or local authority has a perfectly acceptable relationship with the people who live around the common. The upkeep of access roads was also mentioned. We can certainly consider that as part of the regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure so that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter in more detail.
          The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) mentioned the definition of a property. The Bill uses the word "premises", which relates to buildings, land, and land and buildings. The possibility of deferring payments can also be considered in drafting the regulations. As for older houses, for which the right has existed for longer, property owners have to provide evidence of prescriptive rights. I appreciate that it is difficult and that we are talking about houses that may be 100 or more years old. I am advised that to change the situation would be at odds with the laws on prescription and would put a small number of property owners in a very advantageous position. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire will wish to return to that point, but I hope that I have said enough to show that there is plenty of time to get the matter right and deal with each of the issues that hon. Members have raised.
          On the question of timing, as I said, we shall have to consult first. The regulations do not exist yet; this is new territory. I share the desire expressed by all hon. Members that they should be dealt with as speedily as possible, and I can give an assurance that we shall do so. In view of their kind remarks about my approach to the problem, I hope they will accept that that assurance can be taken seriously.
          9.15 pm
          Sir George Young: Is it possible for the Minister to say that by the end of June 2001, for example, he expects the regulations to have been made? Is that a target with which he could identify himself?
          Mr. Mullin: I do not want to get trapped into giving any specific target date, but I would be extremely disappointed if we had not sorted out the matter by then. On the basis of those sentiments, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 100 to 103 agreed to [Some with Special Entry].

          Before Clause 66
          Lords amendment: No. 104, to insert the following new clause—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.")

          Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
          This is one of those happy occasions when there is a concurrence of views among all parties on the subject of biodiversity. The Lords amendment responds to the concerns expressed in the Standing Committee of this

          901
          House and repeated in the Lords and by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in the interim report on its investigation into UK biodiversity. There was very strong support for statutory underpinning for the conservation of biodiversity outside designated sites.
          The Government are committed to the conservation of biological diversity wherever it occurs. We tabled Lords amendment No. 104 to give new duties to Government Departments and the National Assembly for Wales to have regard to the purpose of biodiversity conservation, in accordance with the convention on biological diversity.
          The Lords amendment also requires the Secretary of State and the Assembly to maintain lists of living organisms and habitat types of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity, and to take steps, and promote others to take steps, to further their conservation. The amendment provides a comprehensive and effective statutory basis for the current partnership approach to the biodiversity action plan, while allowing flexibility for the future. It also encourages the integration of biodiversity conservation into policy across the Government, which is a central element of the convention's provisions.
          I thank all those who have been involved in discussion of the issue. I believe that the resolution will be satisfactory to all parties.
          Mr. Green: I concur with the Minister that, through all the stages of the Bill, many of us on the Conservative Benches and on other Benches have demanded statutory backing for biodiversity action plans to be part of the Bill.
          As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have argued all along that there are good and bad parts in the Bill, and that its main use will be in improving the protection of wildlife in Britain. That is why we were so much in favour of this measure, and we are delighted that the new clause will appear in the Bill.
          Pursuing the line of thought that there are good and bad parts in the Bill, I am sure that the irony will not be lost on the Minister and his colleagues on the Labour Benches that all the good parts were introduced or significantly enhanced in another place. If the Bill had only gone through another place and never touched this House, it would be the ideal wildlife protection Bill.
          However, we have what we have before us, and it would be churlish not to welcome the parts in which the Government have taken steps forward, as we requested. I expect that the clause will make a substantial long-term beneficial difference to the preservation and enhancement of wildlife of all kinds in this country, so we welcome it.
          Mr. David Heath: I suspect that it is slightly spurious logic to suggest that amendments introducing improvements to the Bill have come about entirely because of what happened at the other end of the building, rather than because of a delayed reaction to arguments advanced in Committee and in the Chamber. However, I welcome what the Government have done in this instance. It is an extremely significant move on their part. The argument was advanced in Committee that there should be statutory underpinning of a biodiversity action plan.
          902
          The Government have gone further than that by enshrining the convention on biological diversity in law. That is to be welcomed. It will give a tremendous boost to conservation outside protected sites. It will encourage species recovery programmes and habitat restoration schemes. Congratulations go to the Government on doing what was essential if the Bill was to meet its conservation objectives.
          Mr. Llwyd: I add my congratulations to the Government on this important part of the Bill; it was the subject of considerable debate in Committee. I differ from what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said. I am not sure that those in another place were able to get things entirely right. There were some pretty good and persuasive arguments advanced by Opposition Members in Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman might have been jocular; I too am not without a sense of humour.
          It is patently obvious that there is a need for what has been done. In Wales, for example, there are 222 species and habitat action plan areas that are relevant. In other words, there are 222 species and habitats in Wales that are currently endangered. The Countryside Council for Wales is the leading body in the UK on biodiversity, and its contribution is important. I am not sure to whom I am pleading, but that body, like other similar bodies, says that it is extremely underfunded. At present, it is able to work on only 120 of the 222 action plans. Knowing the Minister's sincerity and his interest in these matters, I am sure that I have made the point sufficiently clearly.
          I am extremely pleased that the Government have seen fit to introduce proper statutory underpinning. I pay tribute to some of the bodies that lobbied during our earlier consideration of the Bill, particularly the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which was persuasive in its support and the definite need that it saw for the underpinning of the biodiversity action plan. I am pleased that the Government agree with the amendment, having agreed with the other place.
          Clause 74 goes slightly further than the RSPB agenda in that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, it enshrines the convention on biological diversity which was signed at the Rio summit in 1992. It is a substantial breakthrough for the conservation of wildlife outside protected sites. It must be a much needed boost to the implementation of species recovery programmes.
          Mr. Forth: I have been in this business long enough to know that one is entitled to a modest degree of suspicion when there is unanimity and mutual self-congratulation, especially among politicians. The present situation is a good example of that. I am made even more suspicious when I see that everything started with something that glories in the name of the United Nations environmental programme convention on biological diversity of 1992.
          I can imagine that a well-meaning group of politicians probably got together in an exotic location, and in a spirit of mutual self-congratulation signed up to something that they thought was rather wonderful. They probably trumpeted what had happened on their return, as

          903
          politicians are wont to do, and then left others to pick up the pieces and pay the bills. I want to pursue that theme for a few moments.
          Mr. Green: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that one of the leading politicians who negotiated the treaty in the exotic location of Rio was our right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
          Mr. Forth: That makes me even more suspicious. Anything that could have persuaded my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to go as far as he did must have been pretty significant. No wonder my right hon. Friend is not here—which is unusual for him. He would probably be ashamed to account for the result, which I shall now examine in some detail.
          It is all very well for well-meaning politicians, including my right hon. Friend, to go off and then return in triumph waving a piece of paper and saying, "Biological diversity in our time." However, the reality of that becomes plain years later when we look in detail at what is required to give effect to the well-meaning aspirations of the politicians who gathered on the occasion in question. In a different context, we have just seen our beloved Deputy Prime Minister try to pick up the pieces of another great moment in international environmental history. To use his own term, he returned "gutted" from an unfortunate disagreement with someone with whom he was supposed to be enjoying an ever closer union. We had better not go into that too closely, but Members will know what I mean.
          We are now looking at the detailed provisions that will bring the aspirational convention of 1992 into effect. The reality is that Lords amendment No. 104 starts to put the details of the convention in place, and we hope that it will give effect to its aspirations. According to the amendment, Ministers of the Crown, Departments, and the National Assembly for Wales will,
          so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of
          their functions, be obliged to conserve
          biological diversity in accordance with the Convention.
          What happened to Northern Ireland? I could ask what happened to Scotland, but I assume that I would be told that the Scottish Parliament will have to give effect to the convention in its own way. I take that as read, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister comment. I can, however, see how the National Assembly for Wales, which has a rather different relationship with the House and the United Kingdom statutes, fits in with the provision. However, there remains in my mind a question about whether Northern Ireland is not mentioned in the amendment by omission. Do we not care about biological diversity in Northern Ireland? I would have thought that we did. I hope that there is not a lacuna in the amendment, and that that matter has not been overlooked or forgotten. Will the Minister reassure me that Northern Ireland is properly catered for and that biological diversity is safe there?
          904
          Subsection (2) of the new clause deals with the publication of lists of living organisms and types of habitat which
          in the opinion of the Secretary of State and the Assembly…are of principal importance for the purpose
          of giving effect to the convention. We now start to get into the nitty-gritty of the mechanisms whereby effect will be given to the convention's aspirations. To the casual observer, it may appear that it is fairly straightforward to produce a list. Indeed, that is easily achieved. However, have any estimates been made of the scale of the lists and the number that will be required? In principle, that should be easy to estimate. Ministers, Departments and the National Assembly for Wales will be involved, so it should be easy to put a figure on how much is involved in the production of lists of living organisms and types of habitat, the very obligation laid upon them by the amendment.
          Subsection (3) of the new clause might impose greater costs. Not only are the lists to be produced, but there is a duty
          to promote the taking by others of…such steps as appear to the authority to be reasonably practicable to further the conservation.
          That provision could take us into some interesting territory. The new clause deals not only with the production of the list, but also the promotion effort. Such provision could have extensive organisational, staffing and cost implications, to say nothing of the steps that other bodies would be obliged to take in response to action taken by the listing authority. Another element of cost has appeared, to which an estimate should be attached at this stage.
          The new clause goes on to deal with consultation, having already provided for listing and promotion. [Interruption.] The Minister finds that amusing. He would. To him the expenditure of taxpayers' money is nothing—a mere bagatelle. If he thought it appropriate, the words "biological diversity" would be sufficient to spark an orgy of public spending. But a simple question remains. The Minister is the custodian of taxpayers' money as well as an enthusiast for biological diversity.
          9.30 pm
          Mr. Llwyd: Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that it is worth while to spend taxpayers' money to preserve endangered species?
          Mr. Forth: I cannot make a judgment until I know how much money is involved. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for making that point more clearly than I seem to have done. However wonderful biological diversity may be, and however anxious we are about endangered species, it is legitimate for hon. Members—indeed, it is our duty—to take an interest in what is involved in achieving the aims set out by the convention, for which the hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, a keen enthusiast. I do not accept that it is legitimate for Members of Parliament, who are responsible in different ways for the raising of public money through taxation and then its expenditure, to exercise that responsibility without knowing anything of the cost involved.

          905
          The new clause imposes on the public bodies duties to create the lists and to persuade others to take appropriate measures. A consultation process, to which reference has been made, is also to occur. In addition, however, subsection (5) of the new clause states:
          Each listing authority shall, in consultation with the appropriate conservation body—
          (a) keep under review any list published by the authority
          Furthermore, authorities must keep those lists under review and continue to revise them.
          Those are serious requirements, and I have no doubt that the Minister wants them to be fulfilled responsibly, thoroughly and comprehensively, to ensure that the convention's aims can be properly fulfilled. Thus it is surely reasonable for us to ask what cost is involved. Does the Minister believe that the provisions can be properly and easily effected within existing organisational structures and with existing staff, or that extra expenditure will be necessary? If it is necessary, roughly how much will be needed? It is not right to expect hon. Members to sign up to the provisions blindly and regardless of cost.
          I remind hon. Members of what has occurred in the past few days, during which the Government, in the person not only of the Deputy Prime Minister but of the Minister for the Environment, were present in The Hague. They went there following an international beano a few years ago in which everybody cuddled up to each other and expressed warm thoughts about what they wanted to do, but the wheels came off when it came to detailed implementation. The detail caused the difficulties, not the grandiose pronouncements, lavish meetings or mutual self-congratulation to which Ministers are prone. It is such detail that we are considering under amendment No. 104.
          My query is whether we, and the Minister, are satisfied that he knows enough about the costs of the staffing and organisational implications of Lords amendment No. 104 to believe that they will be carried out, and whether all the authorities involved have the means and the ability to manage them in a way that will give effect to the convention's aspirations.
          Those are the questions that arise in this context. I do not believe that I am making an unreasonable request. Any responsible Government, and any responsible Minister, would already have made all that clear, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet chosen to share the information with us, although I hope that he is about to do so. Unless we know the costs, we are unable to make a proper judgment—I am trying to answer the spirit of the question that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked me a moment ago—about how far we can go, with regard to public expenditure and commitment, to meet the convention's objectives.
          That is a very simple point, and I am sure that the Minister will give me a straightforward and, I hope, comprehensive answer; after which we can move on.
          Mr. Meacher: In the almost certainly mistaken belief that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is searching for real information and elucidation, I shall answer his questions. First, the Bill will apply not to Northern Ireland and Scotland, but only to England and Wales. Secondly, on the question of cost,
          906
          the measure will put on a statutory basis what happens already, and will not lead to any increased public expenditure.
          Lords amendment agreed to.

        Clause 66

          SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
          Lords amendment: No. 105, in page 41, line 38, at end insert—
          ("() A notification under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (notification to local planning authorities of areas of special scientific interest) which by virtue of section 28(13) of the 1981 Act as originally enacted had effect as if given under section 28(1)(a) of that Act, shall cease to have effect.")
          Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 107, 111 to 113, 133 to 135 and 238 to 268.
          Mr. Meacher: These Lords amendments relate to clauses 66 to 70 in part III and to schedules 8 to 10, which together will deliver better protection for sites of special scientific interest.
          The Government used the opportunity presented by the discussion in the other place to introduce amendments to enable new powers to be used within the large number of sites—there are some 5,000 in England and Wales—that have already been notified. The conservation agencies are required to prepare a statement of views about the management of the land and to bring existing SSSIs into line with the new notification procedures. Also, when a notice of intent was served in the past, but no consent was given, and no management agreement has been made, the agency has a new power to serve a stop notice, against which there is, of course, a right of appeal.
          The Government also introduced provisions ensuring that full information about SSSIs may be passed on when an interest in SSSIs changes hands. We also sought and received agreement to a number of other minor and technical Lords amendments, which will ensure that the provisions for improving the procedures for notifying, protecting and managing SSSIs, which have been generally welcomed, are proportionate and workable.
          We also considered arguments about the effect of the provisions on public bodies and introduced Lords amendments responding to those concerns and clarifying procedures, particularly for the restoration of an SSSI following activities by public bodies. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). Once again, we have listened to the argument and responded.
          Mr. Paice: I want to discuss not Lords amendment No. 105 but Lords amendments Nos. 240 and 241—the Minister will concur that there is much similarity between them. The proposed clause heading in Lords amendment No. 240 is "Notification of additional land"; that for Lords amendment No. 241 is "Enlargement of SSSI". The wording of the amendments is very similar. I am puzzled about the nature of the difference between the two—not

          907
          the textual difference, but the difference in impact. One would add land to an SSSI, while the other would enlarge the SSSI. Those strike me as amounting to one and the same thing.
          Can the Minister tell us whether, in the case of Lords amendment No. 240, the additional area will be described as part of the SSSI? If so, why is that not the same as enlargement, as specified in Lords amendment No. 241? Will he also confirm that the new area will itself be of special scientific interest—that it will not just be a question of enlarging the existing SSSI, perhaps to protect it? There seems to be considerable doubt about whether the extra land described in Lords amendment No. 240 is itself of any special interest, or whether it will simply enhance the existing site.
          Lords amendment No. 256 seems rather draconian. It obliges the owner of land that is included in an SSSI to notify the Nature Conservancy Council—or rather, given the point that we have reached in the Bill, English Nature—if he disposes of any interest in the land, or
          becomes aware that it is occupied by an additional or a different occupier.
          We must ask, what is an occupier? Does the amendment refer to land that is legally
          occupied by an additional or a different occupier?
          If the occupier lets part of the property to a fanner or a sporting syndicate, the owner will presumably know about it, and will be in a position to notify English Nature. But what if it is illegally occupied? Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have experienced the problems of illegal occupation of land by itinerants. Does that count as occupation? Must the owner notify English Nature in that event?
          Moreover, subsection (4) appears to criminalise the offence of not telling English Nature that an SSSI has been sold. That strikes me as incredibly draconian. I accept that we are talking about level 1 on the scale of fines, but we are nevertheless talking about a conviction. Surely making someone who simply neglects or omits or, indeed, forgets to tell English Nature that he has sold his land liable for a criminal conviction is incredibly heavy-handed. I hope that the Minister can tell us a little more.
          New section 28R would empower English Nature to make byelaws
          for the protection of a site of special scientific interest.
          The National Farmers Union contacted me today. Although it supports the amendments in principle, it is very concerned about the issue of byelaws. Its briefing states:
          In practice bylaws have not proven to be an effective means of controlling damage, not least because rural police forces are already over-stretched.
          We have heard enough about the subject today to know the strength of that statement. The NFU went on to say:
          In this context what provision would be made to enforce these byelaws?
          We believe that byelaws should not be developed unless consultation and the approval of relevant owners and occupiers is first obtained. In the absence of alternative enforcement agents, owners and occupiers are likely to be the only persons able to enforce byelaws.
          908
          9.45 pm
          Many SSSIs are in relatively remote areas, and the landowner or one of his employees is most likely to come across damage or someone breaking the byelaws. How will the prosecution process proceed? Will we expect landowners and their staff to be responsible for enforcing byelaws made by English Nature? The gist of the NFU's concern is that it does not believe that byelaws will protect a site, however well meaning the intention behind them.
          Of all the groups of amendments that we have discussed, this group gives me the least joy to support. Some of the amendments are good, but amendments Nos. 240 and 241 appear to duplicate each other, and three aspects of amendment No. 256 give rise to serious concerns. I am inclined to think that it is massively draconian to suggest that someone should be convicted of a crime simply for not writing a letter, which is the gist of paragraph (4) of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay my concerns or at the very least explain the difference between amendments Nos. 240 and 241.
          Mr. Llwyd: I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about amendment No. 256. It is inappropriate to bring the panoply of criminal law to bear in this case. There is another way to deal with the problem. The SSSI designation is registerable under the Land Charges Act 1972, and if it is registered for local government searches there is no need to place an onus on the landowner to notify a change. That is a more fail-safe procedure and it is straightforward and easy to implement.
          Apart from that misgiving, I welcome most of the amendments. Extra protection for SSSIs is important throughout the United Kingdom. It is of special significance in Wales where 11 out of 16 SSSIs are managed for sporting purposes. We have a diverse and significant range of land that is eligible for SSSI status. It reflects the dedication of land managers, the shooting fraternity, falconers and others beyond the pressures and constraints of the agricultural economy.
          Various bodies lobbied on this matter when the Bill was in the other place, and I am pleased that some progress has been made. The Countryside Alliance welcomes in particular the Government's inclusion of an amendment to exempt persons being charged for the offence of recklessly or intentionally damaging an SSSI if they have planning permission or are part of an emergency operation and the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Council for Wales have been notified as soon as possible. That sensible amendment will allow greater flexibility for land management practices. It also demonstrates an understanding that conservation aims have to be realistic and take account of local livelihood needs.
          I also welcome the amendment that excludes a person from imprisonment if an offence was committed in the course of, or was incidental to, the carrying out of a lawful activity. That, too, is sensible and provides a safeguard for land managers who are going about their day-to-day activities. I utterly share the misgivings about amendment No. 256 detailed by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I suggest respectfully to the Minister the

          909
          course of action to which I have pointed, which may be preferable without placing an undue onus on any landowner.
          Mr. Forth: The group of amendments illustrates probably better than most others the difficulties in which we find ourselves due to the Government's arrogant attitude towards the legislative process and the House itself. I reckon that there are 12 pages of text in amendments Nos. 238 to 268 alone—the group of amendments within the main group—which we are being asked effectively to nod through the House at this late stage. The Government are saying to us arbitrarily that they will limit the time available for considering the amendments to 10 o'clock. There is no reason for that, but that is what the Government have said. We find ourselves with only 10 minutes to go and amendments Nos. 238 to 268 take up 12 pages of text.
          I shall not attempt to wade through all those amendments because I cannot, but I want to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) have said about amendment No. 256. Before I do so, I pause for a moment on amendment No. 240. It refers to the Nature Conservancy Council and its powers of notification. It says that it must notify the local planning authority, every owner and occupier of the "extra land" and the Secretary of State.
          There is provision—the Minister touched on it in his brief remarks—for an appeal mechanism, but that is not good enough. For a bureaucracy or quango such as the Nature Conservancy Council, or any other, to have the power conferred by statute—in this case, by an amendment—simply to say, "It is all right; there is an appeal mechanism" is not good enough. The onus is then always on the hapless owner and occupier, presumably at his own expense, to seek to defend his interests, where necessary, against the depredations of the quango. It does not matter that the quango may sound warm and good and no doubt wants to do excellent work. It is still a bureaucracy and it is given extensive powers within statute—through an amendment—that must be watched closely.
          The Secretary of State can look after himself. He has unlimited taxpayers' money and unlimited officials to look after him and teams of junior Ministers to support him. The local planning authority can more than ably look after itself, too. It also has taxpayers' money, officials and endless resources with which to do battle with the bureaucracy. Who is the odd person out? Surprise, surprise, it is the owner and occupier, who may be sitting on what is called extra land. He may be subject to some ghastly bureaucratic notification, feel aggrieved, seek to exercise his right to appeal, and then find that he must reach deeply into his own pocket to do so. For the Minister to say, "Do not worry, chaps; there is an appeal mechanism," is not necessarily the whole story. I hope that he might already be feeling a bit guilty about that, although it does not look as if he does.
          When I come to amendment No. 256, I think that guilt would be a modest term to apply to what I hope the Minister will feel. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire drew the House's attention to the fact that there is a new set of powers—it seems that the Nature Conservancy Council is again the relevant body—where the owner of the land
          becomes aware that his land
          910
          is occupied by an additional or a different occupier. I imagine that if the area of land is relatively small, the matter will appear fairly straightforward, although, as my hon. Friend pointed out, some of the additional or different occupiers may not be there with the consent of the owner of the land. I wonder whether that gives rise to a different or new set of circumstances.
          I suppose that it is also quite likely, if the land is a reasonably extensive holding, that someone could occupy part of it without being noticed by the owner for some time. It would therefore be fairly easy for the owner to fall foul of the provisions in proposed new section 28N(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which sets out a 28-day time limit, and then fall even further foul of proposed new subsection (4), which states:
          A person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the requirements of this section is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
          That appears to me to be an extremely tough sanction facing a number of innocent people who, in certain circumstances not of their own making, and in some difficulty, may not be able to comply with the requirements of the new section. It appears straightforward enough and, no doubt, it is drafted with the best of intentions, but one can easily envisage circumstances in which individuals would find themselves severely disadvantaged by the provisions.
          A heading that is found much later in the 12 pages of text—it appears at the beginning of Lords amendment No. 268, which proposes an entirely new schedule to the 1981 Act—is "After Schedule 9" and the following amendment runs to several pages. I do not have time to detain the House with a detailed examination of the amendment, which tells its own story—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Labour Members appear to find this amusing, but it is their Government who are denying the House of Commons, of which they are Members, the opportunity properly to examine pages and pages of detailed statutory requirements which have come to us from another place and which are not going to be properly examined. I have the opportunity only to flag up to the Minister for the Environment, who I hope will answer the debate properly, the provisions set out in paragraphs 19(1) and (2) of the new schedule under the heading "Compensation and grants". Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the provisions will be adequate for the purpose? Given the imbalance between the powers available to the bureaucracy and those available to individual landowners, matters such as compensation and grants become of the greatest importance.
          That is even more important in connection with a provision that is almost hidden away at the end of the pages and pages of detail: our old friend "Powers of entry". Is the Minister satisfied that that provision is necessary to fulfil the objectives of this part of the Bill and that proper protection is given to individual citizens against powers of entry? Those are important questions, but we do not have the time needed to deal with them properly. I must conclude now, because of the artificial time limits that have been placed on our consideration of the Bill.
          Mr. Meacher: The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked some detailed questions about Lords amendments Nos. 240, 241 and 256. I shall try to answer in the time available to me.

          911
          Lords amendment No. 240 relates to minor changes to the boundaries of existing SSSIs which involve no change to the list of damaging operations for the SSSI. Owners of land proposed to be added to an SSSI may object under new subsection (4) and English Nature is obliged to consider the objection. In that case, owners of the pre-existing part of the SSSI are unaffected and so have no right to object.
          By contrast, Lords amendment No. 241 relates to significant enlargements to an SSSI. In such cases, the whole area of the SSSI—that is, both the pre-existing part and the proposed addition—must together form an area that meets SSSI criteria. English Nature is likely to want to change the list of damaging operations in such cases, so all owners of both the pre-existing part and the additional land will be affected, therefore the whole procedure for making an SSSI and considering objections applies. It was English Nature which asked for the provisions, and it is happy with them.
          On amendment No. 256—if I have a minute, but I shall have to cut short my remarks—I want to reassure the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, and confirm that, by virtue of section 20 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, there are limits on the operation of byelaws—
          It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [27 November].
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          MR. SPEAKER then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.
          Lords amendments Nos. 106 to 281 agreed to.

        Transport Bill
        Commons reasons for insisting on disagreeing to certain Lords amendments and Government amendments in lieu, considered.
        10.1 pm
        The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement to Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
        Mr. Prescott: I do not know where my opposite number, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) is for this debate—perhaps one statement was enough for him today. One might have expected him to attend the debates on either the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill or the Transport Bill—presumably he has responsibility for both—but we shall have to make do with his second in command—[Interruption.] Yes, perhaps he is away—tired, exhausted and unable to deal with the details of this Bill.
        When the Transport Bill first returned to the House, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning gave a full and clear explanation of the Government's reasons for opposing the Lords amendments. I shall not repeat those reasons at length, but I should briefly remind the House of them, particularly as the debate will last only approximately one hour.
        First, we do not agree that the public-private partnership needs to be deferred until after the next general election. We made our policy clear before, during and after the previous general election campaign, in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we had to bring together in partnership the public sector and the private sector to give us the infrastructure that we need in the transport system.
        A month before the general election, in April, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that we would consider National Air Traffic Services for a public-private partnership. We were faced with a situation in which the outgoing Government had already calculated the receipts from a full privatisation of NATS and taken them into account in the subsequent two years' spending plans. All Labour Members fought on that policy at the general election.
        Since the general election, we have consulted at great length on the PPP proposal and listened carefully to the replies. All the issues have been debated at length, not least during passage of the Bill in this House and in another place, and in the Select Committees. We remain convinced that the public-private partnership is the right solution for NATS. Indeed, the Bill itself is a better Bill for the discussions, and the changes that they brought about.
        Mr. Tam Dalyell: If my right hon. Friend remains so convinced, why has he been unable to convince the British Air Line Pilots Association?
        Mr. Prescott: I think that the only threat to safety comes from the constant visits that my hon. Friend makes to the pilots' cabin during the flight.
        Secondly, delays would be damaging—
        Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?
        Mr. Prescott: No; I have to get—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I am not giving way.
        Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?
        Mr. Prescott: Secondly—
        Hon. Members: Give way.
        Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not intend to give way. [Interruption.]
        Mr. Prescott: I do not have to, either.
        Mr. Speaker: That is the Minister's right.
        Mr. Prescott: Delay would be damaging to NATS, to the airlines, to passengers and to this country. There is an urgent need for substantial investment in NATS. We need the two centres, at Swanwick and at Prestwick, and we need them on time. There is also an urgent need for the injection of new project management skills. Everyone who knows about the industry agrees that we need to separate service provision from regulation, and especially safety regulation, as indeed the Transport Sub-Committee recommended—and we adopted its recommendation. I shall now give way to its Chairman.
        Mrs. Dunwoody: I am astonishingly honoured. I am overwhelmed—and I am not even French.
        Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have not chosen to visit any flight decks but that I happen to know that BALPA gave serious evidence to our Committee to the effect that it is strongly convinced that the PPP is not in the interests of air safety? I hope that he will now answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
        Mr. Prescott: I have visited flight decks and found pilots with different views, but also ones with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The British Air Line Pilots Association has made it clear that it does not support the proposal. That is a matter of record, both in the Sub-Committee and in the House. BALPA took the same view when British Airways was privatised, but I do not think that it now believes that safety is threatened in a privatised airline. If I am to take account of the vested interests, I must consider how the pilots changed their mind once it became a privatised company.
        Perhaps most important, there is an urgent need for certainty. Further delay at this stage would be unfair and damaging to the future of air traffic control.
        There is also a constitutional issue. The other House is a revising Chamber and has been very helpful on the Bill, on such matters, for example, as charging utilities
        914
        companies for street works, concessionary fares for disabled people, and the concept of home zones; but this is the elected House that reflects the will of the people. The Government are an elected Government. The other House should not continue to oppose the declared will of this House, as it is trying to do.
        This debate is not only about NATS but about whether the other House can lay down a timetable and conditions concerning legislation passed by this House. I am accountable to this House, as are the whole Government, and if we argue the case and have a proposal endorsed in this House with a strong majority, and if it then keeps coming back from the Lords, who say that they do not oppose the Bill but want to put a timetable on it and lay down the political condition that it should be written into a manifesto, that is a ridiculous position. Are we really saying that the House of Lords should lay down conditions saying what should go into political parties' manifestos? That is a constitutional issue.
        A combination of Tory and Liberal Democrat Lords have challenged this House. We listened to their views and disagreed with them, but they continue to oppose the will of this House. Our vote tonight will make it clear that we do not accept the proposition that they should lay down timetables or conditions about legislation that this House has passed.
        Mr. Graham Brady: Is it the Deputy Prime Minister's view that, on a free vote, he could carry the business tonight? He talks about the elected will of the House. Will he put the matter to a free vote?
        Mr. Prescott: Yes, I believe that we could win such a vote. I think that everyone understands that Governments arrive at their decisions based on the policies that they have agreed, then bring them to the House and have a vote on them. That is precisely what we have done on several occasions both here and in the House of Lords. On some occasions, we have won a substantial majority of the votes. On this issue, we were defeated in the Lords by a majority of only seven. That is not an overwhelming or substantial vote in any circumstances.
        It is quite instructive to look at who is supporting the Lords amendments. There are some strange bedfellows. We have noble Lords who want to keep NATS in public ownership, a Conservative party that wants total privatisation of the whole thing, and Liberal Democrats who want something in between—surprise, surprise—but not the PPP.
        Opponents of the public-private partnership are much given to playing the safety card. Of course safety is the first priority, and we say so in the Bill. It is simply not true that the private sector is unsafe, and in that regard I have given the example of British Airways. Airlines are strongly in favour of the public-private partnership. Would they support it if they thought that it was unsafe? I do not think that we can honestly say that they would, and a view was expressed about the matter in today's letter to The Times from the chairmen of three major aviation companies.
        The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) told the House on 15 November that he had 100 per cent. faith in the safety regime of NATS. The Conservative peer Baroness O'Cathain said last night that playing the safety card was irresponsible and scaremongering.

        915
        I fear that the spectre of the not-for-profit trust will reappear this evening. That issue was dealt with at some length on Report. In that debate, I explained why it was not the right solution for NATS. This House did not support the proposal for a not-for-profit trust, which was also defeated in another place.
        The Government still do not support that proposal. Let me be clear: we are not proposing to reopen the nature of the public-private partnership. I am pleased that distinguished members of the Conservative party see the merit in what we propose. Baroness Hogg said in the other place last night that the involvement of a private enterprise in state activities is a plus, and that the public-private partnerships were a manifestation of that involvement. At least she had a clear view—quite different from hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench in this House.
        We recognise that a message underlies the Lords amendments. We have listened to that message, and we have listened to what has been said, in both Chambers, throughout the Bill's passage. We have made a number of adjustments—on safety, pensions and the two-centre strategy. We are proposing to make a further change tonight, but we have held to the public-private partnership because we believe it to be the right solution for NATS.
        The amendments that stand in my name are an expression of good intent. We want to make it clear that, if the Bill passes through the House this week, we shall not rush out and select a strategic partner for NATS next week. The amendments are an undertaking that we will take time to conduct the process properly, and that we will work on the detail involved.
        We have continued to talk to the staff representatives to address ourselves to their worries. We will offer staff the opportunity to meet potential strategic partners. We will further discuss the circumstances of the 5 per cent. employee share scheme, and we will ensure that both the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are well organised for their new roles before they are separated.
        Mr. John Redwood: If the Deputy Prime Minister discovers that he cannot satisfy the staff representatives, or many of his own Back-Bench colleagues, will he delay or give up the scheme? Does he realise that it is deeply unpopular with many Labour Members and with most of the staff?
        Mr. Prescott: This House has expressed its view on this matter quite clearly. The issue is now not about the purpose of the Bill or about the public-private partnership but about whether the Lords—which is a revising Chamber—is prepared to delay the Bill. As I said before, it is constitutionally unacceptable that it should try to set a timetable for Government legislation and make the condition that any legislation be proposed in a party manifesto.
        In this House, we determine opinion through proper debate and a vote. The votes that the Government have won show that we have achieved agreement on this matter in this House.
        Mr. Alex Salmond: Last night, Lord Macdonald described the proposed three-month
        916
        delay as a concession. However, the Deputy Prime Minister has said only that the Government will make sure that NATS is ready for a public-private partnership, which I presume would have been the case anyway. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment is a concession? if so, what is the concession?
        Mr. Prescott: That is understandable, but the House of Lords has returned the Bill with the PPP. In those circumstances, there are matters that representatives and individuals may wish to discuss; for example, the 5 per cent. employee share scheme, in which some trade unions took the view they did not want to be involved. That is an offer to individual employees; perhaps the unions did not feel that they could enter into discussions while there was such controversy as to whether or not we would have a PPP for NATS. I can understand that, and anyone who has been involved in industrial or political matters will know that it is possible that those concerned could want further discussions. The amendments allow us the opportunity to provide three more months to discuss these matters, as well as to ensure that both the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are well organised for their new roles before they are separated.
        These are real issues which we have discussed, and we are prepared, in the circumstances, to give further time to discuss the matter. That is right and proper in view of the history of and opposition to the Bill, and that is what we are offering with the amendments.
        The amendments are our promise to the House. I believe that it is right to proceed with care, but I do not believe that it is right for a revising Chamber to delay the PPP until the election, or to reopen the whole question of the nature of the PPP at this stage. Reference has been made in the other place to political shenanigans. Political responsibility, on the other hand, is to decide the right future for NATS, its safe operation, its regulation and its investment, taking the time and trouble to prepare for the future and then making it happen. The Lords amendments are misguided, while the Government's amendments are a reasonable response to any genuine concern.
        Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to the debate; we missed him last time. Frankly, our previous discussion was marred by his absence. The Minister for Housing and Planning did his very best, but that is not the same as having the Secretary of State present, as he has been party to the discussions.
        We have come rather a long way since our last debate. It is all very well for the Deputy Prime Minister to bluster and fluster about constitutional outrage, but he seems to have conceded the morality of the case by tabling an amendment that accepts the legitimacy of the other place's claim to second-guess the decisions of this House. It was, after all, the Leader of the House of Lords who said that a reformed House was a more legitimate House. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State is now making gestures in the direction of recognising the reality of the weakness of his case. The upper House has already scored a moral victory.
        Why are the Government in this mess over the Bill? It is because their entire legislative programme is in one hell of a mess. They have fallen behind on the timetable of every single Bill, so that not only are they trying to cram consideration of all the Lords amendments on all these

        917
        Bills into this last week, but this last week itself is a week or two behind time. The Government have run out of time and they have had to take the issue right to the wire.
        The Government are also in a mess because they have no mandate for this most controversial policy. A former Labour party chairman, Baroness Jeger, pointed out:
        Moreover, we had balloons stating, "Our air is not for sale."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1216.]
        That underlines how deeply misleading Labour has been over this policy. It is therefore entirely legitimate not only for the House of Lords to retire gracefully on things that were in the Government's manifesto, but for it to take a stand against things that before the general election the governing party expressly denied would happen. It is utterly ridiculous for the Government to go into overdrive and claim that they might lose the entire Transport Bill, or have to remove whole chunks of it, or invoke the Parliament Act—as though there were time for that. All that has been bluster, to blind the public to the fact that they are having to climb down.
        10.15 pm
        Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Jenkin: I can never resist the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, too kind, too willing and always available. As an expert in bluster, will he answer a factual question? Were the Bill to be passed and were his party to win power again, would he renationalise the national air traffic control system?
        Mr. Jenkin: I can tell the hon. Gentleman one thing: our policy on National Air Traffic Services will be in our manifesto, whereas the Labour party's policy was not in the Labour manifesto. Our policy at the previous election was to transfer NATS to a British company with British shareholders, regulating British-controlled air space.
        Why are the Government unable to deliver the assurances that they keep making? Can the Minister guarantee that in future the Secretary of State will be able to exercise powers under the golden share? A press release issued by the European Commission shows that it is taking the Government to court over the golden share in British airports because it is now believed that golden shares are illegal under European Union law. How can the hon. Gentleman give any assurance that any of the emergency powers will be exercisable under the legislation?
        Why, in this curious botched privatisation, is the economic regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority asking for cuts in capital investment as a preparation for privatisation? After all, the Government keep saying that the purpose is to increase capital investment rather than to cut it.
        Why do the Government insist that they will hold 49 per cent. of the shares, when the key clause in the Bill shows that they could reduce their shareholding to 25 per cent. or less? How many times have we put that point to the Minister, and how many times has he failed to give proper assurances? As we have said before, this is not a straightforward privatisation, but a deal made behind closed doors—a cronies' deal made in smoke-filled rooms.
        918
        Crucially, after three and a half years of fiddling around with transport policy and this Bill, what is the reason for this sudden desperate rush, when we can be only a few months away from a general election? The sudden urgency simply does not ring true. It has more to do with the Government's political credibility than with the strength of their case.
        The Government have now brought forward a compromise amendment, which is a vindication of the stand taken by the upper House. What does a three-month delay actually mean? Is this a compromise amendment or not? The Secretary of State should tell us. Will it make any difference to what the Government would have done anyway? I think not. The Secretary of State says that this will allow future discussion. Future discussion for whom?
        Mr. Prescott: Not you.
        Mr. Jenkin: Precisely. The right hon. Gentleman makes the case for me. There will be no future discussion in public—no future discussion with the voters of this country. There will be no chance for the voters to decide whether they support this policy.
        We are simply not convinced by the Secretary of State's presentation this evening. He knows in his bones that he has been forced to bring this privatisation to Parliament by the Treasury, against his better judgment. It is a botched privatisation.
        Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend remind us who, at the Labour party conference, gave the commitment that the air was not for sale? Was it not the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury? He is not in his place now, but did he not give a commitment to the Labour party that the Government would not do this?
        Mr. Jenkin: The ironies are even greater. As the Deputy Prime Minister explained, it was the Chancellor who mumbled behind his hand in the middle of a pre-election crisis that privatisation had not been ruled out. The Treasury has driven this deal, against the better judgment of the Secretary of State, who has become a poodle of the Treasury in the matter.
        Mr. Prescott: Moi?
        Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman's French might provoke me to a flounce, so I suggest that he control himself.
        We will continue to oppose this botched privatisation. We will put our policy on National Air Traffic Services into our manifesto. We will be honest with the British people—unlike this Government.
        Dr. Gavin Strang: We on the Government Benches have listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister's comments on behalf of the Government. We may choose to describe the proposal as a public-private partnership or a partial privatisation, but the Bill provides for a sell-off to the private sector of the bulk of the equity of National Air Traffic Services, and provides explicitly for the national stakeholding to fall to 25 per cent. Indeed, in Committee, it was pointed out that, in exceptional circumstances following that, there

        919
        could be complete private flotation if there were a disagreement between the private strategic partner and the Government.
        We, as Members of the House of Commons, are making law. We have listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I will comment on some of his remarks. We are deciding what will happen to our air traffic control system. The best way in which to oppose the privatisation of our air traffic control system is to vote against the Labour Government tonight.
        Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
        Mr. Raynsford: That did not sound very convincing.
        Dr. Strang: The Minister should ponder.
        The Deputy Prime Minister is, first, seeking to reverse the decision of the House of Lords and, secondly, moving amendments in lieu of the Lords amendments. There are questions about what the amendments mean. I have no doubt that the meetings to which my right hon. Friend referred will be entered into with good intent—that is not in dispute—but that does not affect the decision that we are being asked to take as law makers. That is the issue; that is why we must oppose, first, the proposition to reverse the decision of the House of Lords and, secondly, the proposal for a three-month period. Is it a review? I am not certain. It is therefore clear that if we wish to resist the partial privatisation of our air traffic control system, we must oppose the Government in both Divisions.
        I understand the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but the position established in the other place enables the Government to walk away from this privatisation with dignity. We know that there are excellent policies in the Transport Bill, which must be saved. So I appeal to the Government—this is not a constitutional outrage; I do not think that anybody would now argue that—to accept the will of the House of Lords and to think again.
        Mr. Michael Moore: This is the third time in a month that this issue has been debated in the House, and the positions are pretty well dug in. The Government's latest move has not changed much, fails to address the issues and so is unlikely to shift opinion, certainly on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
        We remain fundamentally opposed to attempts to privatise National Air Traffic Services, as we have been throughout the passage of the Bill. We acknowledge that there is a demand for investment in NATS, and recognise the need to split safety regulation from safety operation, but we do not believe that either of those requires privatisation.
        10.30 pm
        The Government's central proposition tonight is a three-month delay in implementation of the PPP. That is surely a new and interesting negotiating ploy: "The Opposition ask for six months, we will offer three." The Government are splitting the difference. We have to hope that the current discussions with the private sector
        920
        partners are a little more sophisticated. We also have to recognise that there is a false premise here. The Opposition seek a delay until after the election, to give the Labour party the opportunity to argue its case to the electorate—something that it has not had to do thus far. The Government's offer is just a cynical manoeuvre.
        According to news reports of ministerial comments earlier this evening, the three months
        is designed to give the Government time to explain more fully
        their plans. Contrast that statement, Mr. Speaker, with the statement by Lord Macdonald in another place last night. He said that there was
        a public consultation on our White Paper after we had announced the proposal for the partial sale of NATS in June 1998. A Statement was made following that consultation and there has been a Select Committee inquiry. Therefore, there has been ample time for public scrutiny of the policy and of its detail.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1209.]
        Of course, he neglected to mention the fact that the Select Committee roundly condemned the proposals.
        The three-month compromise is nothing of the kind. It is spin and nothing more. We previously supported a delay until after the election. It is not ideal, for all the reasons that we have set out before, as we would prefer an independent publicly owned corporation or a trust, but it would give us an opportunity to have a proper debate in the country as a whole.
        Lord Macdonald also made mention last night of the fact that before the general election, the Prime Minister said in his message to the nation in the 1997 party manifesto:
        We will search out at every turn new ways and new ideas to tackle the new issues…how to put the public and private sector together in partnership to give us the infrastructure and transport system we need.
        I would be fascinated to know how many people on the Labour Benches thought that that would mean the privatisation of NATS.
        Opinion poll after opinion poll supports the air traffic controllers' and pilots' position of outright opposition to this manoeuvre. If the Government are so confident of their case, why not put it to the test? Instead, we hear threats that investment will be delayed. In particular, the new Scottish centre at Prestwick is in danger.
        Let us think of the broader context. How many times have we been told that the Government will spend £180 billion on transport in the next 10 years? Even though it is a wish-list figure, dependent on the private sector, it is an amount that we are supposed to take seriously. Against that figure, the investment in NATS of just over £1 billion in a similar 10-year time frame is a small drop in the ocean. Add the unprecedented health of the public finances that the Chancellor is keen to shout about, and it is no wonder that the public are cynical about the "no investment" threat. The public sector could certainly find the funds, and we believe that it could underwrite this project.
        Throughout this process, the Government's approach has depressed everyone who has had to listen to it. Amid all the threats, the complaints of constitutional outrage and the compromises that are not compromises, the Government have made no attempt to tackle the increasing number of question marks over the details of the PPP. There is the new regulatory regime, which NATS itself has said that it could neither accept nor implement,

        921
        and which the management attack as inappropriate. Separately, there is the lack of additional safety inspectors for the Civil Aviation Authority, and the absence of any request for additional resources to cope with the privatised air traffic control.
        How about the conflicts of interest? Lockheed Martin seeks to become the paymaster so that on the Scottish project, and through the privatised NATS, it can claim the money that it has lost at Swanwick and elsewhere.
        The public distrust the Government on this subject. Perhaps some of the issues will be addressed in the three months that have been offered to explore the arguments, but the Government have shown no willingness to tackle the major issues in the past, so why should we expect a change now? The three-month compromise is worthless, and the House should reject it.
        Mrs. Dunwoody: On the whole, Governments are made up of ordinary human beings who make mistakes. If they are sufficiently adult and sufficiently experienced, they know that they should not stick with their mistakes, and realise that in seeking to persuade the electorate, they do better when they not only say, "We have made a mistake," but admit it to themselves.
        The partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services is a mistake. Air traffic control is a core service for aviation. It cannot easily make a profit. Putting more and more planes into the sky is not an option. Those who seek to buy the assets all have a particular vested interest.
        All the agreed bidders have some conflict of interest. Their motive is not that they consider that the scheme will make NATS a much safer or a much better invested or a much higher quality service. They know that it is a high quality service. They know that it could easily raise money on the open market. What they want to do is to protect their own sectional interest.
        The national air traffic controllers have spoken not just for themselves, but for the electorate. The electorate do not want partial privatisation. At present, when there is such chaos in transport, people do not want such a development. They know that it will not work and that it will cause enormous difficulty. All the details that have been rehearsed time and again have never been refuted by the Government or by anyone else acting as an apologist.
        I believe that my Government should have the courage, the integrity and, above all, the commitment to say, "This is the moment when we are prepared to abandon this ill-fated and very badly thought out scheme. We need to protect the rest of our Transport Bill, but this one bit should be rethought." If, for any reason—I cannot think of any—the Government really believe that they should bring it back, let them put it in their manifesto and let the ordinary electorate decide.
        At this moment, let us accept that this ill-fated scheme will not benefit those who work in the industry, those who use the industry, those who care about the industry, or any of us as elected Members. It is not too late. Please let us abandon the scheme now.
        Miss Anne McIntosh: It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I shall speak briefly on two points.
        Is the Deputy Prime Minister telling the House that whether a political party has a mandate from the people is irrelevant? If that is the case, what purpose is served by
        922
        an election manifesto? How can the electorate conceive of the Government introducing such a measure, unless that policy was exposed in their election manifesto? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us about the poll tax."] The Deputy Prime Minister said that this was a constitutional issue. I believe that the House of Lords has taken a principled stand.
        The Deputy Prime Minister said that safety was an issue, but of a lesser order than in the rail industry. Will he explain to the House how it is that his Government have reached a state of near hysteria after two rail disasters? Following privatisation of the rail sector, there was a lower incidence of rail accidents, whereas more people and freight were using the railways. Why do the Government adopt one view on safety on the railways and another view on air safety? I urge the House to support the Lords amendments.
        Mr. MacShane: I genuinely did not understand the intervention of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who seemed to say that she was in favour of privatisation because it led to greater use of a service.
        We have a fairly simple set of questions to answer tonight. They are about principle of what form of ownership there should be for an important service, and the problem of air traffic control, which is growing daily. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I am not here exclusively to plead the cause of the employees of the national air traffic control system. I have to plead the cause of my constituents, who are the consumers and users of it. Then we have the politics of whether it is the House that decides, or whether the genetically modified hereditary peers of another place should pop up and decide to frustrate the will of the House.
        Let us start with the principle of ownership. We must find the right form of ownership that delivers a service that is appropriate to the public and the national interest, and also delivers the safety and efficiency that we all desire.
        Mr. Jenkin: To ascertain whether there is any consistency in the hon. Gentleman's position, may I ask why it is not thought necessary to privatise the tube to bring in private contractors, but it is thought necessary to privatise NATS to bring in a private contractor?
        Mr. MacShane: I leave the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench to speak on that issue at another time.
        Central to the debate is the nature of the ownership that is proposed. It is an attractive idea that the employees of National Air Traffic Services should have a stake in the equity, and that they should be direct partners in the ownership of the issue.
        Mr. Gordon Prentice: They do not want it.
        Mr. MacShane: It is true that their trade union says that they do not want it. However, when there has been a change in the ownership and control of any public service, including the national health service and the schools system, the employees—managers and workers—have

        923
        often been opposed to it. If we want—[Interruption.] This is a fundamental point about the direction that Britain takes. If we want—
        Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. MacShane: No; I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me. Other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman can make his points in due course.
        If we want balanced ownership in our society, we must give employees in more and more organisations a chance to take a stake in that ownership.
        The second problem is more fundamental, and that is the service that NATS is able to deliver in the context of a European air traffic control system that is becoming the most congested in the world. [Interruption.] The moment I mentioned Europe, Conservative Members groaned collectively. However, this is one issue on which they can align themselves with some Labour Members, because there is not a European element.
        I would like British air traffic controllers—I believe from personal experience that they are among the most professional and efficient controllers in the world—to play a direct role in the future development of air traffic control over Europe.
        Mr. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. MacShane: Again, I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me.
        We cannot run efficient air traffic control in the EU with 15 separate systems. In the wider Europe, we have Switzerland and Norway, for example, as well, and efficiency becomes even less possible. Based on our own experience of air traffic control, Britain should become a leading player in future air traffic control in Europe. I should like to see that, but it will not happen unless we move to a new form of ownership and a new means of securing the necessary investment. I ask all my friends in the unions, the air traffic control system and the British Air Line Pilots Association to consider that—Interruption.
        10.45 pm
        Mr. Speaker: Order. I expect the hon. Gentleman to get a hearing. Hon. Members may disagree with him, but he is entitled to a hearing.
        Mr. MacShane: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. Like you, I expect, Government Members spent part of their youth talking to the ignorant, the uneducated and the unwashed and brought them to socialism. Slowly, bit by bit, we shall bring the Opposition to a sensible perspective on this matter.
        I must part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) on one issue.
        Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. MacShane: How can I fail to give way to my hon. Friend?
        Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend advocating that, by means of this measure, we fight capitalism with its own tools?
        Mr. MacShane: I owe my hon. Friend affection and respect because he has made a better point than he could imagine. If one wants to know one's enemy and trip him up, one should use his techniques.
        However, we are discussing a different matter. I do not expect Conservative Members, who are manipulating their ex-hereditaries down the corridor, to worry about the political question, but I ask sensible Liberal Democrat Members to consider it. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said that there had been no discussion of the issue, but it was discussed in my constituency two years ago and has been on the agenda since then. Either Liberal Democrats allow themselves to be the poodles of the House of Lords, or they accept that the democratically elected Chamber, including Opposition Members, has the last word—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
        Mr. MacShane: I hope that the will of democratically elected Members of Parliament will be expressed tonight, not the will of those who are obsessed with under-age sex and blocking every other progressive measure. To vote with them is to vote with those who voted for every reactionary measure that has been returned to this House in the past two years.
        Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will forgive me if I do not consider myself to have been "brought to socialism" by his contribution.
        I shall make some brief points. The comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the three-month period were correct, and I shall take them a little further. Three months takes us to the end of February. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would prepare the way in that period and discuss things with lots of people. Then, presumably, he has to pilot a very controversial measure through to privatisation in March, April and perhaps even May. I do not believe he will be able to give his full attention to partially privatising air traffic control next March and April. Even with his gossamer touch, that is a particularly bad time to steer through such a controversial measure.
        I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister knows that he has lost the argument on legitimacy. The proposal did not appear in the Labour party manifesto. If the public remember anything about the subject, surely they remember the speech of the Labour party's transport spokesman at the 1996 party conference, or the views of a previous Labour Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who spoke earlier.
        The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) should remember a certain poll tax, which was imposed in Scotland, and the arguments that her colleagues marshalled to explain why the policy did not appear in the 1983 Conservative party manifesto. Their explanation was that although they had not specifically mentioned the poll tax, someone had said something about opposition to domestic rates. That bore an uncanny resemblance to the Deputy Prime Minister's explanation. He said, "Okay, it

        925
        wasn't in the manifesto, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in a speech that it might be candidate for partial privatisation." The Deputy Prime Minister knows that Labour voters did not believe that they were voting for partial privatisation at the last general election. I can prove that conclusively.
        I called the Labour party many things in the last general election campaign. I assure the Deputy Prime Minister that, if I had believed for a second that the Labour party would partially privatise air traffic control, I would have emphasised that strongly in the 1997 campaign. Whatever else I thought about the Labour party, I believed that even for new Labour, privatising National Air Traffic Services was a privatisation too far.
        It is significant that pilots, air traffic controllers and people with expertise in the system oppose partial privatisation. It is also significant that during the by-election for the Scottish Parliament in the constituency of Ayr, which includes the town of Prestwick, no candidate wanted to punt that policy. That includes the Labour party candidate, who wanted to remain as quiet as possible. Surely that was an electoral test, which showed that the policy will not gain ground with voters.
        After a lifetime in CND and arguing against nuclear weapons, Neil Kinnock changed his position at the precise moment when the Berlin wall was coming down, eastern Europe was collapsing and the argument for unilateralism had more credibility than ever. Public scepticism about privatisation of infrastructure and utilities is at its highest for 20 years. It is ironic that the Deputy Prime Minister will be remembered as the man who pursued privatisation even to the extent of praying in aid Tory peers at the precise moment when the public realised the weaknesses in the privatisation formula.
        Mr. Prescott: Let me make an immediate reference to the comments of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). It is well known in the House that I have advocated public-private partnerships for 10 to 15 years. I am sure that not everybody, including my hon. Friends, agreed with me. However, I held that view; it has not been forced upon me. I believe that that form of financing and organisation can contribute to a better public service. That is the argument that we are holding today. However, it is not the subject that is before the House for debate. The amendments deal with delaying the process for three months or until after the next general election. We can vote only on those amendments.
        The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) claimed that there was no mandate for the public-private partnership. He is right that it does not appear in the manifesto for the last general election. However, there is no doubt that references were made to it, for example in a statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then shadow Chancellor, made at the time.
        We made it clear that, to balance public finances correctly and reduce the debt, we would accept the two-year public expenditure programme of the then Government. Of course, there was great anxiety about that. It meant that we had to accept the previous Government's expenditure plans and it was argued that, if the receipts involved in balancing the accounts came from the sale of NATS, there would be a hole in Labour's finances. That was a matter for debate; that is shown in the press reports of the election campaign.
        926
        My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that he would be prepared to consider public-private partnership and the sale of some receipts to make up for the difference in the accounts. The alternative to that would have been to argue for higher taxation. That is the context in which the matter was approached and publicly debated. Frankly, everybody knew that, because they thought it was a difficulty for Labour. We had to argue the case, which is how the policy was born. As to whether it became party policy in the manifesto, may I develop this point?
        Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Prescott: In a second. We should look to the manifesto argument. As has been pointed out, the poll tax was never in the Tory manifesto, yet the Tories implemented it. The Tory manifesto did not refer to doubling VAT, but the Tories did that. All Governments, including Labour Governments, have introduced a number of measures that were not necessarily in the manifesto. That point has to be taken into account.
        Labour Members are accountable to our party and we have to convince the party of that policy. Let me quote from the policy document that was determined this year and confirmed by my party's conference, which therefore makes it party policy:
        The massive growth in flights places a growing burden on ageing Air Traffic Control equipment. To help improve safety, the Labour government intends to introduce a Public Private Partnership to bring in over £1 billion investment over the next 10 years.
        That proposal was passed by our policy forum and by the Labour party conference, so we are entitled to call it Labour party policy. That is one way in which we have given serious attention to these matters.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) made great play of saying that this is the last opportunity to deal with the public-private partnership that he has always, since being out of office, campaigned against. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] That is the case. As he knows, statements were made to the House that he was improving the PPP, but I have made that point before.
        The question whether the proposal is a PPP is not the issue before the House. We are discussing amendments, not legislating on whether to change the PPP. We are deciding whether to delay the decision for three months or wait until after the next election. It is quite wrong, and a constitutional outrage, for the Tories and Liberals in another place to say that we should have to face such conditions. Let us be clear about what the issue is.
        As for the Liberal spokesman saying that the debate should be about an independent publicly owned company or a trust, there have been debates in this place and another place. Each time, that idea has been defeated in the vote. I am entitled to say that that is what happens in a representative democracy. People argue their case, take the vote and live with the result. I claim, therefore, that the House and another place have rejected an IPOC and a trust solution. Those are the facts, and people should consider them.
        As for the argument about a £180 billion investment in our transport system, the Liberal spokesman rightly pointed out that that has a lot to do with PPPs—a

        927
        combination of public money that multiplies private capital to increase investment to a scale never seen before in transport, to deal with the massive disinvestment brought about by the previous Administration.
        Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Prescott: I do not have time.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made the point that Members of the House are ordinary people and, therefore, can make mistakes. I presume that the same logic applies to her Select Committee. I do not suppose that she is extraordinary; I presume that she is ordinary. She may have got it wrong. If the logic applies one way, it applies the other. I say to her that the current system has reduced investment and caused delay in its implementation. The administration is not adequate to meet the requirements of the public sector. The system needs to be changed, and the number of near misses has increased. It is necessary to get the technology to make those improvements.
        Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Prescott: No, I am not giving way. There is a shortage of air traffic controllers, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has referred from time to time. That was brought about by this old system, which we intend to change to make it safer.
        Mr. John McDonnell(Hayes and Harlington)rose—
        Hon. Members: Give way!
        Mr. Prescott: The hon. Member for Vale of York—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
        Mr. Prescott: I have always believed in and campaigned for—
        Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister says that he cannot give way because he has insufficient time to do so. Can he table a manuscript amendment to give us extra time to discuss this matter?
        Mr. Speaker: That is not possible.
        Mr. Prescott: Shortage of time has been a difficulty for me in the past 10 days.
        11 pm
        The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said that she had always wanted operations involved in the provision of services to be separate, but in the case of Railtrack she voted to keep the two elements together, and we are paying the price. In the context of aviation we are
        928
        separating them, as recommended by the Select Committee. That is right, it is a consistent policy, and it will make the system safer.
        The choice that the House must make tonight is not about the PPP, but about whether we should allow three months or act after the election. It is entirely wrong for an unelected House to force a condition on us involving action after the election, and to talk of a manifesto.
        Question put:—
        The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 217.

        Division No. 359]

        [11.1 pm

        AYES

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Ainger, Nick

        Clelland, David

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Clwyd, Ann

        Allen, Graham

        Coaker, Vernon

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Coleman, Iain

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Colman, Tony

        Ashton, Joe

        Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Cooper, Yvette

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Corbett, Robin

        Bailey, Adrian

        Corston, Jean

        Banks, Tony

        Cousins, Jim

        Barron, Kevin

        Cranston, Ross

        Battle, John

        Crausby, David

        Bayley, Hugh

        Cummings, John

        Beard, Nigel

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        (Copeland)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Darvill, Keith

        Benton, Joe

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Berry, Roger

        Dawson, Hilton

        Betts, Clive

        Denham, John

        Blackman, Liz

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Blizzard, Bob

        Doran, Frank

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Dowd, Jim

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Drew, David

        Borrow, David

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Edwards, Huw

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Ennis, Jeff

        Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        (Dunfermline E)

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

        Flint, Caroline

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Flynn, Paul

        Browne, Desmond

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Burden, Richard

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Foulkes, George

        Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

        Gapes, Mike

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Gardiner, Barry

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Cann, Jamie

        Godsiff, Roger

        Caplin, Ivor

        Goggins, Paul

        Casale, Roger

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Cawsey, Ian

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Grocott, Bruce

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Hanson, David

        929

        Healey, John

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Meale, Alan

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Merron, Gillian

        Hendrick, Mark

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Heppell, John

        Miller, Andrew

        Hesford, Stephen

        Moffatt, Laura

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Hill, Keith

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Hoey, Kate

        Morley, Elliot

        Hood, Jimmy

        Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        (B'ham Yardley)

        Hope, Phil

        Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

        Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

        (Aberavon)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Mullin, Chris

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Norris, Dan

        Hurst, Alan

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Hutton, John

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Illsley, Eric

        Olner, Bill

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        O'Neill, Martin

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Jenkins, Brian

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Pearson, Ian

        Johnson, Miss Melanie

        Pendry, Tom

        (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

        Plaskitt, James

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Pollard, Kerry

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Pond, Chris

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Pope, Greg

        Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Purchase, Ken

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

        Kemp, Fraser

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Radice, Rt Hon Giles

        Khabra, Piara S

        Rammell, Bil

        Kidney, David

        Rapson, Syd

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Raynsford, Nick

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Robertson, John

        Lammy, David

        (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Laxton, Bob

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Leslie, Christopher

        Rogers, Allan

        Levitt, Tom

        Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Rooney, Terry

        Linton, Martin

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Roy, Frank

        Lock, David

        Ruane, Chris

        Love, Andrew

        Ruddock, Joan

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        McCabe, Steve

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Macdonald, Calum

        Savidge, Malcolm

        McFall, John

        Sawford, Phil

        McIsaac, Shona

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Sheerman, Barry

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Short, Rt Hon Clare

        McNulty, Tony

        Singh, Marsha

        MacShane, Denis

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        McWalter, Tony

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

        Mallaber, Judy

        Smith, Miss Geraldine

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Martlew, Eric

        Snape, Peter

        Maxton, John

        Soley, Clive

        930

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Spellar, John

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Starke, Dr Phyllis

        Tynan, Bill

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Vaz, Keith

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Watts, David

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        White, Brian

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Stringer, Graham

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        (Dewsbury)

        Wilson, Brian

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Woolas, Phil

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Worthington, Tony

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Wray, James

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Timms, Stephen

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Wyatt, Derek

        Todd, Mark

        Touhig, Don

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Trickett, Jon

        Mrs. Anne McGuire and

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Mr. David Jamieson.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Allan, Richard

        Dalyell, Tam

        Amess, David

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Davidson, Ian

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Baker, Norman

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry

        Baldry, Tony

        (B'ham Hodge H)

        Ballard, Jackie

        Day, Stephen

        Bell, Martin (Tatton)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Bercow, John

        Dobbin, Jim

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Donaldson, Jeffrey

        Blunt, Crispin

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Boswell, Tim

        Duncan, Alan

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Brady, Graham

        Fabricant, Michael

        Brake, Tom

        Fallon, Michael

        Brand, Dr Peter

        Fearn, Ronnie

        Brazier, Julian

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Breed, Colin

        Flight, Howard

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Burnett, John

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Burns, Simon

        Fraser, Christopher

        Burstow, Paul

        Garnier, Edward

        Butterfill, John

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Gerrard, Neil

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

        Gibb, Nick

        (NE Fife)

        Gidley, Sandra

        Cash, William

        Gill, Christopher

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        (Chipping Barnet)

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Chaytor, David

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Chidgey, David

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Chope, Christopher

        Gray, James

        Clapham, Michael

        Green, Damian

        Clappison, James

        Greenway, John

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

        Grieve, Dominic

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Connarty, Michael

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hammond, Philip

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hancock, Mike

        Cotter, Brian

        Harris, Dr Evan

        Cran, James

        Harvey, Nick

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Cryer, John (Homchurch)

        Hayes, John

        931

        Heald, Oliver

        Rendel, David

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        Robathan, Andrew

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Horam, John

        Ross, William (E Lond'y)

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Ruffley, David

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Salmond, Alex

        Jones, Ms Jenny

        Salter, Martin

        (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Sanders, Adrian

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Keetch, Paul

        Shepherd, Richard

        Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Key, Robert

        Skinner, Dennis

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Smith Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

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

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Soames, Nicholas

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Leigh, Edward

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Lepper, David

        Spring, Richard

        Letwin, Oliver

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Steen, Anthony

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Lidington, David

        Streeter, Gary

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Stunell, Andrew

        Livsey, Richard

        Swayne, Desmond

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Syms, Robert

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Loughton, Tim

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Luff, Peter

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        McDonnell, John

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Townend, John

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Trend, Michael

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        McNamara, Kevin

        Tyler, Paul

        Madel Sir David

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Maples, John

        Wareing, Robert N

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Waterson, Nigel

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Webb, Steve

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Wells, Bowen

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Whittingdale, John

        Moore, Michael

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Moss, Malcolm

        Wilkinson, John

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Willetts, David

        Norman, Archie

        Willis, Phil

        Oaten, Mark

        Wilshire, David

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Winnick, David

        Öpik, Lembit

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Ottaway, Richard

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Page, Richard

        Yeo, Tim

        Paice, James

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Pickles, Eric

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Prior, David

        Mr. John Randall and

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Mr. Peter Atkinson.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Lords amendment disagreed to.
        Motion made, and Question put, That amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 27 be made.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
        The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 205.

        Division No. 360]

        [11.15 pm

        AYES

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

        Ainger, Nick

        (Copeland)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Allen, Graham

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Darvill, Keith

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Ashton, Joe

        Dawson, Hilton

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Denham, John

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Bailey, Adrian

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Banks, Tony

        Doran, Frank

        Barron, Kevin

        Dowd, Jim

        Battle, John

        Drew, David

        Bayley, Hugh

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Beard, Nigel

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Edwards, Huw

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Ennis, Jeff

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Benton, Joe

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Flint, Caroline

        Berry, Roger

        Flynn, Paul

        Betts, Clive

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Blackman, Liz

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Blizzard, Bob

        Foulkes, George

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Gapes, Mike

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Gardiner, Barry

        Borrow, David

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Godsiff, Roger

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Goggins, Paul

        Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        (Dunfermline E)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Browne, Desmond

        Grocott, Bruce

        Burden, Richard

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

        Hanson, David

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Healey, John

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Hendrick, Mark

        Cann, Jamie

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Caplin, Ivor

        Heppell, John

        Casale, Roger

        Hesford, Stephen

        Cawsey, Ian

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Hill, Keith

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Hoey, Kate

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Hood, Jimmy

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Hope, Phil

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Clelland, David

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Clwyd, Ann

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Coaker, Vernon

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Coleman, Iain

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Colman, Tony

        Hurst, Alan

        Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

        Hutton, John

        Cooper, Yvette

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Corbett, Robin

        Illsley, Eric

        Corston, Jean

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Cousins, Jim

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Cranston, Ross

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Crausby, David

        Jamieson, David

        Cummings, John

        Jenkins, Brian

        933

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Pearson, Ian

        Johnson, Miss Melanie

        Pendry, Tom

        (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

        Plaskitt, James

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Pollard, Kerry

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Pond, Chris

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Pope, Greg

        Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Purchase, Ken

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

        Kemp, Fraser

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Radice, Rt Hon Giles

        Khabra, Piara S

        Rammell, Bill

        Kidney, David

        Rapson, Syd

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Raynsford, Nick

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Robertson, John

        Lammy, David

        (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Laxton, Bob

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Leslie, Christopher

        Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

        Levitt, Tom

        Rooney, Terry

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Linton, Martin

        Roy, Frank

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Ruane, Chris

        Lock, David

        Ruddock, Joan

        Love, Andrew

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        McCabe, Steve

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Macdonald, Calum

        Sawford, Phil

        McFall, John

        Sedgemore, Brian

        McIsaac, Shona

        Sheerman, Barry

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Short, Rt Hon Clare

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Singh, Marsha

        McNulty, Tony

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        MacShane, Denis

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

        McWalter, Tony

        Smith, Miss Geraldine

        Mallaber, Judy

        (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Snape, Peter

        Martlew, Eric

        Soley, Clive

        Maxton, John

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Spellar, John

        Meale, Alan

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Merron, Gillian

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Miller, Andrew

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Moffatt, Laura

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Stringer, Graham

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Morley, Elliot

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

        Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

        (Dewsbury)

        (B'ham Yardley)

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        (Aberavon)

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Mullin, Chris

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Timms, Stephen

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Todd, Mark

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Touhig, Don

        Norris, Dan

        Trickett, Jon

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverhton SE)

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Olner, Bill

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Tynan, Bill

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Vaz, Keith

        Osborne, Ms Sandra

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Ward, Ms Claire

        934

        White, Brian

        Worthington, Tony

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Wray, James

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Wyatt, Derek

        Wills, Michael

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wilson, Brian

        Mrs. Anne McGuire and

        Woolas, Phil

        Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Fearn, Ronnie

        Allan, Richard

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Amess, David

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Fraser, Christopher

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Gamier, Edward

        Baker, Norman

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Baldry, Tony

        Gerrard, Neil

        Ballard, Jackie

        Gibb, Nick

        Bell, Martin (Tatton)

        Gidley, Sandra

        Bercow, John

        Gill, Christopher

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Blunt, Crispin

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Boswell, Tim

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Green, Damian

        Brady, Graham

        Greenway, John

        Brake, Tom

        Grieve, Dominic

        Brand, Dr Peter

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Brazier, Julian

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Breed, Colin

        Hammond, Philip

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Hancock, Mike

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Hams, Dr Evan

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Harvey, Nick

        Burnett, John

        Hawkins, Nick

        Burns, Simon

        Hayes, John

        Burstow, Paul

        Heald, Oliver

        Butterfill, John

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        (NE Fife)

        Horam, John

        Cash, William

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        (Chipping Barnet)

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Chaytor, David

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Chidgey, David

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Chope, Christopher

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Clapham, Michael

        Keetch, Paul

        Clappison, James

        Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

        (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Key, Robert

        Connarty, Michael

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Cotter, Brian

        Leigh, Edward

        Cran, James

        Lepper, David

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Letwin, Oliver

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Lidington, David

        Davidson, Ian

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Livsey, Richard

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Loughton, Tim

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry

        Luff, Peter

        (B'ham Hodge H)

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Day, Stephen

        McDonnell, John

        Dobbin, Jim

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Duncan, Alan

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Fabricant, Michael

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Fallon, Michael

        McNamara, Kevin

        935

        Madel, Sir David

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Maples, John

        Spring, Richard

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Steen, Anthony

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Stunell, Andrew

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Swayne, Desmond

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Syms, Robert

        Moore, Michael

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Norman, Archie

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Öpik, Lembit

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Ottaway, Richard

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Page, Richard

        Townend, John

        Paice, James

        Trend, Michael

        Pickles, Eric

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Tyler, Paul

        Prior, David

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Randall, John

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Wareing, Robert N

        Rendel, David

        Waterson, Nigel

        Robathan, Andrew

        Webb, Steve

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Wells, Bowen

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Rowlands, Ted

        Whittingdale, John

        Ruffley, David

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Wilkinson, John

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Willetts, David

        Salmond, Alex

        Willis, Phil

        Salter, Martin

        Wilshire, David

        Sanders, Adrian

        Winnick, David

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Shepherd, Richard

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Yeo, Tim

        Skinner, Dennis

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Tellers for the Noes:

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

        Mr. Keith Simpson and

        Soames, Nicholas

        Mr. James Gray.

        Questions accordingly agreed to.
        Amendments (b) and (c) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29 agreed to.
        Lords amendments in lieu of Lords amendments No. 31 agreed to.

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

      PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
      That the draft Terrorism Act 200 (Video Recording of Interviews) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      VALUE ADDED TAX
      That the Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2954) dated 2nd November, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Question agreed to.
      936
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 69) on Children's Services (Quality Protects) Special Grants for 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 (HC 968), which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Question agreed to.

      SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
      Motion made,
      That, for the next Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
      Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
      Line 46. before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
      Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
      '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made,
      That, at the sittings on Thursday 30th November and Friday 1st December—

      (i)the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received, and

      (ii) if the House has completed its consideration of any Messages received from the Lords and the Lords have adjourned their sitting, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

      Hon. Members: Object.

    PETITIONS

      Andorra
      11.30 pm
      Mr. David Heath: I wish to present a petition on behalf of British citizens resident in the principality of Andorra. The petition is signed by Graham Watson, a Member of the European Parliament. He is a constituent of mine, as I am a constituent of his. The petition is also signed by 61 British citizens resident in Andorra.
      The petition refers to the annual uprating of pensions. British citizens resident in Andorra do not receive it, whereas other citizens resident elsewhere in the European Union do.
      The petition states:
      To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

      937
      The Humble Petition of citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at present residing in the Principality of Andorra sheweth
      That citizens of the United Kingdom who live in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Croatia and the European Union receive annual increases in pensions; that those who live in Andorra, despite having paid the same amount, do not receive these annual increases, although they are no drain on the public finances such as the National Health Service and are not permitted to use National Health Form E 111 when visiting the EU.
      Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to review this anomaly and consider phasing in changes which will put those citizens residing in Andorra on an equal footing with other UK pensioners in this respect, starting with those over the age of eighty-five years, followed by those over 75 and then over 65.
      And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
      To lie upon the Table.

      National Front
      Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I have a petition from the residents of Hastings and Rye regarding the question of racism in the town. Hastings hosts about 700 refugees. Whether that number is too great for a small town is a separate question, but what is not acceptable to the people of Hastings is the racism that is nurtured in consequence by groups such as the National Front—and by some mainstream parties which should know better.
      The petition is signed by Raj Rayan and about 7,000 local inhabitants, whose signatures were collected over a period of only a day or so. It states:
      The Petition of Residents of Hastings and Rye
      Declares that rallies and marches in the town of Hastings by the National Front and their associated organisations nurture racism, anti-feminism, homophobic attitudes, anti-trade union sentiments and the promotion of social unrest.
      The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to introduce legislation to prevent the National Front and their associated organisations from holding rallies and marches in the town of Hastings and elsewhere.
      And the Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Smuggling (Tobacco and Alcohol)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
      11.34 pm
      Mr. Russell Brown: I had feared that the House might sit until early morning, so I am delighted to have the opportunity to hold this debate in what is still the evening. This is a vital issue, and I know that some colleagues were disappointed that I was not able to secure a longer debate on the subject in Westminster Hall, as that would have allowed other hon. Members to take part and make valid contributions. Other colleagues have commented during the day that raising this matter in the Chamber is not the wisest thing to do. Comments have varied from "Smuggling of alcohol and tobacco goods is something that everyone does," to "It's a real vote loser to try to stop cheap cigarettes and alcohol coming into the country." This is an issue that we cannot ignore, and while I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will tell me that much is being done, I believe that a lot more can and should be done.
      Almost three years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)—he is in the Chamber tonight—had an Adjournment debate on illegal imports of beer. He said then that he felt it wholly appropriate to raise the matter in the run-up to the Christmas period. Three years on, as we approach the festive season once again, it is still appropriate. In my humble view, the situation has worsened.
      In the eyes of many, the quick answer to this illegal activity is to reduce significantly all the taxes and duties on tobacco and alcoholic goods. Prices would then fall and the market would close down for the traders and dealers in smuggled and bootlegged goods. Those here tonight know only too well that this will not happen and that we have to deal with the issue that confronts us today.
      Cigarette smuggling is so widespread that it poses a serious threat to public health; first, by making cigarettes available cheaply and encouraging consumption; and secondly, because the tobacco industry tries to encourage Governments to reduce taxation in response to smuggling. This results in lower prices, which in turn increase consumption.
      How big an issue is this? Frankly, the fact that visitors to the continent buy an extra 200 cigarettes or an extra bottle of spirits, or that business men or lorry drivers on the continent carry a small amount of extra goods for family or friends, is not the issue. Bootlegging is the process whereby tobacco and alcohol products are legally purchased in countries with lower tax rates and then illegally sold on to individuals, distributors and retailers here in the UK. The white van trade, as it is called, appears to account for about 25 per cent. of smuggled cigarettes.
      The other 75 per cent. of smuggled tobacco goods are a direct result of large-scale organised crime undertaken by criminal gangs and involve freight consignments of millions of cigarettes. This form of smuggling is increasingly controlled by gangs involved in the trafficking of illegal drugs. The figures show that over 60 per cent. of those found smuggling have been involved in other criminal activities and have other convictions. What is classed as the risk-to-reward ratio for tobacco

      939
      smuggling is lower than that for illegal drugs, and many organised crime gangs are increasingly moving from narcotics into tobacco. It is estimated that 15 per cent. of the cross-channel smuggling of cigarettes into this country is a direct result of Italian gangs.
      With the world of information technology has come another avenue of exploitation. Increasingly, people are purchasing alcohol and tobacco goods via the internet, from sites which are not regulated, which use child-friendly marketing, and which do not—as far as tobacco products are concerned—carry any health warning whatever. By simply entering the term "discount cigarettes" to an internet search engine, somewhere in the region of 2,000 pages of links can be produced.
      The impact of all this illegal activity is significant. During the recess, I visited a local store in the Georgetown area of Dumfries, where I met the owner, Mr. George McCall. We discussed at length how this activity is affecting individual businesses. It was no surprise to hear that, on average, independent retailers are losing 16 per cent. of their trade. That is nearly £62,000 a year in lost sales, all due to bootlegging. In my home town, I am aware of one small business which, frankly, is on the verge of stopping selling tobacco and alcohol. In the owner's simple words, he cannot compete with a chap living around the corner who operates a racket.
      A further adverse effect is that lower sales can lead to higher prices of other goods on sale in the shops. I am sure that my hon. Friend will keep me right, but I believe that the estimated loss to the Treasury resulting from smuggling alcohol and tobacco goods is in the region of £4 billion a year. That money could be spent on schools, hospitals, pensioners, policing, and additional Customs and Excise officers.
      Parliamentary questions tabled on this matter over the past year number well in excess of 50, but I am disturbed to see from the answers that we do not appear to have any real idea of the number of prosecutions. That is indeed worrying. It is important to show that we are not sitting idly by while all this happens. Only by giving accurate figures of arrests and prosecutions will we be able to send out the message to the public that we are serious. We want to tell them that we are determined to put a stop to this illegal activity, and that people who are involved are likely to get caught.
      Penalties also need to be reconsidered. In recent weeks, the national press has carried stories to the effect that Customs and Excise officers are threatening to seize and sell the cars of members of the public who buy cigarettes from bootleggers. I do not know how much truth there is in that report, but I believe that something as radical as that must be done if we are to curb this activity.
      The same report made mention of a number of vehicles belonging to bootleggers that were seized in Scotland. It also reported the confiscation of an ice cream van loaded with thousands of cigarettes, parked near a school. That is the aspect that I want to consider next. Within neighbourhoods, households can pinpoint the house where cheap cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol can be purchased. However, it is not only adults who know about those houses—
      schoolchildren as well as adults know where such goods can be bought. Quite honestly, those who are supplying the goods do not even give a second thought to
      940
      the age of the customer or purchaser. Children as young as nine or 10 can be seen in many neighbourhoods buying cigarettes and alcohol, not only for their parents but for their own consumption.
      In considering the debate and the answers given to parliamentary questions, I see that my hon. Friend said in a reply given in April that it was intended to employ a further 1,000 Customs and Excise officers to deal with this matter, with a substantial number to be based at Dover. Although I believe that additional officers are required in the field, it concerns me that some of them may have been taken from other Customs and Excise activities.
      In my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), staff have been reduced from 12 in 1995 to the current three visiting officers, one home officer and one administration and secretarial officer. It is expected that the latter will be removed from her post in about six months. If we are determined to pursue best value, is it appropriate that four Customs and Excise officers should have no administrative support? Those individuals will have to open their own mail, and carry out typing and other clerical duties, even though their expertise lies in the profession for which they were trained.
      Examination of the situation indicates that in Scotland and elsewhere we are seeing a centralisation of certain areas of business. I do not believe that constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne), where there are similar reductions in Customs and Excise staffing, provide the Customs and Excise services that businesses and individuals are looking for. Reductions in the numbers of officers dealing with VAT and debt management are but two examples of situations in which I believe that there is significant pressure, leading to a possible decline in the quality of service.
      I said earlier that, owing to the risk-to-reward ratio, many organised crime gangs were moving their activities from drugs to illegal tobacco. However, it must be said that many of those who have become involved in the sale of smuggled tobacco and alcoholic products later use the moneys generated from it to fund the beginnings of a new activity: dealing in drugs.
      It is not uncommon in my area—and, I know, having spoken to colleagues, in many other parts of the country as well—for some people involved in such activities to purchase cars and properties with cash. We are talking about sums of £30,000, £40,000, £50,000, and beyond. They have that money readily available because of their activities. It is big business, and business that cannot be ignored. It is inevitable that, as more and more individuals become involved in the sale of such goods, they start to encroach on what is seen as someone's else patch. As one might expect, that brings with it acts of violence.
      In the scenario of illegal activity, some individuals generate significant sums for themselves, but there are always those who have to pay a price. In this instance, they are law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes. If we could put an end to all such smuggling tomorrow, just think of what we could do with the extra £4 billion.
      We must also ensure that those who believe that they are doing nothing wrong by purchasing a few cheap cigarettes or a bottle of cheap whisky realise that they are involved in illegal activity. It is not uncommon for such

      941
      goods to be on sale in the workplace as well as the local pub or club. People need to understand that they could be jeopardising their livelihood if a responsible owner of a business or employer discovered what was happening where such people were gainfully employed.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board my concerns. This debate is about protecting independent retail business and children; it is about the loss of revenue to the Treasury; it is about adequately resourcing Customs and Excise, and not just to combat smuggling. Above all else, this debate is about supporting those who pay their taxes. I appreciate that much has been done, but there is much more to do.
      11.47 pm
      The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) on securing this Adjournment debate, as I do my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who three years ago—to the day, I think—secured his debate on the subject.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was absolutely right to focus on the following four issues. First, tobacco smuggling undermines the Government's health policy, which, because of the health risks associated with smoking, is to reduce the number of people who smoke. Secondly, there is the loss of revenue to the Government. Recent figures show that freight smuggling, which has been an area of huge growth in the past couple of years, costs in the order of £2.5 billion a year—not £4 billion, as Imperial Tobacco is saying.
      Thirdly, my hon. Friend was right to point out the criminal activity associated with smuggling. I will turn to that and explain what we are doing. Such activity not only grows in our communities, but these people do not care to whom they sell the products. There are also international criminal gangs involved in organising such activity. Fourthly, and vitally, there is the question of the undermining of legitimate business, which has a right to look to Government to take action to protect it.
      I shall deal briefly first with the scale of the problem that we face. We need to be clear, as my hon. Friend has said, about the type of people who are involved in this debate. This is not a debate about the opportunistic amateur who crosses the channel and comes back with a large supply of cigarettes, although that occurs and we have penalties to deal with it. This is a debate about the systematic freighting into this country of about 16 billion cigarettes a year—one in five of those that are smoked. It is an activity that has been growing. It is organised by criminal gangs who use freight consignments from places such as China, the far east, the Baltic, the Balkans and South Africa. Almost 80 per cent. of illegal cigarettes are smuggled in maritime freight.
      Although there are those who would argue that this is a question of the duty that is charged on cigarettes, we should consider first that the products come from sources where no duty is applied—they are illegal cigarettes—and secondly, that even countries within the EU that impose lower duty rates, such as Italy and Spain, suffer the same problem.
      In its report "UK Threat Assessment", published in May 2000, the National Criminal Intelligence Service estimated that 19 per cent. of all identified organised crime groups were engaged in excise fraud. It further
      942
      estimated that 21 per cent. of drug trafficking gangs also engaged in excise smuggling. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, some use tobacco smuggling to fund their drug smuggling activity. Previous convictions of those detected by customs involved in tobacco smuggling include people who have records of heroin and cocaine trafficking, manslaughter, arson, grievous bodily harm and a variety of other violent crimes. My hon. Friend is right to underline the seriousness of this issue.
      I shall outline the Government's strategy on providing funding to deal with this challenge and touch on some of the problems to which he referred in Scotland. Following a detailed assessment of the scale of the problem, in order to show their determination to tackle the problem the Government announced on 1 March that we would devote a further £209 million to pay for almost 1,000 anti-smuggling staff in customs and X-ray machines to detect consignments of illegal goods in freight. The aim of the strategy is to target the highly organised criminal activity. There are 500 additional staff working at the frontier and inland, another 300 specialist investigators, almost 100 extra intelligence specialists and, as I have said, a national network of X-ray scanners that are helping customs to deal with the issue. Our strategy is to increase seizures and stem the flow so that the smuggling does not increase and, over three years, to reduce the smuggling.
      In the first six months, we have seized almost 1,500 million cigarettes—930 million in the United Kingdom and 547 million overseas en route to the UK. We have broken up 25 of the organised gangs that supply the huge volumes of cigarettes. We have increased the penalties for those whom we catch. We are looking at seizing their resources and their vehicles, as well as imposing heavy penalties and terms of imprisonment. We are also making it clear to the tobacco manufacturers that we expect their co-operation in dealing with this problem. A substantial number of the cigarettes seized were produced in Britain, left this country, and have been smuggled back in. Clearly, there is a lot that tobacco manufacturers can do to help us to deal with that problem.
      Although we are determined to deal with the white van trade—the smaller dealers crossing the channel—we are also dealing with the massive amount of freight and the gangs that organise it. Customs does not flinch from prosecuting the smugglers when that is necessary. New offences and penalties will be introduced on 1 July 2001. Pack marks on cigarettes, showing where they were produced and where duty was paid, will help enormously. From 1 July 2001, managers of pubs, clubs, factories and so on who knowingly allow their premises or workplaces to be used for the selling of unmarked tobacco will face substantial fines and will be prohibited from using their licences for up to six months. My hon. Friend mentioned internet selling. Customs is aware of the threat and has taken significant steps to tackle it. I note that Imperial Tobacco's chief executive commented on Customs action and its effectiveness.
      Customs aims to tackle the problem on a nationwide scale. To achieve that, its resources are rightly targeted at the key entry points through which the vast majority of cigarettes come into the country. In addition, Customs is targeting the inland distribution of those cigarettes, to which my hon. Friend referred.
      In Scotland, Customs strategy has been to hit the sellers again and again, using rapid response blitz techniques. That involves locally based officers plus mobile national

      943
      strike forces. My hon. Friend should look at the total resources that we apply to the pressure points, rather than at the geographical location by residence of some of our officers.
      As I speak, a Customs strike force has been hitting the blatant inland sales of illicit cigarettes in Scotland and has deployed for this purpose an additional 30 officers over the past few days. I did not arrange that because of tonight's debate, but I am glad to be able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend and the House the way in which we are tackling the problem.
      Over the weekend alone, Customs seized more than 100,000 cigarettes, 135 kilos of hand-rolling tobacco, 433 litres of alcohol, four vehicles and, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, one ice-cream van, which had been used to sell smuggled goods. More importantly, perhaps, Customs drove the sellers of smuggled tobacco out of one of the most notorious markets in Glasgow.
      I should add that one of the officers was assaulted and required several stitches to a head wound. That shows the determination of those who seek to defend their illegal activity. Customs officers are facing increasing levels of violence. They have demonstrated their commitment to tackling the problem on our behalf. It is clear how intent the criminals are on making their money.
      As a result of the strategy and both the inland and the frontier activity, customs officers have massively increased the number of illicit cigarettes that they have taken off the streets this year. In the first six months of this year, they seized more than 20 million illicit cigarettes in Scotland. That represents an increase of 300 per cent. on the same period last year. I say to my hon. Friend that those results do not demonstrate a lack of resources: quite the reverse. They show the determination to make sure that those resources are in place.
      I take the opportunity of my hon. Friend's debate to point out that one of the huge problems that we are facing is the amount of counterfeit cigarettes entering the
      944
      country. Those are cigarettes that do not even reach the health standards that we require in the UK. Customs has seized counterfeit cigarettes. That demonstrates not only the unscrupulous nature of those selling the products—they do not mind to whom the cigarettes are sold, including children—but the fact that the organised criminal activity is not about tax. Those cigarettes bear no tax in the first place. We estimate that slightly more than 20 per cent. of the cigarettes seized this year are counterfeit. That puts massive pressure on health and on our resources.
      My hon. Friend urged that we must ensure that resources are not taken from other areas—for example, VAT assurance work. The extra resources that the Government have made available are specifically to ensure that continued work in other areas, be it alcohol, drugs or VAT assurance, will be maintained and pursued with enough vigour.
      I cannot overstress the seriousness of the development of this criminal activity over the past few years. However, I say with all confidence that we have the resources in place. The penalties are on stream. Legitimate traders will be defended, as will our children. We will seek out and prosecute offenders.
      As my hon. Friend says, we should not be complacent. We must be vigilant. I can assure him and other right hon. and hon. Members that we will not ease our pressure, whether cigarettes, drugs or alcohol are being sold illegally, to ensure that the criminals do not profit from their activity, that they are prosecuted and that we seize any resources that they have to ensure that even if they serve a prison sentence, they will not receive money on their release. We will reinforce the Government's health policy.
      I hope that that will go some way to reassure my hon. Friend. I also hope sincerely that over the next year I will be able to report positively to the House the progress that customs has made in stemming illegal trade.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Community Health Councils
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
10 am
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate, hard on the heels of my question to the Prime Minister on 15 November about his plans to abolish community health councils. The questions raised by the Government's proposals are important and urgent for national health service patients and users, NHS staff and those who are employed by, or who do voluntary work for, CHCs. They are important to the people of this country in general. I know that I have support from right hon. and hon. Members of all parties in my concern about the planned scrapping of CHCs. I am glad that so many are present this morning. In particular I welcome the shadow Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
Given the importance that the Secretary of State for Health attaches to the Government's proposal, and with due respect to the less than lucky junior Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who has been sent to reply to the debate, it is to be noted and regretted that—notwithstanding the embryonic conventions of this parallel Chamber, which are admittedly not yet settled—the Secretary of State is not here to answer for his and the Prime Minister's unpopular, unjustified and peevish policy of scrapping CHCs. It would have been better to see the Secretary of State here, with the courage of his convictions, defending the indefensible before his party's Back Benchers, let alone the massed ranks of the Conservative Opposition and other parties.
I start my remarks in such a tone, despite the expectation that this Chamber attempts to force consensus, because the Government's proposals to scrap CHCs are contentious and flawed. The issue is not of my, or the Opposition's, invention. That dubious honour belongs to the Government. Those who care about NHS patients' needs and their representation are bitterly opposed to the Government on this issue.
Some of my first constituency visits, since being elected to this House 16 months ago, have been to the two CHCs in the Eddisbury constituency. They are Chester and Ellesmere Port CHC and Cheshire Central CHC. I have maintained regular contact with them ever since. I am greatly impressed by their work and expertise, their care and volunteerism, their independence, the respect in which they are held by NHS providers across south and west Cheshire and their effectiveness in achieving real and proportionate results in a sober and professional way. They are led by experienced, expert, committed people. I am glad that Geoff Ryall-Harvey, who heads the team at Chester and Ellesmere Port CHC, is attending the debate. Mrs. Jean French runs the team at Cheshire Central CHC.
164WH
Community health councils were established as part of the major re-organisation of the NHS in 1974 under a Conservative Government. That was a positive and pioneering step. The councils have a statutory duty to represent the local community's interest in the health service, which includes acting as patient advocates in complaints involving the NHS. They are rightly often referred to as the independent health watchdogs. Most recently, South East Kent CHC played a pivotal role in the exposure of the Kent gynaecologist Rodney Ledward. In another well-known case, the CHC ensured that the victims of Harold Shipman were supported.
There are 204 CHCs in England and Wales. Similar bodies—local health councils—exist in Scotland. Northern Ireland has health and social services councils. I shall restrict my remarks to the English and Welsh bodies. Community health councils are made up of between 16 and 30 lay members, from all walks of life, with a chairman, a chief officer and varying numbers of staff. The chief officer is a paid employee of the NHS and sometimes one other worker is paid. Half the membership is made up of people appointed by the local authority, although they need not be councillors. A third are appointed by voluntary organisations and a sixth by the NHS. The employees and 5,000 unpaid, committed volunteers have a full work load. It is estimated that the volunteer CHC members contribute free labour worth nearly £8 million to the NHS.
Crucially, CHCs are independent of health authorities and boards, and of NHS trusts, which CHCs monitor. CHCs' functions are to visit NHS premises and make representations to health care managers about improvements in patients' interests, to consult on and review planning and development of local health services, to provide information about those services, and to monitor their quality through, for example, consumer surveys to find out what local people need from the NHS.
Ms Hazel Blears: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in many cases, community health councils operate on a shoestring? For 12 or 15 volunteers and, perhaps, one and a half paid members of staff to carry out that list of functions is unrealistic. We should resource CHCs better.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Lady makes an extraordinary accusation. Most hon. Members would agree that CHCs have been extremely cost-effective, as well as effective on behalf of patients. It is extraordinary to suggest that they are failing because they do not have enough money to carry out the functions that they have been designed to achieve, and have successfully achieved.
I shall finish the list of what community health councils do effectively, admittedly with small financial resources, by saying that they must assist with complaints. Each year, CHCs assist around 30,000 people with complaints against the NHS by giving free, independent and confidential support.
Since 1974, CHCs have enjoyed generally widespread support, including from Members of Parliament of all parties, as evidenced by the 90 signatories to early-day motion 595 in the previous Session, which congratulated CHCs on their 25th anniversary.

165WH
The chief officer of Cheshire Central, one of my local CHCs, wrote to me on 17 August, saying:
We were looking forward to the arrival of the government's NHS Plan,
which was published at the end of July.
However, hopes were shattered when we eventually found the paragraph at the end of Chapter 10 which states bluntly that CHCs are to be abolished.
The option of abolition had not been discussed with CHCs or their national association and in fact comments had been made by ministers and civil servants indicating a strong future for us. No consultation has taken place on this and CHC staff have still (3 weeks later) had no direct communication from the Department of Health to say their jobs are to disappear.
There are two problems. The first is the absence of a proper democratic and consultative process that provides a rational basis for the Government's peremptory decision to scrap CHCs. The second is the substantive question of whether there is justification for the Government's plan to scrap independent CHCs and replace them, in-house at the NHS, with the so-called patient advocacy liaison services—PALS for short—and a plethora of sundry forums, representatives, committees and other bodies. That is, I suggest, yet another example of this Government's passion for complexity and divide-and-rule tactics, in this case against NHS patients' interests.
Let me deal with the failure of due process. Through the now Secretary of State for Health, the Government repeatedly stated before the publication of their NHS plan that they envisaged
No immediate changes to Community Health Councils.—[Official Report, 8 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 454W.]
Also relevant is column 262W of the Hansard for 17 June 1998. It was later stated:
Community health councils are independent statutory bodies whose role is to represent the interests of the public in their districts in health service matters.—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 167W.]
One can imagine the consternation and despondency of those who work in CHCs on reading the Government's brusque, dismissive decision in July. The staff of my local CHCs have made that reaction clear to me in our regular discussions. However, the growing realisation of others carried the most weight for me. I was contacted by several constituents with NHS complaints and concerns, on whose cases I had worked in tandem with local CHCs. Naturally, the obligations of confidentiality preclude the identification of individuals, but their common reaction was to be aghast that their local CHC, which they regarded as a friend in need, was to be abolished. As CHCs are independent of the NHS, those patients, who felt vulnerable and let down, relied on them primarily because they felt that they could trust CHCs to guide them through the NHS maze and ensure that their complaints were addressed.
I tested the matter further. Like other constituencies, Eddisbury contains a number of NHS administrative areas, so I have convened the so-called Eddisbury health forum, which brings NHS service providers to my constituents together for regular meetings. At the last meeting, a month ago, the health authority, the two NHS hospital trusts, the two community health care trusts and the two primary care groups said, as the minutes of the meeting record:
166WH
South Cheshire Health Authority were disappointed at the demise of CHCs in March 2002 and appreciated the role they played in assisting patients with complaints. Concern was expressed that there could be a conflict of loyalty between Trust Boards and PALs and it would be helpful if those advising patients retained some degree of independence.
On 15 November, I asked the Prime Minister at Question Time whether he was aware that his proposals to scrap community health councils—the independent watchdogs for NHS patients—were bitterly opposed by my constituents, patients and staff, and whether he would drop those plans. He responded:
I am aware that there is bitter opposition, which is why the proposals are being consulted on. If he goes round the country, however, the hon. Gentleman will find that people in certain areas do not believe that community health councils have been as effective as they might be. It is precisely because we want to consult that we have issued the health plan. We will report back to the House in due course on the consultation.—[Official Report, 15 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 937.]
That is a surprising and encouraging reply. Despite the language and process adopted by the Government up to that point, the Prime Minister clearly intended to convey that he agreed that his proposals were bitterly opposed, but that they were being consulted upon. The report back to the House carried the hope that the issue remained open. I sensed, I fear wrongly, the prime ministerial hand on the steering wheel, about to execute a U-turn. I was not alone. On Monday 20 November, Ms Donna Covey, director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, or ACHCEW—it could be read "atchoo", which would be appropriate if one thought that it was catching a cold—
wrote to the Prime Minister:
CHC members and staff were interested in your response to the parliamentary question on the abolition of CHCs, from Stephen O'Brien MP, on 15 November 2000. Many people, including members of the public who have contacted us, interpreted your response as indicating that the abolition of CHCs will be subject to consultation. We have, to date, been given the opposite advice by health ministers on many occasions and in quite specific terms. As I am sure you will imagine, this is a very difficult time for CHC members and staff, who face tremendous uncertainties over their future. Members of the public are also asking questions about how their views will be represented in the health service in the future. The Welsh Assembly is consulting on how best to deliver patient empowerment and public involvement, before making a decision on the future of CHCs. If your government is now intending to do the same prior to making a final decision on whether to place abolition of CHCs before Parliament, that will be very welcome indeed. However, this is not what we understand the situation to be. There clearly needs to be clarity on the processes around this part of the national plan, and I would be grateful for any advice that your office can give.
I am not aware whether the Prime Minister has responded to Ms Covey, but hon. Members will be as surprised as I was that, late on the same day, I received a three-page letter from the Prime Minister. I shall quote the essential elements, which best demonstrate the Government's failure to conduct a democratic, consultative process:
Dear Stephen,
I thought it would be helpful if I clarified the nature of the consultation in which we are currently engaged…Our proposals mean that community health councils are to be abolished, subject to legislation… This better describes the consultation I alluded to in my answer during Prime Minister's Question Time.
Apparently, an Evening Standard journalist was subsequently told that the Prime Minister's response to me was a "slip of the tongue". Oh dear, what a tangled web the Prime Minister weaves.

167WH
The disappointment for English CHCs is huge. We have heard that, under the Welsh Assembly's process, the Welsh CHCs are at least being spared this failure of consultation. The Prime Minister raised the hopes of CHC members and staff in his answer to me, but he and his Government have now backtracked and, in effect, are saying that they have decided to abolish CHCs, come what may. They will use the fig leaf of "consultation", but no matter what anyone says, they will not listen.
In this sorry tale of the Government saying one thing and doing another, ACHCEW published a note on its website entitled, "The abolition of CHCs—consultation or imposition?" That note reaffirms that the abolition of CHCs has not been the subject of consultation, by highlighting certain facts.
First, there has never been any consultation around the statement in the National Plan that "Community Health Councils will be abolished".
The National Plan statement came completely out of the blue. The process that took place prior to the publication of the national plan did not touch on the possibility of abolishing CHCs. Indeed, on 26 June, a month before the publication of the National Plan, the
Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, advised:
"CHCs … will be essential in ensuring the representation of patients during the implementation of the National Plan and in the new NHS. They will also be involved in the work on patient empowerment which will be taken forward as part of the National Plan."
It is, therefore, clear that no consultation took place on the abolition of CHCs prior to the publication of the National Plan. Richard Gordon QC advised ACHCEW that
"In my opinion, the consultation process over the new NHS plan was … legally flawed."Secondly, there has been no consultation on the decision since the announcement of the abolition of CHCs.
Following that announcement, ACHCEW wrote to the Secretary of State for Health, expressing particular concern about the failure to consult. The response from
the Under-Secretary
was:
"There are a number of questions we still need to resolve as regards the transitional arrangements for CHCs and ACHCEW. We shall ensure that you and all CHC staff and members are kept up to date with decisions as they are made."
Some time later,
the Under-Secretary
contacted the Association, and advised:
"On the understanding that the Secretary of State will not be reviewing the decision put before Parliament to abolish CHCs, I nevertheless agree with your earlier suggestion that a meeting would be very useful."
That was the only meeting between ACHCEW and the Under-Secretary. She responded to the opinion of Richard Gordon, QC by saying:
"We do not accept that ACHCEW or Community Health Councils had any legitimate expectation to be consulted in relation to the proposal that CHCs should be abolished in primary legislation to be introduced in parliament in due course … the Secretary of State will not be reviewing his decision to put legislation before parliament to abolish CHCs."
Thirdly, the dialogue on patient empowerment that has taken place since the announcement of he National Plan has not dealt with the decision to abolish CHCs.
168WH
Following the announcement of the national plan, five national seminars have taken place. One of them was a repeat of the first seminar, because it was held at such short notice—
but we have heard that before. The seminars were supposed to give participants
"a say on the key issues that need to be addressed as we develop the new mechanisms for patient empowerment." They have covered the following four topics:
PALS and the Patients Forum
The Independent Local Advisory Forum
Representing the views of patients—
and—can you believe it?—
Bringing it all together.
There has been minimal paperwork for these seminars, in some cases nothing more than an agenda. There has been no space on any of the days to reopen the debate around the abolition of CHCs. Attendance at these seminars has not been open, with participants being individually invited by the Department of Health.
ACHCEW is holding a seminar on 4th December to discuss the National Plan. Whilst
The Under-Secretary
has agreed to speak at the meeting. she has made it quite clear that:
"I will be unable to answer questions relating to the Government's proposal to abolish CHCs".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I would find it helpful when summing up if the hon. Gentleman explained his semantic interpretation of the distinction between consultation and participation at a number of seminars, which were all attended by representatives of the CHCs.
Mr. O'Brien: The Under-Secretary makes a fundamental point, which goes to the heart of the argument—and, indeed, to the heart of democracy. I draw not only on my relatively short parliamentary experience but on my business experience. There is a massive misunderstanding about the word "consultation". It is applied differently in many countries.
Consultation is generally expected to mean, "I have a proposal. I wish to listen to everyone's views and, in the light of those views, I shall reach a decision"; so everyone has the right to be involved in the decision-making process. The consultation that we are faced with is the sort of consultation that I am used to finding in continental Europe. There—for instance, in consultation with European workers' councils — it often means, "You have a right to your point of view. We shall have an exchange of views, but I will not change my decision as a right of management." That is a direct response to the Under-Secretary's challenge on semantics. In my experience, the word "consultation" is appallingly abused; those who, in the hope that the word means something, would like an influence on decision making are often excluded from that process.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the House, within the last 24 hours, a worse example has occurred of the way in which the Government have pursued their attitude to community health councils? In last night's debate on the mistitled Freedom of Information Bill, the Government tabled an amendment, in the third group, that referred to the very

169WH
community health councils that they had announced that they were abolishing. That was a nonsense, as was the fact that we did not debate the third group of amendments because we got only as far as the first two of nine groups — due to the Government's ludicrous guillotine, in national guillotine week. The Opposition did not have the opportunity to point out how ludicrous it was for the Government to change their Bill to refer to community health councils that they had already decided to abolish.
Mr. O'Brien: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are demonstrating, in national guillotine week, that they hold in contempt the democratic traditions and checks and balances enshrined in our valuable and ancient constitution. It is a great shame that bodies as valuable as community health councils have become trapped by the Government's arrogant mentality. The Minister responsible for the letters that I cited earlier is present and it must be said that, by any test, the process—or lack of process—that the Government have adopted is a complete and abject failure to achieve what is expected in a democratic country. The Government appear arrogantly hell-bent on implementing that fundamental change. Their actions are more those of the playground bully than of a responsible, listening Government.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have been listening to my hon. Friend's argument, with which I entirely agree. Why does he believe that the Government seek to abolish CHCs, which are popular in my constituency and throughout the country? Is that popularity not due to their genuine independence and patient empowerment? The Government do not want that, and that is why they are abolishing CHCs.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who represents, as I do, a Cheshire constituency. I hope that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who also has a Cheshire constituency, will entirely endorse those sentiments. We are extremely blessed in Cheshire with the quality and dedication of our local CHCs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, it is their independence, patient empowerment and, above all, the quality of the work that they deliver for patients that gives them such strength of repute in our county.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Chester and Ellesmere Port CHCalthough —it is a pity that its chief officer did not tell me that he was coming today. On what experience does the hon. Gentleman draw in extending his praise of that CHC to the rest of the country? Are not CHCs throughout the country failing?
Mr. O'Brien: The obligation to respect confidentiality precludes naming those who have benefited from our experience in Cheshire, particularly with regard to complaints. Of course some of the 204 CHCs across the country are not working well, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. The sense of
170WH
independence is valued. When patients using the NHS have a concern or find that the service that they are entitled to expect has been wanting, their knowledge of that track record of independence enables them to put their faith in the CHC, at what is often a vulnerable time when they need all the support and professional help that they can get.
As for parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal to abolish CHCs, right hon. and hon. Members—to date, no fewer than 137—have put their names to early-day motion 1103—including the Conservative Front Bench amendment—since it was tabled less than a month ago. The signatories are Members from both sides of the House, representing English and Welsh constituencies. However, considering the Government's approach to early-day motions, that is hardly scrutiny.
The only debate to date was in the other place a month ago, when the Minister, the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, sought to defend the Government's decision but avoided any mention of the consultation process — or lack of it—other than the prospect of some so-called stakeholder meetings. I look forward to the Minister's apology for the Government's woeful lack of consultation. Will the Government listen to representations on the proposals and confirm their willingness to be swayed to change their mind? That is what I would expect the word "consultation" to mean; if not, the only rational conclusion — this is partly in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield — is that the Government are determined to use their large majority in the House to ram through the unjustified abolition of community health councils. They want to rid themselves of the effective, independent watchdogs for national health service patients that properly criticise the NHS — and the Government — when it fails patients. That is perhaps not surprising in an institution as large, complex and unwieldy as the NHS.
We must ask with what the Government plan to replace CHCs and why they plan to do so, given, as the Prime Minister agreed, that there is bitter opposition to their proposals that the patient advocacy and liaison service will be set up and run within NHS trusts and their reporting lines. Those and other new bodies are characterised by their lack of independence from the NHS; they will operate from hospitals and other NHS premises, including customer service-type desks in hospital reception areas. The proposed new system is fragmented and the new structure will thus be more expensive, more cumbersome and less effective. The new bodies will lack statutory powers: the powers currently vested in CHCs are destined to disappear, so the new bodies will be little more than focus groups.
Patients with complaints frequently say that they do not trust anyone employed by the hospital. Many complainants, especially the bereaved, are reluctant to enter hospital premises because of the painful memories that they revive. The new bodies will lack independence and thus lack credibility with patients and their families.
Mr. Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I sat on a CHC for four years and am closely allied with the CHCs in my constituency. Their attraction for the ordinary patient is

171WH
that they are seen as the patient's friend because they are at arm's length from the health service, in separate shops in high streets away from health authority buildings, manned by people who are not seen as employees or lapdogs of the local health authority. That attraction will be entirely lost under the Government's proposals.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; that point has been made to me frequently in my constituency and by hon. Members who were conscious of this debate.
The Government propose that PALS should be hospital-led, not patient-led, as CHCs are at present, and it will inevitably suffer from the strains of providing a service, for example to primary care trusts, which will be developed from the present smaller primary care groups and are likely to cover between 30 and 50 surgeries.
What will be the consequences of the Government's ideas on local authority involvement? Local authority members already feel relatively free to act in the best interests of patients, in conjunction with their colleagues in the voluntary sector. The Government's proposals will tilt the local authority committees into acting in allegiance on party political lines, thus doing nothing for, and probably distorting, local authority scrutiny.
One reason given by the Government for abolishing CHCs is that they are not known to the man on the street, but I assure the Minister that in Cheshire they are known, and respected, especially by patients who need them. I hazard a guess that a poll to discover how many people know who is the Secretary of State for Health would reveal that only a small percentage could name him—perhaps less than those who are aware of CHCs.
Mr. Loughton: Like the Minister.
Mr. O'Brien: I shall not trespass on that territory and find out how many would know the Minister by name.
I am not aware that the Government propose to scrap the Secretary of State for Health. He is reported as saying in a television interview that CHCs are
dinosaurs without relevance in the modern health service.
Leaving aside the gratuitous insult to the thousands of dedicated CHC workers in this country, the CHCs fully accept, and were pushing the Government to accept, that they can and should change and improve. They are not dinosaurs. As I mentioned, some CHCs are not working well, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The Government's peevish plan to replace CHCs with a plethora of supine bodies has incurred the dismay of many important third parties, of which I highlight but a brief sample. The Law Society said:
if CHCs are abolished there will be no local body with sufficient independence, responsibility and power to help to resolve patients' complaints. Abolishing the CHCs will reduce patient rights and incur greater costs.
Despite being a signatory to the NHS plan, Dr. Ian Bogle, chairman of the British Medical Association, said that the proposals
would seriously threaten patient advocacy.
172WH
Age Concern says:
The independence of PALS is open to question given that they will be employees of the NHS, and could even be an added layer through which a patient needs to take a complaint. It is vital that advocacy services are independent and can deal with all aspects of care.
Mr. Miller: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about independence, but current CHC employees are NHS employees. Has he thought of any other possible solutions to promote independence?
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right in that the funding for the chief officer comes from the NHS budget. Not only has the arm's length relationship been created, but the way that CHC appointments are balanced ensures that they are considerably influenced and guided by the volunteer sector. Only a sixth of CHC members come from the NHS. There is a crucial link. They are required to have local knowledge, familiarity and a sense of participation, but they have a reputation for being at arm's length. CHCs are not an in-house NHS creature and they sit aside from the NHS with statutory powers. That crucial difference gives them the proper reputation as independent and to be respected.
The Age Concern letter concluded:
There are concerns that being hospital based, they—
the PALS—
could be less effective in fulfilling the role of 'watchdog' in terms of primary and community health.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I see that there has been a change since I last looked up from my notes. I apologise, Mr. Gale. The Conservative party is pledged to retain CHCs, provided they have not been scrapped before the general election. If they have, the Conservative Government will reinstate a means by which patients can have a truly independent voice beyond the control of the NHS bureaucracy and politicians in Whitehall. I look forward to the shadow Secretary of State reinforcing that commitment and sharply delineating Conservative policies, putting patients' interests first, in stark contrast to this Government's politicians' first approach.
At Health questions a week ago, every hon. Member who asked the Secretary of State questions about CHCs—including no fewer than four Labour Members—supported their retention and urged the Secretary of State to think again. The Labour party is split on the issue and the Government are riding roughshod over their own Back Benchers. They plan to railroad these ill-thought-through proposals on their payroll vote. Constituents in Labour-held seats have the right to ask their MPs why they wish to scrap their local CHCs.
Why change something that works? Why put politicians before patients? Why destroy patients' trust by removing the independence of their NHS watchdog? Why should a Government long on employee relations rhetoric, cause such distress to CHC employees and volunteers? They are clearly a Government short on responsible employment practice. Why should there be such a complex and supine new system?
The Government's plan to scrap independent CHCs and replace them with a plethora of NHS in-house bodies is a thoroughly bad proposal, which is opposed

173WH
on the broadest of fronts. The Government should think again and have the courage and confidence to admit that they got this wrong, rather than arrogantly ram through the abolition of CRCs for their own political convenience at the expense of the interests of NHS patients in Cheshire and the length and breadth of the country.
10.34 am
Mr. Patrick Hall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this important debate, which many hon. Members, including myself, have sought to obtain.
We can all agree from the outset that there is concern, inside and outside Parliament, about the future of community health councils. The work of CHCs is important for individual health service users and for the community. CHCs and their equivalent in Scotland and Northern Ireland cover every parliamentary constituency, which helps to explain why the all-party parliamentary group on community health councils, which I have the honour to chair, is one of the largest in this place.
If we can all agree about the concern, we can also agree about the wider context of the debate—the national health service plan, which is welcomed by community health councils and others throughout the country. The plan is ambitious and far-reaching and aims to create a national health service in which the patient is the most important person. The plan is underpinned by the most generous and sustained commitment of additional resources ever in the history of the national health service.
Dr. Liam Fox: If the plan is so important to the future of health care in the United Kingdom, why has the House never been given an opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Hall: I am sure that there will be many opportunities to do so, and we are debating aspects of it now. The hon. Gentleman will have many opportunities to secure further debate on the subject. It is because of the importance of the NHS plan and its positive context that the issues raised in our debate today deserve such careful attention.
We are talking about the future of community health councils in England. Health matters are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: in each case, the devolved authorities, instead of committing themselves to the principle of abolition, decided to consult on methods of adding to and reforming the basic health council structure.
My approach to the proposals on patient empowerment and community health councils in England is set out in early-day motion 1103, which is tabled in my name and has attracted more than 100 signatures to date. It is intended to demonstrate the measured and serious intention of parliamentarians to deal with the many issues and questions that arise from the Government's proposals. I refer, in particular, to the need for independence, local and national integration, appropriate statutory powers and access to information
174WH
and support mechanisms to identify and promote best practice. Those considerations must be widely and carefully probed and then addressed—not least because, as they stand, the proposals beg more questions than answers and are notably thin on detail. That is widely understood.
I want to make it clear that these matters must be dealt with seriously and in detail, because I want the system to work. I want the national health service user and the communities served by the NHS to take a greater interest in their service, to participate more in it and to be listened to more by it. The mechanisms must be in place to deliver that desirable state of affairs. I want that to happen because it is right in principle and because it would provide greater depth and meaning to the widespread public support and good will felt for the NHS in this country.
The key question is: will the proposals for the new system of patient empowerment and community involvement provide the necessary mechanism? More important, will they do so better than community health councils?
Community health councils have done good work since they were established in 1974, but they certainly cannot deliver the necessary changes without reform. That is not at issue. The councils themselves and their national organisation in England and Wales have said for some time that that is the case. That is why the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales established, in March 1999, an independent commission to consider public interests in the national health service. That is also why several councils have taken useful initiatives about better ways of working and why, in June, ACHCEW submitted a document to the Department of Health's modernisation action team on patient empowerment. I am unsure to what extent those contributions have informed the NHS plan. Will the Under-Secretary tell us what notice was taken of them during the plan's preparation?
Many questions relating to the future of community health councils and the proposed new structures are already well rehearsed. I do not propose to cover all that ground today. I shall focus my remarks on the fragmentation that results from the redistribution of CHCs' functions between PALS, patients' forums, advisory committees, local council scrutiny committees and the Commission for Health Improvement. As the proposals stand, the first four bodies to which I referred—probably all five — are in danger of being isolated. They will need integration, information sharing, co-ordination and support. Something is missing from the proposals in that respect.
I served for several years on the social services committee of Bedfordshire county council. At the same time, I was a member of the North and Mid Bedfordshire community health council. The cross-fertilisation of ideas and information that I gained from my involvement in both bodies was invaluable. I am convinced that, to carry out the scrutiny function effectively, local councils will need easy access to independent and reliable sources of information about the national health service scene in their locality. I have given some thought, as have many others, to how that might be provided, for not only local councils but all the players and partners in the Government's proposed new arrangements.

175WH
The Commission for Health Improvement is an independent, national public sector organisation charged with inspecting, reviewing and developing the quality of every national health service trust every four years — more frequently, when problems develop. It also considers clinical governance issues and, as part of that duty, examines trends in complaints. For example, it is carrying out a root and branch inspection of the acute sections of Bedford general hospital, meeting with stakeholders, staff, service users and the trust board. The body is expected to produce draft recommendations for improvement during the 15-week inspection, and a final report, which will be made public. That report will set out a programme for improvement, which will require careful and detailed monitoring.
The Commission for Health Improvement will require a local presence to perform that essential and welcome task; it will surely not be able to do so from its national headquarters on the tenth floor of Finsbury tower. Given that it needs to maintain a local presence, why should it not use the offices of the local community health councils? Why not increase that presence by providing a secretariat service to carry out co-ordination, integration and information-sharing functions, which are essential if the new arrangements are to work, and which are currently missing from the NHS plan? We could call it CHI-plus, but I am sure that others will come up with a better name.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Commission for Health Improvement is not an independent body? Its constitution—the Act that established it—requires it to take directions from the Secretary of State.
Mr. Hall: I understand it to be an arm's length body—among those interested in such matters, it is perceived as having an element of independence. Such issues can be developed. The CHI-plus solution is worth considering and exploring. CHI-plus, locally distributed, could also house PALS, so that patients and their families could be confident about the independence of patient advocacy, as the Select Committee on Health has strongly argued that they should be.
The debate on these important matters is now clearly engaged. There will be primary legislation. There is a great deal to do. They are important matters and we must get them right.
10.45 am
Ms Hazel Blears: I am honoured to be secretary of the all-party group on community health councils. Before I came to Parliament, I was a member—and chair for four years—of Salford community health council, so I have personal experience of the tasks that are facing CHCs in an ever-changing and rapidly developing national health service and the ever-changing world of local government. The two functions are interrelated in many ways in terms of how they affect local people's health.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) secured the debate, because there are important issues for us to consider. I am disappointed, however, that the debate seems to be developing into
176WH
arguments for the status quo versus arguments for change. I do not think that that is where we should be going—nor should the debate be about the success or failure of community health councils. In my experience, CHCs throughout the country do a fantastic job with the resources available to them.
The debate should be about CHCs growing, evolving, developing and building on their best practice. Whether we call them community health councils ought to be an irrelevance. We should be directing our minds to finding the best way to ensure that local people have a real say in the way in which their health service develops and in the services that are available locally—a democratic accountability of the NHS to the people that it serves. I hope that all of us, in all parties, can share those aims. We want a national health service that is democratically accountable to local people and that shapes the development of its services based on the real needs of local communities.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Lady agree that her aspiration that we could all work together to achieve that laudable objective might have been enhanced had there been genuine consultation, which clearly there has not? We have been offered abolition, not exciting development.
Ms Blears: I would have preferred the hon. Gentleman to use terms similar to those that I used, such as evolution, organic change, and growing and developing—"abolition" is a harsh word. I hope that we can move the debate on to discuss the growth and development of services and I am interested to hear the Minister's view of the future. On a personal level, I am passionately committed to local people having their say. The NHS is such a massive organisation and there has been a danger of it becoming remote and distanced from those that it serves. It does not have the same democratic structure as local government and it can sometimes be hard to call it to account.
I also believe, and I know from experience, that local people can help to make the national health service more effective, responsive and efficient. As patients, users and carers, local people know about the quality of local services because they have to use them on a daily basis, so they are the best people to inform us about what needs to be changed and improved. They also know clearly, sometimes from personal experience, where things are going wrong. We have a duty in the health service to learn from patients' own experience and to try to ensure that we do not repeat mistakes that can cause such massive personal distress.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Does the hon. Lady accept that replacing the community health council with a patient advocacy service ignores the point of there being a forum aspect for the community? For example, Solihull community health council was successful in persuading the health authority to increase the number of magnetic resonance imaging scan hours to ensure that the waiting list for such scans was below one year. Such actions will be lost as a result of the Government's decision to abolish community health councils.
Ms Blears: The hon. Lady makes an important point. One of my worries is that, if patients forums are to be

177WH
established in each trust, we could be in danger of losing the overarching nature that represents the community—something larger than individuals. Will the Minister say whether a structure could be set up along the lines of that being proposed in my community to ensure that a collective as well as an individual voice is based in each trust? Although it is right to have forums in each trust, I am worried that they will not be enough to secure the wider voice of the community.
Putting people at the heart of the NHS is the direction in which we should be moving. However, community health councils have had to operate on a shoestring budget for many years. My community health council had two members of staff, one full and one part time. It served 250,000 people. We were often inundated with complex complaints that had to be followed up through a labyrinthine system that took hours. We were expected to monitor the quality of five different trusts and the whole range of services that they provided. Given that Salford provides teaching facilities, regional specialties and adult forensic services that serve the entire country, the poor community health council was sometimes left struggling to provide a high-quality service. Moreover, we had to participate in consultations and deal with legal issues and other complex matters.
The Government's proposals under the NHS plan should ensure that patient empowerment and citizens' involvement are better resourced. There is certainly a commitment to put extra funding into the system and, at long last, I am delighted that it has been recognised that the duties placed on CHCs have been not only burdensome, but not in the best interests of the community, as a result of which people have often not been able to provide such a huge range of services. It is right to pay tribute to the hard work of not only CHC staff, but volunteers. Their commitment throughout the country is enormous. I urge the Government to ensure that, in whatever proposals replace CHCs, we do not undervalue, denigrate or lose the tremendous commitment of people who want to be involved in their local health service. It is hard enough to encourage people to participate in public service. It is a real challenge for all of us. When people want to have their say about the health service and communicate with their local community, we should welcome them with open arms and ensure that the facilities give them the chance to be involved.
I am proud of the CHC in Salford. It is progressive and forward looking. It is excited by the Government's proposals and Manchester, Salford and Trafford CHCs, of which there are five, are all in the health action zone, which is undertaking tremendously progressive work. They have recently set up a project to commission research—on a proper evidence base, not only on anecdotal issues—into what should be the shape of
future mechanisms for ensuring patient empowerment and citizenship involvement. That began in October and will be running for the next six months. In March 2001, we should have the results of that in-depth consultation with local people about what they want in terms of their ability to participate in such mechanisms.
We should be encouraged by the fact that the base of such research sterns from the NHS plan, which states that the NHS will
178WH
shape its services around the needs and preferences of individual patients, their families and their carers…respond to different needs of different populations…work together with others to ensure a seamless service for patients…help keep people healthy and work to reduce health inequalities,
and, my goodness, we need to reduce health inequalities much faster than we have done. We must also recognise that the NHS does not operate alone. The factors that influence good health are much wider than the health service. They include good housing, decent education, safe, warm and affordable homes and safe streets in terms of accidents and crime and disorder. All those factors affect people's well-being and health. Whatever system we have for consulting local people, it must take into account that the NHS works with local government, voluntary groups and local businesses, all of which go to make up a community. In the past, we have been guilty of putting the NHS, local government and education in separate boxes. All those matters are integrated and the community's views on them must draw everything together.
In inner-city areas such as my constituency, extra complications are involved, such as the neighbourhood renewal strategy, education action zones, the single regeneration budget and Sure Start—wonderful Government initiatives, but they all require consultation. We should like to ensure that NHS consultation keys into all those other consultation mechanisms, otherwise we will be in danger of developing consultation fatigue.
We ask the same few people all the time to be involved in the consultation process. In Salford, we propose something quite radical—SPAN, the Salford participation network, which will involve local people coming together to form a community voice in addition to the individual patient forums. We shall have a blend of advocacy, support services, and, crucially, the authentic voice of local people, which will be independent and challenging. It will certainly not be a Government poodle. It will point out where we are going wrong as well as where we are going right. With support—it will require funding and resources—I hope that it will be a vibrant democratic body at the heart of the entire range of consultation, including not only the NHS but local government and all the crucial functions involved.
We must face up to the fact that the world is changing. Services and the way in which they are delivered in communities are changing. We cannot simply argue for the status quo. We need better consultation mechanisms. I am extremely worried that the voices of many marginalised and excluded people are never heard. Even in our community health council, we have done some analysis and found that people whose voices are not heard include adults in residential care. When are such people consulted? They also include children under 12, people who are homeless, frail older people, people who are illiterate, people whose first language is not English, people with dementia—difficult to consult, but it can be done—people with learning disabilities, refugees, asylum seekers and travellers. How often are the voices of such people heard in shaping local services? It is hard to consult those groups, but that does not mean that we should not try to do so and be imaginative and creative in the mechanisms that we put in place to

179WH
do so. Those people deserve as much of a voice in the health service as mainstream members of the community.
The Government are well intentioned and the new proposals will help to give more people a voice in shaping the health service. Advocacy must be a top priority, because many people need support to make their case and advocacy services have been drastically underfunded, existing on perhaps an even shorter shoestring than community health councils.
Effective scrutiny is essential. That will be a new role for local authorities and they will need support to exercise it properly. Involving local authorities in examining how the health service functions in their communities may even take us back to the days when those authorities had much more of a say in the health service—not something that I consider bad. The relationship needs to be closer.
I hope that the Government will achieve the necessary balance between ensuring that our empowerment mechanisms reflect changes in services while retaining the authentic democratic accountability that gives our service integrity. We must not end up with a bland service that people do not trust or have faith in and that they do not feel that they can go to in times of need.
The system must change, but we must be brave enough to recognise that on occasion the community will be right and the Government and the NHS will be wrong. The community has the right to have that say. We must set in train proper consultation mechanisms to draw in as many people as possible, because what will improve our health service is a constant process of renewal and dialogue, talking and listening to one another and changing our services to reflect the real needs of local communities.
That is the way forward. Much creative work is under way and I hope that across parties we can look to the future. I believe that the proposals are about more power to the people, and I say to Opposition Members, "Have courage, have faith. Look to the future, not the past, and welcome the proposals."
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady has been talking about consultation. Is her message to the Government that she would have preferred proper consultation before the Government announced arbitrarily the abolition of CHCs?
Ms Blears: My message to the Government is that the proposals that are set out in the NHS plan reflect the principles that I enunciated earlier. I agree entirely with those principles. It is right to look to the future and to set up mechanisms that are appropriate for the modern world.
11 am
Mr. Nick Harvey: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this important first opportunity for Parliament to discuss the future of community health councils. I warmly echo the tribute that he paid to their work over the past 25 years. He was right that there was shock and consternation when they discovered the sting in the tail in the NHS plan, which heralded their demise. It is not completely unprecedented under Governments of any
180WH
colour for announcements to be made in a rather sudden manner. Indeed, such a bounce is part of politics, but it would have been more acceptable if the announcement were followed by meaningful consultation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the present consultation process.
The Under-Secretary has talked about the seminars that are taking place, but there are only four of them, with a hand-picked list of attendees in each case. It would be far more satisfactory if the Government issued a consultation document explaining the options that they are willing to consider and invited representations from all and sundry, whatever their particular perspective—whether they were patients, patient groups, people working in the health service or those who have had experience within the CHC world.
Since the announcement was made, I have spoken to many people involved with CHCs and with a good number of CHC chief officers. Every person to whom I spoke recognised the need for fundamental reform of the CHC. Not one person argued for the retention of the status quo and, if the hon. Member for Eddisbury will forgive my saying so, in the course of making a powerful case he strayed once or twice into the realms of viewing the current situation through rose-tinted spectacles. Undoubtedly, there is a need for fundamental reform. If the Government embarked on meaningful dialogue and consultation, it would be reasonable for us to ask ourselves whether their proposals offer a satisfactory blueprint for what might follow.
The Government propose that the local authorities should take over the role of statutory consultee on service levels and changes. That in itself is not inherently a bad idea, but to perform that function satisfactorily, they must have the relevant information at their disposal. I am concerned about the separation of the role of the statutory consultee from that of patient representation and resolution of individual complaints. If the statutory consultees are not those who are going out on inspections, are not those who are in regular dialogue with patient groups and are not those who are handling the individual complaints, it is difficult to understand on what the basis they will carry out their role as consultees. Unless that matter can be dealt with, there is a fundamental weakness in the suggestion that local authorities should take over such a role.
The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) spoke sensibly about patient advocacy. The Select Committee on Health, in its report on complaints procedures within the NHS, identified the need for much improved patient advocacy. That is particularly apt for mental health patients, frail elderly patients and those who are not able, for one reason or another, to look after their own interests. It is far too important a role to be put in the hands of an employee of the health service trusts that are supposed to be under scrutiny. It has been put to me that it would be all together far more effective if the patient advocate were an employee of the health trust. The chief executive of the trust will respond more positively if the patient advocate can go to him and say, "We have a

181WH
problem and if we do not sort it out by 5 o'clock this afternoon, the local press will be on our back." The advocate would be more effective if he could go to the chief executive and say, "If you do not solve the problem by 5 o'clock this afternoon, 1 shall involve the local press."
Mr. Miller: I was trying to tease that out of the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). I agree with the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) about the line of accountability, but, as the spokesman for his party, does he have any proposals? Given the accusation of an absence of consultation, the hon. Gentleman may as well tell the Minister now how he thinks that line of accountability should work.
Mr. Harvey: I shall be happy to do so. The NHS plan describes a set-up in which the patient forums will be serviced by the patient advocates—I presume that they will provide the secretariat—who will be employees of the hospital trust or the primary care trust. That is an unsatisfactory way of setting up such bodies. If the patient forum or patient advocates are to have any credibility, it is essential that they are independent. Their funding must be provided independently and they must be employed independently. The Government's description of patient forums and patient advocates may provide a sensible foundation, but only if they are separate from the trusts that they are supposed to scrutinise. That is essential if they are to have any credibility.
My greatest concern is that the disparate set-ups proposed by the Government will not hang together effectively. The complaints system in the NHS is profoundly unsatisfactory and very few patients are able to pursue complaints to a helpful outcome. Many CHC chief officers have been candid enough to tell me that individual complaints have often been the poor relation on their list of priorities. They are labour intensive and use up a lot of their resources. They often feel that dealing with such complaints does not achieve as much for the local community as putting the greater part of their efforts into inspection and scrutiny of the wider health service picture. It is essential that work on individual complaints is properly resourced, and if that means taking it out of the organisation that provides local representation, so be it. I am not convinced that that is necessary and it should be possible for it to sit within a patient forum set-up, but only if it receives ring-fenced resources and adequate staff to do the job. I am not convinced that the job is being done well at the moment. Citizens advice bureaux have a good record and their involvement was mooted, but their effectiveness is patchy. At their best they are very good, but in other areas they are not so effective.
The Government's plans may have shreds of logic here and there, but the whole will be less than the sum of the parts. Unless the Government can satisfy us that there will be some institutional mechanism by which they are linked together and can guarantee that there will be proper independence for those carrying out the roles, the plans are not supportable in their current form. However, I recognise the need for change and, if
182WH
the Government would engage in open consultation, they could find a way forward that would enjoy wide support.
11.9 am
Dr. Liam Fox: I, too, begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate. It is a disgrace that we have had no opportunity to debate the NHS plan in the House, despite the Government's oft-repeated claim that it is the most significant change in the running of our health care system since the inception of the NHS. The House has been treated with a combination of arrogance and cowardice. The Government treat Parliament with contempt, so it is little wonder that people who have given so much time and effort to CHCs are treated with similar contempt.
As my hon. Friend said, three facts are clear. There been no consultation on the abolition of CHCs, which is contained in the national plan, and no consultation on the decisions taken since the announcement of abolition, and the dialogue on patient empowerment has not dealt with the decision to abolish CHCs. I understand that ACHCEW is holding a seminar on 4 December, but the Minister has written in advance to say that she will be unable to answer questions about the Government's proposals to abolish CHCs. So far from consultation, the Minister will attend a seminar held by the body that represents the organisations that are about to disappear, having warned it that she will not answer any questions about abolition. That clearly shows the Government's view of consultation.
In early-day motion 595, the House congratulates the CHCs on the occasion of their 25th anniversary and marks its appreciation of their work. When the Prime Minister was asked by South Durham CHC to sign it, it received the following response from an agent:

I am replying on behalf of Tony to your letter…concerning the Early Day Motion congratulating CHCs on their 25th anniversary. Unfortunately the Prime Minister is unable to sign EDMs as they are a vehicle for back bench MPs to voice their feelings on an issue. However in this case of course Tony agrees with every word of the motion. Tony would certainly like to add his congratulations to the work the CHCs have done over the last 25 years and wishes them every success in the future.
The next time that the Minister receives a message from the Prime Minister wishing her every success in the future, I suggest that she thinks about the imminent prospect of her unemployment.
Important points have emerged from our debate. Many community councils have been effective, though some could be improved dramatically. There is a strong case for reform. For example, there should be more standardisation of CHC work and better resourcing. Had the Government proposed the reform of appointments to CHCs, their resourcing and operation, they would have received wide support across the House. Instead, they proposed simple abolition without prior consultation.
CHCs must have an independent role, a community role and a better patients' complaints service. Many people who have worked on the medical side of the NHS recognise that it is difficult for patients to make effective complaints within the service. Health care delivery is becoming increasingly politicised. It is extraordinarily naive to believe that a body set up for patient advocacy

183WH
under the auspices of an NHS trust will feel independent enough to question and attack the trust when necessary on behalf of patients. I cannot believe that Ministers are naive enough to believe that. It is more likely that they well understand that the new bodies will not cause so much trouble, which is precisely why the new mechanism is being put in place.
As I said, there is increasing party politicisation in the NHS today. In a damning indictment of the Government's handling of appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie pointed out that, between March 1997 and November 1999, 284 Labour councillors were appointed to NHS trust positions compared with 23 Conservatives and 36 Liberal Democrats. The Government now ask us to accept that the Labour party cronies appointed from the local government pool into the NHS can be scrutinised by the cronies left behind in the same pool. That is a new Labour culture, not a means of improving patient care.
Ms Blears: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Fox: Yes, I will give way to the hon. Lady, whose speech gave naked careerism a bad name even in this place.
Ms Blears: Just to correct the hon. Gentleman, I am fully clothed. Is the hon. Gentleman impugning the integrity of all local government in Britain? Many hard working local authority representatives would be extremely concerned at his suggestion that they lack integrity and would fail to carry out proper scrutiny. Are his comments directed at the whole of local government, including Conservative party councillors?
Dr. Fox: No, they apply to new Labour and the disgraceful abuse of the way in which appointments are made. If the hon. Lady believes that it does not happen, she should take the matter up with Dame Rennie Fritchie, whose recommendations were supposedly to be accepted by the Secretary of State.
Having been in government, Conservative Members know how effective CHCs can be in their role of reviewing and opposing plans for reorganisation. Secretaries of State and Ministers do not like it when CHCs say, "We do not like the way in which this reorganisation has taken place, and we are referring it back to the Secretary of State. There must be ministerial responsibility." One reason for the new arrangement is that Ministers find such comments uncomfortable; they would rather that that role disappeared altogether. That is typical of how the Government do business.
We have made it clear that, if the Conservative party wins the general election before CHCs have been abolished, they will not be abolished. If we win the general election after the Government have done their dirty work, we shall reinstate an independent body, but reformed in a way that would have the agreement of both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Salford said that abolition is a harsh word, but it is also a good description. It is a harsh word because it is a harsh policy. That is what we shall find in the primary legislation. The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends will hold the key to whether CHCs are
184WH
abolished. She and they will need to consider where their loyalties lie—to their communities and to their experience, or to their Whips.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate. It is a measure of the importance of the subject that so many hon. Members are here this morning.
We should focus not on the future of CHCs but on the future of effective public and patient involvement in the modern national health service. A number of good contributions have been made. To my surprise, I agreed with the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that the complaints procedure set up under the Tory Government needs to be improved, and the King's Fund and York university are consulting on that. However, if he were to read carefully our proposals about the overview and scrutiny committees, he would realise that final referrals can still be made to the Secretary of State in those uncomfortable cases to which he referred.
Dr. Fox: How apt that the Under-Secretary should begin with a matter that she would rather the debate was about. We are here to discuss the Government's plans for abolishing CHCs. It would help if she were to deal with that subject rather than the fancy debate that she would prefer to take part in.
Ms Stuart: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have waited a little longer before accusing me of not addressing the subject.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury raised a number of issues. I am sorry that he is disappointed that it is I who will answer the debate, but that is as good as it gets this morning. I am honoured to have been asked to reply.
I want to focus on the important speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and for Salford (Ms Blears). I also thank the Members and officers of the all-party group, who have played an important role; it was important that I met the group as soon as possible after the recess. I also thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) for his clear and welcome statement that the public recognise that the status quo is unacceptable. Fundamental and radical change is needed. No organisation, not even a statutory body, has the right to exist just because it is there. They must continuously change in order to fulfil the function for which they were set up. That is why we must consider the past contribution of CHCs.
The NHS plan was the result of a huge and unprecedented consultation exercise. No previous Government have engaged in such a consultation with the public, staff and members of the professions, many of whom signed up to the plan. As a result, we examined the CHCs' important contribution over the past 26 years.

185WH
It must be recognised that changes that have occurred in the modern NHS mean that the organisations within the NHS need to change too. We now have primary care groups and primary care trusts. Things are changing. Let us examine the proposal and the criticisms.
Dr. Fox: For the sake of clarification, did the Government at any time discuss with the CHCs the possibility of their abolition?
Ms Stuart: It is important to put on record that there was CHC representation on the modernisation action teams, including the one that I chaired on patient empowerment. However, it was clear that, after the consultation period in which the teams met, any decisions made would be the responsibility of Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to make a little progress, to put the wider picture.
Despite the significant changes in the NHS, CHCs have not changed. I commend the hon. Member for Eddisbury on setting up the Eddisbury health forum. In bringing together all those disparate organisations he demonstrated the need to scrutinise existing structures. Some health authorities are represented by as many as five CHCs. It is not unusual for one CHC to approve a reconfiguration plan while another opposes it. There is a need for fundamental restructuring.
Performance has doubtless been patchy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford for identifying the need for co-operation with other organisations. What we are doing concerns not just one organisation. Health provision involves more than that. The response to complaints is variable. Dealing with complaints is not and never was part of the statutory duty of CHCs. There has been an evolution of what is needed, and the time has come to re-examine the issue.
The fact that CHCs have had no rights within primary care has been a huge disadvantage. Given that 70 per cent. of patient contact occurs through primary care, councils had no right to become involved in 70 per cent. of the patient experience.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: First, I reaffirm that it would be common ground across the House that CHCs need reform, but they do not need to be abolished. Secondly, even though there is no statutory provision for NHS complainants to make use of CHCs, they do so because those bodies have come to be trusted for their independence.
Ms Stuart: It would have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had made it clear in his speech that he recognised the need for fundamental change, instead of making a pre-election Tory manifesto pledge.
There is clearly a democratic deficit in the current structure of the CHCs. Where is the structured involvement with the local authority? What is needed is not the politicisation of the NHS, or an adversarial system. It is strange to complain that the proposed new arrangements will lack independence, while claiming that CHCs—which are in fact funded by local health authorities—are totally independent. No one, for
186WH
example, would accuse Marks and Spencer's complaints department staff of lacking effectiveness and efficiency just because they are employed by Marks and Spencer.
We need to consider what the Government intend to put in the place of CHCs. Hon. Members want and ought to hear how patient representation at every level, and the issues that have been raised today, will be dealt with by the new structure.
Mr. John Randall: As an ex-retailer I know that people making complaints often make the additional complaint that they are being dealt with by staff who are not independent.
Ms Stuart: What is important is whether organisations learn from complaints and are responsive. Watchdogs play an important role, but more are needed. The public—patients and citizens—have a right to be represented at every level of the NHS because it is a public service. Under the national plan for NHS modernisation, patients and citizens will have a third level of representation, the Commission for Health Improvement. I shall carefully consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford in that respect. Also at national level, there will be the new, independent reconfiguration panels, and at local level, the independent local authority forums—I was interested to note that they have not been mentioned— and the overview and scrutiny committees. At trust level, there will be patient forums; the patient satisfaction service will continue.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) suggested, the Government have no commitment to divide and rule. Patients' and citizens' representation will not be treated as an add-on, to be taken note of or ignored as we choose, but will be woven into the structure. The NHS is a public service, and the public must be consulted as a matter of course, so that there is continuous feedback. That is one the reason why we want a continuous relationship between local government and elected representatives. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Woodspring cast aspersions on the integrity of local government. Local authorities are very powerful; their right to summon chief executives to explain their actions is vital, as is their continuing involvement.
The Local Government Association is happy for me to quote its belief that the plan offers an opportunity to tackle the democratic deficit in the NHS. The proposals to extend the local authority's scrutiny role to local health organisations will give communities a real say in the planning and provision of health care. The LGA is committed to working with member authorities and health partners to drive forward the agenda.
The original CHCs had three distinct functions, the first of which was inspection. The primary care sector was excluded, but the world has moved on after 26 years. The patient advocacy liaison service and patient forums will be set up not only in every NHS trust but in every primary care trust. The second function of CHCs was the reconfiguration of services, and the third was to deal with complaints. We genuinely wanted to strengthen all three strands of that work and we had to ask whether the natural tensions within those bodies could be combined in one structure, to which the answer was no.

187WH
The patient advocacy liaison service and patient forums will have a rolling membership, composed of 50 per cent. patients and voluntary sector groups and 50 per cent. of the most recent users of the health service. The long-term users of the health service tend to be forgotten, but they have huge experience. Our plans are not adversarial, but will improve the services provided.
At health authority level there will be independent citizen forums for strategic development, which I hope will allay the anxieties of some Members, and overview and scrutiny committees. The ongoing scrutiny of the health service is important. Health bodies will have a duty to consult and they will retain the right to refer contested changes, and—if something really has gone wrong—complaints, to the Secretary of State. That is why we are reviewing the complaints procedure and why we talked to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. If something has gone wrong it needs to be addressed quickly and effectively. It is a whole package. CHCs were just part of that jigsaw. I hope that hon. Members are convinced that we are putting patients back at the centre of decision making where they should be and where they should have been a long time ago.

Construction workers
11.30 am
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: The purpose of securing a debate on the employment conditions of construction workers is to add oxygen to the efforts and discussions that were kickstarted by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when he commissioned the Egan inquiry two years ago. He has demonstrated his concern about this group of workers, which arises principally from the appalling safety record within the industry. That record is getting worse and worse. It is an outrage that there has been a rise of 22 per cent. in fatalities in 1999 and the figure for 2000 is likely to be even higher. Thirty builders have died on sites in the first four months of this year alone.
The Health and Safety Executive needs to take a tougher line. Of the 41 successful prosecutions involving fatalities in 1999, the average fine was just over £15,500. That amounts to crumbs when we are talking about people's lives and contractors are dealing with multi-million pound awards. Only two of the fines imposed last year amounted to six figure sums and 11 prosecutions for breaches of safety regulation resulted in fines of less than £1,000. The HSE has shown that it is prepared to take a tougher line, but not often enough. A clear warning needs to be sent to the industry. The HSE must tell it to wake up because it kills and maims its workers. It must stress that breaches of safety regulation will not be tolerated and will incur serious penalties.
It would be completely wrong to assume that this appalling safety record somehow operates in isolation to an otherwise trouble-free industry. The safety record is a symptom, a manifestation of fundamental and structural problems in the way that workers are employed. I shall argue that, if we tackle the employment conditions, not only will we begin to see a downward trend in the fatalities and serious accidents, but we will begin to address other areas of concern. We will see improved productivity, and we will be better placed to attract people into the industry and to encourage higher-quality workmanship.
The importance of bringing about employment changes in the industry was emphasised by the Prime Minister's announcement last week that the Government would double public capital investment. That was a welcome announcement for all involved in the construction industry. If we are to maximise that investment, we need a skilled, safe and secure work force. Skilled many of them are, yet safe and secure within their jobs many are not. Increased capital investment will provide great opportunities. However, while we want the new bypasses, new rail infrastructure, improved schools and new hospitals, we do not want our construction workers to end up as patients inside them because of inadequate safety measures on the site.
In our White Paper "Fairness at Work", the Prime Minister spoke of steering a course between the absence of minimum standards of protection at the workplace and a return to the laws of the past. He said in the foreword:
There will be no going back. The days of strikes without ballots. mass picketing, closed shops and secondary action are over. But it cannot be just to deny British citizens basic canons of fairness—rights to claim unfair dismissal, rights against discrimination for making a free choice of being a union member.

189WH
I spoke on Second Reading of the Bill that became the Employment Relations Act 1999. That legislation was deeply opposed by the Tories, but many of us believed that it heralded a new era in industrial relations—an end to "hire and fire". Combined with the working time directive, it was to bring greater security to the workplace, encourage partnership and ultimately increase productivity. The Act has made a great difference for many people yet, for construction workers, there has sadly been little improvement. The safety record of that industry alone highlights the need for a new culture of partnership and rights.
A recent report from the IMC emphasised the productivity gap in the UK. In the construction industry, we will not close that gap, nor fill the skill shortages, if we do not recognise the need for important changes to the way in which it employs people. We will not encourage young people into an industry with such an appalling safety record and variable employment conditions. The central issue surrounding conditions of employment is that of bogus self-employment—a system that enables contractors, and more commonly sub-contractors, to fiddle tax and prevent workers enjoying basic rights such as paid leave, paid breaks and representation by a trade union. That system is costing the Exchequer billions in unpaid national insurance. I am in the unusual position, for a Back Bencher in an Adjournment debate, of not asking for any money. Back Benchers usually come to such debates wanting more money from the Government, but I want to help the Chancellor by offering him ways to add to the healthy state of public finances.
In 1999, we saw the introduction of the CIS4 card, a construction industry scheme which was part and parcel of changes proposed by the former Tory Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). While the intention of the scheme was to claw back some of the lost billions of unpaid taxes, it has had only a limited success in terms of recouped revenue. More worryingly, it has led to ten of thousands of workers being incorrectly categorised as self-employed when they should be treated as workers and, as such, enjoy the better employment laws that the Government have rightly introduced. Bogus self-employment imposed on building operatives acts as a subsidy to the building industry by allowing employers to avoid paying national insurance contributions.
Since its inception, some 800,000 CIS4 cards have been issued, with little monitoring or checking by the Inland Revenue—indeed, they seem to be given out like confetti. A new practice has consequently emerged. Sub-contractors will tell a building operative that work is available only for the self-employed—who have no rights and to whom immediate notice can be given. However, in practice, such workers are controlled and directed, required to turn up at a site at a given time, instructed to take training, have to clock on, and may not seek to be replaced during the period of work. To all intents and purposes, therefore, they are workers and do not enjoy the flexibility of self-employed individuals. They should therefore be classed as workers and entitled to employment rights.
190WH
Trade unions have successfully brought cases to employment tribunals, yet the practice still continues. Even where workers are employed, disregard for the working time directive is commonplace, because people cannot afford to lose their jobs. They can go to an employment tribunal to demand holiday pay—and can, in the main, expect to win—but that takes time and puts individuals' livelihood at risk. If an individual has a family to support, he simply will not take that risk. The question is whether someone in such circumstances, who has been denied basic employment rights, will feel secure enough to challenge dangerous working practices. The statistics on that speak for themselves.
Many construction workers are employed by labour supply firms. That means that they are direct employees of the agency, pay tax and PAYE and have their national insurance contributions met. However, holiday pay and other benefits are avoided by engaging people on a contract of just short of the 13-week qualifying period and then offering them another contract, again for just short of 13 weeks. Such practice occurs where the client is the taxpayer, for example in the Government procurement of new hospitals. Bromley hospital is an instance of that. The contractor, Taylor Woodrow, engaged a sub-contractor, Buildstone, and accepted no responsibility for that sub-contractor's behaviour. Despite being found at an employment tribunal to have broken the law by denying workers holiday pay, sick pay and notice, Taylor Woodrow washed its hands of responsibility. So did the Bromley Hospitals national health service trust, the regional executive and, ultimately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government. The heart of the problem is fragmentation, with no one prepared to take responsibility.
What is especially galling is that costs are built in to take account of the working time directive when a contract is awarded for any public procurement. Taylor Woodrow would then have built in costs to its sub-contractor. Clearly, contractors are not only fiddling workers out of their holiday pay, but ultimately fiddling the public purse. The taxpayer says yes to the directive within the price of a new hospital, but the workers do not get what is intended. Where is the money? It is kept by the contractor or sub-contractor.
Another example is the channel tunnel rail link. It winds its way through Kent—our finest county, I am sure that you agree, Mr. Gale—including through my constituency and employs up to 1,000 construction workers. Some £4.2 billion of public investment is being poured into the project, which I welcome. However, is it not reasonable to expect people working on the project to enjoy basic employment rights? In case after case, sub-contractors ignore those basic rights. AMEC, McAlpine, Hochtief, Norwest Holst and Skanska all engage sub-contractors that have been found by employment tribunals to have broken the law by ignoring the working time directive and using bogus, self-employed labour.
Encouragingly, Balfour Beatty, which has contract No. 440 in east Kent, insists that its sub-contractors comply with the directive. If one sub-contractor can comply, why cannot others? The good contractor is being undermined by the poor one. We can apply the same principle as we did when arguing for the minimum

191WH
wage. The client, Union Railways, should take some responsibility for tackling the problem, as should the Government.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in sending a clear message from the House to those who have public contracts, for the channel tunnel, hospitals or roads, to put their houses in order. They must ensure that people receive their basic rights. The issue cuts across Government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is considering the matter seriously, as I said, but we must drill down to see the relationship between the client, the contractor and the operative. If the situation improves, people will enjoy better working relationships and we shall have improved productivity. We might also save a few people's lives.
Ms Joan Walley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I am sure that many hon. Members have heard of terrible tragedies in their constituencies of people being killed in construction work.
My hon. Friend talked about employment rights and the issue of the bogus self-employed. Does he agree that it is vital for the Government to consider carefully the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, to see whether they could make provision for roving safety representatives? That would give us much greater confidence about safety checks on-site by trade union members.
Mr. Shaw: There is always a queue of issues to be included in the Queen's Speech, but I hope that there will be new health and safety legislation to begin to tackle my hon. Friend's sensible suggestion.
There are several ways forward already. I think that it was the first brief of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to insist that all public procurement contracts demonstrate that construction workers receive their entitlement to basic employment rights.
Mr. Michael Clapham: A year ago I attended a Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians health and safety conference. I heard horrific tales of intimidation of safety representatives by companies. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that sub-contracting has created a real danger. He mentioned drilling down. Does he believe that, if the main contractor and the sub-contractor were under a legal obligation to have the main contractor's safety policy written into their contracts and those of each worker, that might lead to a safer environment on building sites?
Mr. Shaw: I was coming to that very point. I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly. The health and safety policy of the main contractor should apply to all workers on the site. That is not the case at the moment. Construction workers can work alongside one another and be subject to completely different sets of health and safety guidelines from their different companies. Some of those guidelines are good, others appalling.
192WH
Finally, we need a review of the CIS4 card. The onus should be on the employer or the contractor to demonstrate to the Inland Revenue that the worker is genuinely self-employed, otherwise no card should be issued.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend, at the end of his fine speech, reflect for a moment on the legal ramifications of the matter that he is bringing to the Government's attention? Workers often have difficulty in establishing liability when they are injured but do not have a contract of employment. The legal liabilities become diffuse. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which the Government can deal with that problem is by a simple Bill that reverses the burden of proof in situations such as those? Where a relationship is claimed to be one of employment, the burden of proving that it is not so should rest with the defendant and not with the plaintiff.
Mr. Shaw: I will not argue with my hon. and learned Friend's legal expertise. I know that he takes a great deal of interest in the issue, and his remarks highlight the fact that we have a fragmented, casualised work force who are experiencing something unique: an increase in recorded accidents and fatalities in a particular industry. We cannot tolerate that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister listened to my hon. and learned Friend's suggestion.
It is time to stop people dying in the construction industry. It is time to stop the tax fiddling, and the intimidation that goes on in the industry. It is time that we faced the fact that employment conditions hold the key to a safer, more secure and more productive construction industry. I recognise that I have painted with a broad brush in presenting my argument. There are many complex issues to tackle, because the matter cuts right across Government, involving the DETR, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury, but they must be tackled and not placed in the tray marked "Too difficult".
11.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I welcome this opportunity to debate employment conditions in the construction industry. It is customary to congratulate hon. Members when they secure an Adjournment debate, but I warmly and genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing this particular debate on an issue that has been of immense importance to me and my Department during the past two years.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his sense of timing, because the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and I, launched the publication of a report yesterday evening, entitled "A Commitment to People: Our Biggest Asset". It is the report of an industry working group set up under the umbrella of the rethinking construction initiative to examine respect for people issues in the construction industry. That follows the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Minister about 18 months ago, when he chaired a meeting of leading representatives of the

193WH
industry and trade unions to discuss what might be done to improve the way in which the industry treats its own people.
In July 1999, at the rethinking construction conference, my hon. Friend the Minister challenged the industry in strong terms to suggest some practical proposals for improving its performance in that respect. Alan Crane, the chairman of the board of Movement for Innovation, set up a working group drawn from all quarters of industry and from trade unions, whose report was published yesterday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford made some important points about the employment status of construction workers and the consequential working terms and conditions, to which I shall return, but at the outset I make it clear that the construction industry deals with a complex set of circumstances, all of which impact on working conditions. The excessive number of hours worked and some of the other employment issues to which my hon. Friend referred are important factors, but we must discuss those in the context of the industry's poor record on all areas of employment, including training, health and safety and site conditions. The industry's culture and attitude is often adversarial and aggressive, and for too long it has paid too little attention to the position of workers and the conditions in which they work.
We should note some key statistics. The age of people working in the construction industry is increasing. Ten years ago, one third of the work force was under 30; today, that age group accounts for only about 25 per cent. The work force tends to be made up of white males, the proportion of women is less than 9 per cent., and less than 2 per cent. are from minority ethnic groups. Construction workers work longer hours than those in other industries, and are more likely to be involved in an accident, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford has graphically pointed out.
Safety is an issue about which we are especially concerned. As my hon. Friend said, the number of fatalities declined for several years but rose to 85 last year, and in the first half of this year 62 people have been killed in construction accidents. That is an appalling figure and totally unacceptable, as is the fact that the trend is rising instead of continuing to decrease. Every year, many thousands of people leave the industry as a result of a work-related injury. Twice as many people as in any other industry suffer ill health as a result of their work, one in 20 suffers from serious muscular-skeletal damage, and 600 die every year from past exposure to asbestos. Those statistics, taken together, represent an unacceptable record of fatal accidents and attention to health, to which we must put an end.
Two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I met leaders from all sectors of the industry, and we put it to them in the strongest possible terms that no change is not negotiable. We are also meeting trade union leaders and the Health and Safety Commission is inviting a wide range of leaders to a safety summit in February, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister initiated. We have not only the respect for people report but the "Revitalising Health and Safety" report drafted by the Health and Safety Executive. Because of the lack of
194WH
time, I shall not dwell on statistics, but I make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford that we are determined to ensure that there is progress throughout the construction industry, not only in relation to site conditions. The attention to health and safety must start right at the beginning of the construction process. There are many means by which safer conditions can be adopted at the point of design and specification. Too little attention has been paid to the potential of design for increasing safety.
Ms Walley: May I press my hon. Friend on the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977? Does she envisage that the review will include a close examination of the amendments that would be necessary to provide roving safety representatives?
Ms Hughes: Nothing is excluded from the review, which will examine a range of measures. Working with industry, trade unions and the Health and Safety Executive, the aim is to improve the record. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is also committed to taking further action, but we shall have to wait for the Queen's Speech and further legislative proposals before we know exactly what is proposed. However, my right hon. Friend's commitment is clear.
The case for change is not just about health and safety. The industry's record needs to be improved across the board. The ethical case for improvements is important, but there is also a strong business case. The industry now faces severe skill shortages as a result of inadequate training and poor management. The case for radical change is powerful: not only is the construction work force ageing, but not enough talented young people are applying. In short, the reputation and the history of the industry in respect of its workers does not attract young people, who do not want to work in the poor conditions with poor prospects that have been the experience of so many people in the industry to date.
Civil engineering applications are drastically down and several courses that provide proper professional training in the construction industry are experiencing difficulties because young people are not attracted to it. It is an issue for the industry itself to tackle. In many respects the industry has a proud history, but it is facing serious difficulties as a result of its lack of attention to people.
The Government's report "A Commitment to People" proposes some practical suggestions for improving the industry's performance. I do not have enough time to explain it fully, but it deals with diversity issues, site facilities, the working environment, off-site health, safety, career development and lifelong learning.
I must deal with the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford about bogus self-employed people and general employment conditions. The construction industry scheme is designed to stop tax evasion; it is not addressed specifically at shifting the balance in the employment status of individuals. I am pleased that my hon. Friend recognised the good practice evident in the industry in that regard. Some contractors are moving in the direction of employment. Over the past four years since 1996, the proportion of people working in the industry was initially broadly balanced between self-employed

195WH
and employed, but the trend is now shifting. Now the proportion of employed to self-employed is almost double. Despite my hon. Friend's concern about the impact of the scheme, we are starting to see a shift.
One mechanism for promoting that shift is the Government's efforts on rethinking the construction agenda, which will promote good conditions, training and a long-term partner relationship between contractors and clients. Many improvements in the conditions of workers require investment in training, health and safety, and so forth. It makes sense for contractors who make that investment—and they are—to base their relationship with their work force on employment, rather than self-employment. If the best-trained people stay with the company, that is a return on investment.
My hon. Friend pointed out the importance of the role of clients. Central and local government have a key role in this context. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and reassure him about the Government's commitment to make progress in the direction that he outlined.

Inshore Fishing Industry
12 noon
Mr. Andrew George: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate such an important matter. It is important to several hon. Members with coastal constituencies. I shall focus on three matters that are of concern to many hon. Members with inshore fishing interests in their constituencies: the future and possible extension of the six and 12-mile limits; some issues concerning the work of the sea fisheries committees; and, the protection of low-impact fishing methods, which are often a feature of the traditional inshore fishing industry.
I shall refer to three reports, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. The report of the Agriculture Committee, on sea fishing, contained several recommendations on inshore fishing. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds produced a report this summer entitled, "Managing EC Inshore Fisheries: Time for Change". Also, in its document "1888–2000 and Beyond", the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales raised important matters relating to the committees' powers.
Clearly, the future of inshore fisheries is important to coastal areas. It is important to maintain a healthy fishing industry and healthy fish stocks and to set high marine conservation standards. I do not consider those aims to be in conflict. In fact, they converge and are mutually supportive.
The rules for inshore fisheries are based on the original derogations when the United Kingdom joined the European Community and were renewed in 1982 for a further 20 years, subject to a mid-term review in 1992. As we know, the UK accepted the principle of equal access to fishing grounds on entering the EC in 1973, but was granted a 10-year derogation allowing national control of coastal waters. It might be worth reminding ourselves of article 100 of the treaty of accession, which states:
Member States of the Community are authorised…to restrict fishing in waters under their sovereignty or jurisdiction, situated within a limit of six nautical miles, calculated from the base lines of the coastal Member State, to vessels which fish traditionally in those waters and which operate from ports in that geographical coastal area.
It also refers to member states not adopting provisions
dealing with conditions for fishing in those waters which are less restrictive than those applied in practice at the time of accession.
That is important. The treaty has generally been considered a success and there has been a wish for the derogation to continue. It is important that Britain should retain some direct control over fishing activity within the six-mile zone. However, it is an important principle and it should apply throughout the EU.
What opportunities exist to extend that limit? The European Parliament debated proposals to extend it to 24 nautical miles and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that that is attainable or realistic. I accept that a wide range of foreign vessels would have historic rights within such a zone, but a lack of progress in establishing regional fishery management under the common fisheries policy would lead to much UK support for such an approach.

197WH
Rather than simply proceeding with a temporary derogation, why should we not make the restriction permanent? It is usually assumed that that would require a change to the treaty of Rome. A year ago, following my discussions with representatives of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the society took legal advice, which suggested that a change would be feasible without amending the treaty. However, if a change were required, the chances of success would be slim—effectively, it would mean changing one of the basic objectives of the European Community.
The reasoning behind the legal opinion was that the access restriction was created to protect regions considered to be particularly vulnerable because of their high dependence on fishing. However, as long as the restriction does not involve discrimination between member states on the basis of nationality alone, it is not obvious why it would contravene the provisions of the treaty of Rome. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that the restrictions would have been permitted if they had been considered to be in contravention of the treaty.
I would welcome the Minister's views on whether, instead of extending the derogation, we could negotiate a permanent settlement. It is worth putting on record that the purpose of the derogation was not and is not to keep foreigners out, or to allow the nation state to do what the hell it likes within those limits, but to protect traditional access and allow adjacent coastal fishing. That theme should be updated to provide sustainable fishing management.
On the future of inshore regulatory bodies, particularly the sea fisheries committees, the reports of the Agriculture Select Committee and the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees both recommend a wide-ranging review of the powers of those committees. As the reports point out, the 1888 legislation was drafted in different circumstances and, despite subsequent attempts to bolt on additional powers, much of the present legislation is still based on the inappropriate language of the Victorian era.
The reports recommend the extension of the limit to 12 nautical miles. The Minister may ask why, but the offshore limit of other statutory bodies and conservation agencies, including that set by the Welsh Assembly, extends to 12 nautical miles. Those species that are economically important are managed to a six-mile limit, but are not confined to that limit. In fact, the prosecution of those species outside the six-mile limit has an impact on the industry within the limit.
Fishery management reasons for the extension of the jurisdiction to 12 nautical miles are not restricted to shellfish, which are often a major preoccupation of sea fisheries committees. Moreover, given that the committees have a wealth of experience of shellfish management, their knowledge could be well applied outside the six-mile limit into the 12-mile limit. The committees are also proposing that, to regulate the inshore area, article 46 of EC regulation 850/98 must be amended so that all national and byelaw regulations apply to all vessels fishing from within 12-nautical mile base lines. For example, around the Cornish coast, prosecutions cannot be undertaken for catches of lobsters that are v-notched but caught by foreign vessels
198WH
outside the six-mile limit. It seems absurd that national and local byelaws that apply to nation state vessels do not apply to foreign vessels that have rights to fish up to the six-mile limit and within the 12-mile limit. I support the sea fisheries committees' proposal that those regulations should be extended.
Stronger and clearer enforcement powers are required. At present, there is a weakness in the legislation mainly because it was based originally on the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1888. The Act refers to taking from the fishery, rather than landing in the fishery. The officers of the sea fisheries committees have found it difficult to pursue such matters, although they have good circumstantial evidence to show that fishermen have not only taken, but landed, fish that was caught illegally or fish that was of an illegal size. Given that the language used in the original Act still applies today, it makes matters difficult. The position needs some clarification.
I am sure that the Minister knows that the sea fisheries committees are concerned about the landward limit of the fisheries districts and that that should be redefined.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the issues that he is raising. They illustrate the need for the reform of the common fisheries policy. The local controls of the communities involved in fishing those fisheries need to be strengthened. He is suggesting several changes that the Government can make and there is a need for wider renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend is illustrating the fact that, given the chance, the communities that have an interest in the policy know how to make it work and want to be involved.
Mr. George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that a review should be undertaken of the common fisheries policy, whereby, as far as possible, responsibility for such management decisions is delegated to the nation states. Furthermore, sea fisheries committees have the local knowledge about inshore fishing. They are on the spot and far better placed to ensure that the regulations are applied properly.
As for the landward limit of the sea fisheries districts, current legislation refers to the adjacent coast. In several areas around the coast, fishermen who are alleged to have been fishing illegally are known to have taken their fish across the road because, although only a few metres inland, it is beyond the area that may be considered in law to be within the sea fisheries committee district. As a result, the committee is unable to pursue what it believes to be an illegal landing. That is a small detail, but it shows the general need for a Government overview of the role and powers of sea fisheries committees. Consolidation, in a coastal fisheries Act, may be required to update and expand the powers of sea fisheries committees.
If regional fisheries management were introduced, as Liberal Democrats want, the sea fisheries committees should be involved in any review. It could bring the sea fisheries committees back to the original intention of the derogation and accession treaty, which referred to coastal ports in fishing regions. For example, at Padstow in the constituency of my hon. Friend the

199WH
Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) there is a successful lobster hatchery, which will release 80,000 juveniles per annum. If there were a failure in fisheries in other parts of the country, boats from Yorkshire and elsewhere—we are not opposed to boats from Yorkshire visiting our area—could plunder the stock that was so carefully produced on the Cornish coast because the sea fisheries committees would have no control. They can release juveniles, but have no further control.
I am aware of the time, Mr. Gale, and the Minister knows my views on these matters. We have corresponded about the bass fishery and the controls on pair trawlers. The decline in bass stocks is having a significant impact on recreational fishermen and bass longliners, who are very successful around the coast of Cornwall. The Minister should consider ways of supporting low-impact fishing methods, such as bass longlining, and protecting them from the plundering of stocks, particularly when they are on the verge of collapse, as with bass and mackerel.
I have repeated the arguments so many times that I need not go through them here. The Minister knows that we need to protect, promote and secure the future of low-impact fisheries. I hope that this debate and further discussions will provide an opportunity during the next two years to take the issue by the scruff of the neck by protecting the future of inshore fisheries, making permanent the six-mile and 12-mile delineations, updating and strengthening the sea fisheries committees and protecting low-impact fishing methods.
12.18 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing this opportunity to discuss the inshore fishing fleet and its needs. The issues are important and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I place great value on the important contribution made by our inshore fleet. It is the largest in the UK fishing fleet, in terms of the number of vessels.
I shall refer to the Agriculture Committee's thoughtful report on fisheries, which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food treated seriously, and the reports of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales. The inshore sector is important and we try to help it by underpinning additional stocks and swapping quota for them when there is a shortage of fish to ensure that we avoid early closure of fisheries.
We have been active in ensuring that the rules and regulations covering the inshore fleet are kept to a minimum because we recognise its localised nature and the level of investment. Having said that, we recognise that the inshore fleet, in common with the whole fishing industry, is a dynamic structure. A great deal of investment has gone into the inshore fleet. A considerable amount has been invested in new vessels, which has led to an increase in fishing efforts and we must be aware of that. It puts more pressure on the quota and we must try to manage that in the same way that we manage the quota generally.
To safeguard against further increases in effort in the inshore fleet, as the hon. Gentleman will probably be aware, we announced additional restrictions on the
200WH
licensing of inshore vessels, which will apply from 1 January 2001. I said at the time of the announcement that any surplus on underpinned quota allocations for the under-l0-metre fleet could be used to acquire additional quota for those vessels. Where EU regulations allow, we shall make greater use of the provisions on end-of-year quota flexibility to borrow quota from the following year or to bank surplus quota for future use—banking and borrowing. That means that we can manage a fishery and eliminate the risk of early closures, which we are trying to do.
We have also taken steps to support the handline mackerel fishery in the south-west, a matter that I know is of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). Since 1998, the guaranteed annual quota of vessels prosecuting this fishery has been significantly enhanced and we have made every effort to obtain extra fish through swaps where necessary. As a result of that action, we have been successful in keeping the fishery open to the end of the year and we are confident that this year will be no exception. That takes pressure off the handline sector.
The hon. Gentleman has made a good case for taking low-impact and sustainable fisheries such as the handline mackerel fishery out of quota management restrictions altogether. I sympathise with the case that he has made, but we have to take into account issues of which I know that he will be aware that relate to controlling efforts. If we are to take a fishery out of quota control, we must be careful to ensure that other fishing boats from all over the region or even nationally do not come into that fishery or immediately there will be trouble in relation to quota management. We must think about the matter and discuss it with the European Union. It is also important for member states to accommodate the needs of such fisheries within the framework of the current quota system—a view that was endorsed in a recent report from the industry working group on quota trading and related issues.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the 2002 review is coming up and I see no reason why we cannot explore a range of issues, including low-impact fisheries. It would be helpful if other member states that have similar low-impact fisheries shared an interest in the matter. If they recognise that there is a case to pursue, it will make progress more likely. I am willing to do that and see what opportunities there are.
The ASFC report "1888–2000 and Beyond" is also very important. I discussed it with the ASFC when I attended its 100th annual statutory meeting in July, which I was pleased to do. It is a good report and it raises a range of issues that we need to take into account. At the meeting, I also promised to send a copy of the association's report to the European Union Commission. It has been welcomed as making a useful contribution to the on-going debate on the review of the common fisheries policy, which will be concluded in 2002.
The report argues for a thorough overhaul of the legislation governing the work of the sea fisheries committees and for an extension of the committees' jurisdiction from the existing six-mile limit to 12 miles. The hon. Member for St. Ives made a good case and argued the advantages for that succinctly. I sympathise with the report's recommendation that there is a need

201WH
for a legislative overhaul. There is no doubt that that is necessary. There is much in the sea fisheries committee model that is still valid and the committees have an important role to play in the management of inshore fisheries, successfully balancing all the local interests concerned and paying proper weight to environmental responsibilities.
The overhaul should include measures such as reviewing the landward limits, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. One of the great strengths of the sea fisheries committees is that they comprise local people who understand local issues. Such involvement is important for sustainable management.
The legislation under which the committees operate is long standing and was originally designed for different circumstances. There is a strong argument for reviewing it. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, securing parliamentary time for legislation is not easy. While I cannot make any promises, I can assure him that we take the matter seriously within the Department and that we will promote it in our bids for future legislation.
One or two aspects of the ASFC report need to be clarified, such as responsibility within the six and 12-mile limits. At present, responsibility extends to six miles. Going up to 12 miles will involve a range of new enforcements and significant financial obligations. If the ASFC wants to share that responsibility, there is the risk of duplication and confusion of powers. That is not to say that we cannot consider the matter. I have made it clear that I want to make some improvements.
We are making progress with the introduction of a restrictive licensing scheme for shellfish. Discussions in the UK conservation group are well advanced and I particularly welcome the active part that the sea fisheries committees have played. I hope to issue a consultation paper on the first stage of a restrictive licensing scheme shortly. Much of the inshore sector awaits that paper with keen interest.
I shall also want to monitor closely the operation of the first stage with a view to identifying ways in which an extension of SFC statutory powers could enable us to apply a more detailed scheme that takes full account of local circumstances and can be administered by the sea fisheries committees themselves. Even without primary legislation, I see a strengthened role for them,
202WH
particularly on shellfish management and licensing. I want to explore that with them and the consultation paper will provide an obvious opportunity.
Mr. Andrew George: In relation to sea fish and shellfish licensing, would the responsibilities of the sea fisheries committees extend beyond the six-mile limit? Although I cannot speak for them, I understand that if they sought an extension of their powers to that area, they would do so in co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the fisheries protection squadron.
Mr. Morley: We will certainly have to take into account licensing and how it would apply between the six and 12-mile limits, but as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, other vessels, both UK and non-UK, have historic fishing rights. I am confident that the six and 12-mile limits will continue when they come up for renewal and review in 2002. They are important for us and for other countries. I do not detect any desire in the Council of Ministers to take the provision away. All of us in the EU recognise the strong arguments for protecting localised management and localised fisheries. I have no fears about that matter.
I accept that it would offer greater certainty and stability for the industry if, instead of having to agree the renewal of six and 12-mile limits from time to time, we could establish them as a permanent feature of the common fisheries policy. That will certainly be one of our negotiating objectives and we will discuss it with other member states to try to guarantee that security for our inshore fleet. An extension beyond those limits has been discussed at the European Parliament and it voted for an extension to 24 miles. I am willing to support any possibility of such an extension, although it would depend also on general support and on whether the extension would be meaningful. If a 24-mile extension is made, but people continue to have historical fishing rights, would it mean anything?
I feel strongly about the bass fishery. Conservation measures should be strengthened and we are discussing that matter with those involved in pair trawling in Scotland, for example. We are also holding discussions with the French in relation to joint studies to introduce stronger conservation measures. I undertake that we will take that process forward as quickly as possible.

Government Resources (London)
12.30 pm
Mr. Iain Coleman: I warmly welcome the opportunity to highlight before London Members a range of concerns with regard to the allocation and distribution of Government resources to our capital city. The concerns inevitably cut across a range of different policy and departmental areas, and I fully accept that those include some not covered by the Department represented by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), who will reply for the Government. None the less, I feel bound to raise many of those points, although I recognise that she may not be able to respond specifically to all of them.
In the wake of yesterday's revenue support grant announcement by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, the Under-Secretary will understand that I am bound to voice grave disquiet about the Government's failure to introduce all the latest up-to-date information about the area cost adjustment. That element of the standard spending assessment system is designed to reflect the unavoidable wage costs that authorities face as a consequence of their geographical location. It is based on the new earnings survey, which is updated annually to provide an accurate measure of local labour costs. The data have been updated annually since 1990–91, when the previous Government introduced standing spending assessments. This is the first year in which any Government have suggested that that mechanical and technical data change should not be fully introduced. Not to introduce the data in full represents a complete U-turn on the Government's previous policy commitment to introduce a three-year freeze in SSA methodology between 1999–2000 and 2001–02.
Last year, the effect of updating the data to the new earnings survey was that London local authorities lost £37 million. No one suggested at that point that the data should not be fully introduced or that caps should be imposed to limit their effect, so it is inevitable that the Government's decision to introduce a new approach, involving so-called floors and ceilings, is regarded by many of us in London as a cynical manipulation of the finance system to favour one set of authorities over another, regardless of established practice or objective statistical evidence.
London Members and members of local government in London are not the only ones who believe that the full data should have been introduced. The Minister will be aware that the Local Government Association has previously been reluctant to comment on distributional issues relating to Government funding. However, I know that Sir Jeremy Beecham, the distinguished chairman of the LGA, recently wrote to the Minister and confirmed that it was the association's view that
it would be difficult to a justify a decision not to use the up to date data for the ACA
and that the association
endorsed the principle that up to date data should be used as far as possible in the RSG settlement.
The effect of failing to support the recommendation of the national association representing local government is that London authorities will lose out by
204WH
£13 million this year. The Minister will understand that that decision has come as a grave shock and disappointment to those of us who represent London constituencies. However, we are relieved that the previous rumour and spin to the effect that none of the new data would be introduced has proven to be unfounded. In my view, such a decision would have been unconscionable, and the fact remains that the Government's preferred option of introducing new artificial floors and ceilings is bad news for local government in London.
Ms Karen Buck: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some instances, the imposition of a ceiling on the grant available to local authorities will substantially reduce the resources available to those authorities? For example, in my own borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which despite its image has high levels of deprivation and a rate of population growth that is among the fastest in the country, the effect will be to reduce the amount of money available for local people by —4 million. There are a number of other local authorities that, through no fault of their own, due to a combination of factors such as population growth and the imposition of the ceilings, will not get all the money to which they are entitled.
Mr. Coleman: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am not sure how the Government will justify their decision to the council tax payers of Kensington and Chelsea, or to those other authorities that have lost out as a result of the introduction of the new so-called floors and ceilings.
I turn now to a different source of concern for Londoners. Some months ago, I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate on the review of the index of local deprivation. At that time, I was worried that the practical effect of such a review would be that London would lose out badly in the allocation of regeneration funds from central Government. Despite the false impression—sometimes given in our national media and in glitzy magazines—that the streets of our capital are paved with gold, the reality is very different. Today, more than 500,000 of London's children live in families who depend on income support. In inner London, 49 per cent. of children live in such households, compared with less than 25 per cent. across the nation. Some 64 per cent. of England's most deprived council estates are located in London, and four of the five areas with the highest rates of teenage pregnancy are also in London. Some 57 per cent. of the country's homeless households live in London.
On 22 August, the Government published the new index of multiple deprivation for 2000. To date, the Government have, despite numerous requests from organisations representing local government, for some reason refused to release the full background data that inform the new index. It is clear that the new indices disadvantage London. The exclusion from the indices of domains that measure high levels of crime and degraded physical environment has created an imbalance in favour of rural deprivation. The information that was necessary for them to be included in the formula is now available. It was a major blunder on the part of the Government to publish this new index and use it to take decisions about the allocation of millions—if not billions—of pounds in funding initiatives.

205WH
In addition, we were misled at the time of the review about how widely the index would be used. Ministers from the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have already advised me in written answers to parliamentary questions that they are actively using the new index as an important, if not pivotal, ingredient in the determination of the allocation of Government resources. Such use of the index is contrary to commitments that were given by Ministers at the time of the review. Officers at the Association of London Government have calculated that if the 1998 index had been used as the key determinant of the allocation of resources instead of the new index, London's most deprived areas would have received an extra £ 140 million over the next three years through the neighbourhood renewal fund. What appears to be beyond question is that London will continue to lose out whenever the index is used to distribute a wide range of funds.
About two years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate on the Government's change to the regulations affecting council tax benefit claimants. The change penalised low-income families in areas of high property values by capping the level of benefit available to those in band E property. I regarded and still regard the change as highly regressive, offensive and directly contrary to the Government's stated policy of combating social exclusion. The vast majority of households caught by the unpleasant measure, previously proposed by the Conservative party, live in London.
In an answer to a written parliamentary question, the Minister was kind enough to supply me with tables showing the number of dwellings in band F and above in each local authority in the country. There are more such dwellings in my small local authority in Hammersmith and Fulham than in the metropolitan districts of Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham combined, so hon. Members will understand my bold assertion. Given that context, I was more than a little shocked and disturbed to read the Minister's answer to another written question. She said that the Government had no plans to alter the capping of council tax benefit, and that the measure had been introduced to ensure that taxpayers did not fully subsidise the cost of people living in high-value properties.
Ms Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that a substantial proportion of people living in high-value properties in boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham, Westminster, Kensington and elsewhere in London are allocated to those properties by their local authority and housing association? They have no choice whatever as to the value and council tax band of the property.
Mr. Coleman: My hon. Friend is correct. That answer was a revelation. It was completely different from all previous answers that we had received from the DETR or the Department of Social Security. The effect of such a policy, taken to its logical conclusion, would be that
206WH
huge swathes of inner London would become no-go areas for anyone living on a modest to low income. We have received numerous assurances from Ministers during the past two years that the effect of the change is being monitored.
The total saving to the Exchequer in the past financial year was £4.5 million. That is a paltry and negligible saving when set beside the misery and anguish that the measure causes families that have lived in their current locations and in their local communities for generations. It is time for the measure, which affects only poor families living in London, to be scrapped without further prevarication.
Before the recess, I was fortunate enough to secure a debate in this Chamber on the cost of asylum seekers to London local authorities. London currently supports 65,000 asylum seekers, and 9,500 are provided with temporary accommodation. The Government have consistently refused to bear the full cost of that responsibility to London local authorities. In Hammersmith and Fulham last year, the council spent £16.3 million on asylum seekers and received grants from the Government of only £12.5 million—a net loss of £3.8 million to the council tax payers of my borough.
I emphasise that I do not have any cause for concern—nor do most of my constituents—about responding sympathetically, with compassion and understanding, to the needs and requests of asylum seekers and their families. In the past, I have criticised the meagre and ungenerous allowance provided by the Government to asylum seekers, and my view remains unchanged. However, if the Government expect London local authorities to respond effectively and enthusiastically to their new role—and they have, in sharp contrast to many of their counterparts in other areas—it is only right that they should receive the full cost of providing that support. By recently agreeing to pay the full cost of support to disbenefited asylum seekers, instead of applying the arbitrary cap of £300 a week that they currently apply to families with children, the Government accepted the principle of funding the cost of support in full. It is time for them to do so for the cost of support to all asylum seekers.
In conclusion, I emphasise that I, my constituents and the population of London do not expect preferential treatment from the Government. I recognise the huge plusses and advantages secured for Londoners by the election of a Labour Government, of which I am proud to be a supporter. However, on behalf of many in London, I reiterate that we have been subjected to an unwelcome form of special treatment in regard to some areas of policy. I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the points that I have highlighted today.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman)—and my other hon. Friends, who are out in force today to express their views about Government funding of London—on his effective speech. I shall deal with as many of the issues that he raised as I can in the time available.
The area cost adjustment was implemented in full. All the data changes in the ACA were applied within the formula in full at the start of the process. Few people are

207WH
happy with the current mechanism for deciding the distribution of grants—the standard spending assessment formula—and my h F will know that the ACA indicator features in six of the seven SSA blocks and is included in the SSA system, as he said, to reflect the higher cost of provision in London and the south-east. There is, therefore, a simultaneous uprating on six of those seven dimensions.
Changes can often produce skewed effects such as those that we have had this year, which is why the ACA has always been contentious. Numerous research projects over the years have attempted to find a better solution. Having sought different options during the past three years, we have been unable to gain consensus among local authorities but we are committed to changing the system. When we updated the data used to calculate the ACA for this year, we found that the 1999 new income survey data had a sizeable impact because of the way in which it feeds into those seven dimensions, lifting the ACA indicator to the highest level since the mid-1990s. That is why we consulted local authorities on whether we should include that data in the 2001–02 local government finance settlement. We received many responses, with no consensus on how to proceed. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, many of his colleagues argued that the ACA should be applied in full, but other authorities, seeing the huge impact of that, argued the opposite.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Local Government Association said that we would be obliged to apply the data. It also asked us to find a means of assisting those local authorities that would be seriously affected. Bearing in mind our commitments in the 1998 White Paper to continue updating the data, we have updated the ACA, as announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. That was the starting point of the process. I therefore have to refute entirely my hon. Friend's claim that we have not fully updated the data; we have.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, to ensure that no authority is severely affected by the data changes, which would otherwise have been the case, we shall introduce a floor and ceiling for education and social services authorities. However, it is not, as my hon. Friend portrayed it, a matter of London versus everyone else. Two authorities in London benefit from the introduction of a floor, and they will receive an increase of 3.2 per cent. My hon. Friend nods, but he failed to mention that the two authorities will benefit from a higher increase in grant because they are uplifted to the floor in the same way as authorities in different parts of the country. Some London authorities will get a significant increase and come down to the 6.5 per cent. ceiling.
The system benefits London boroughs as well as requiring some of them, and authorities in other parts of the country, to contribute to the cost of the floor. It is not an unprecedented mechanism; last year, several London boroughs benefited from a floor, which is part and parcel of the usual methodology. The central support protection grant instituted a 1.5 per cent. floor
208WH
last year. Brent and several other authorities, which would otherwise have received a lower grant, benefited from that formula.
I therefore refute some of my hon. Friend's tenets. We tried to institute a procedure to uplift the data in its entirety, while setting floors and ceilings on the grant increases to ensure that authorities will receive no less than the minimum and no more than the maximum grant increases. Given that the ceiling is 6.5 per cent., that is a fair response to an unusual situation this year in terms of the degree to which the data would have had an impact on many local authorities, two of which are in London.
Mr. Coleman: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Does she agree that if the new floors and ceilings had not been introduced and the data had been fully applied, London local authorities would have received an extra £13 million?
Ms Hughes: I cannot confirm the figure as I do not have time to calculate it from my table. However, I agree that some London authorities will contribute to the cost of the floor and two authorities will benefit. Some of those authorities will contribute because their increase otherwise will come down to the 6.5 per cent. ceiling, and others, like my hon. Friend's, will make a small contribution. His authority will have an increase of, I think, 4.7 per cent. if option A is endorsed. It would have an increase of 4.8 per cent. if the traditional methodology were applied.
I want to put the matter in a wider context. Whatever the figures in terms of costs and benefits, we must focus on the fact that London boroughs will receive a 5.3 per cent. increase across the board on average. Non-London authorities will receive a 4.1 per cent. increase. That shows the substantial extent to which the proposed grant settlement this year, notwithstanding the floors and ceilings, gives a generous, above-average increase to London boroughs.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the use of the indices of deprivation and I am glad to be able to clarify some of the issues that he raised. His starting point is that a number of London boroughs appear to be less deprived than they were on the 1998 index. My hon. Friend's constituency is in one of those boroughs and he has expressed anxiety about the matter in the past.
We should bear in mind, first, that the previous index relied heavily on the 1991 census information, which is now nearly a decade out of date. Since then, under the previous Administration, various areas have suffered. Serious job losses have occurred in coal mining, tin mining and other manufacturing industries that were in decline. It is hardly surprising if, in the new index, deprivation is defined in small pockets, with more reliable data and more sensitive methodology. If, as a result, we can see that deprivation exists in areas that were not identified in the previous index—in other words, the list now includes other areas—the relativities will clearly shift. However, that does not mean that we do not recognise the significant deprivation that still occurs in parts of London.
Ms Buck: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is appropriate to include in the formula those areas whose level of deprivation had not previously been properly recognised so that they can receive assistance, but is she aware that a number of statistics in the urban White Paper confirm that London still has a lower level of employment than any other region in the country, despite the reality of its economic success? That is the result of the huge scale of multiple deprivation in our socially excluded communities. Although the index of multiple deprivation shows that London has lost out as a region, we believe that the change is not substantiated by the figures.
Ms Hughes: My hon. Friend will be aware that employment is one of the most heavily weighted domains covered by the new index of multiple deprivation. I do not accept her conclusion that London will lose out because of a change in relativities. It depends on the size of the cake, on what the index is used for and on what other sources for regeneration will be coming to London that do not have the index applied to them. I shall touch on that point later, if I have time.
I can give other employment statistics. For instance, the north-west has the largest number of people in the 20 per cent. most deprived wards—a figure higher than in London. Nearly 50 per cent. of wards in the north-east are in the 20 per cent. most deprived areas nationally. Again, London is second on that list. I know that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that significant deprivation exists in other parts of the country. My simple point is that the previous index did not sufficiently recognise the fact. We have now included those measurements and used a more sophisticated methodology.
210WH
Inevitably, when one includes new areas—in a sense, the list of those who are recognised as deprived is longer—their positions will shift. That does not mean that we do not recognise the significant and serious deprivation that exists in parts of London, although there is evidence of real change in some communities. The report, which will be published fairly soon, deals with that issue. Indeed, some improvements have taken place in those parts of London represented by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham, although the index recognises that serious deprivation still exists in other parts of London, such as the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King).
I am running rather short of time, so I shall touch on the council tax restriction mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham. I understand the point that he seeks to make about the cost of property in his constituency and elsewhere in London, and I know that he has discussed the matter with my hon. Friends. The point that he makes is recognised. We think it fair that there should be a cut-off point, and in a sense it parallels the provision for council tax benefit. A report has been commissioned to consider the impact of that move, and we are committed to considering the outcome of that research. I cannot promise that there will be further developments, but it is an issue that we take seriously.
In conclusion, I share the concerns raised by my hon. Friends but I do not share their conclusion. If they consider the whole range of resources announced elsewhere, they will see that London is dealt with fairly.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Short Money
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the President of the Council what mechanism exists to verify the certificates by independent auditors that Short money has been properly spent. [139026]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The certificates presented by the auditors are subject to audit by the National Audit Office, as part of their examination of House of Commons expenditure.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the President of the Council how much Short money the main opposition party received in each year from 1995. [139023]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The figures are as follows:

  £

  Labour Party

  1995–96

  1,489,749.12

  1996–97

  1,530,190.51

  1997–981

  129,017.97

  Conservative Party

  1997–982

  986,762.82

  1998–99

  1,112,885.74

  1999–20003,4

  3,377,670.28

  2000–015

  3,465,131.69

  1Part year 1 April 1997–1 May 1997

  2Part year 2 May 1997–31 March 1998

  3Includes £500,000 for Leader of the Opposition's Office

  4In line with the recommendations of the Neill Committee

  5Includes £513,000 for Leader of the Opposition's Office

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the President of the Council what recent amendments have been made to the arrangements for paying Short money; who requested these changes; what consultations took place regarding them; and under what authority they were made. [139337]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No changes have been made to the arrangements for paying Short money.

  However, I understand that there was concern about the meaning of parliamentary business and the National Audit Office had also proposed that a letter should accompany the pro-forma audit report, to assist auditors. The Fees Office accordingly issued Notes for Auditors for the first time.

  The definition of parliamentary business contained in those notes had been approved by the Clerk of the House, as Accounting Officer, and the National Audit Office. The Clerk was acting under the authority given him by the Resolution of the House of 26 May 1999 to determine the form in which auditors report.

  "Charging With Care"
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her oral answer of 11 May 2000,Official Report, column 1015, on the Audit Commission report "Charging with Care", what the basis was of her statement concerning the Commission's findings about Liberal Democrat councils. [138015]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [pursuant to the reply, 20 November 2000, c. 70W]: Responsibility for home care charges rests with the Department of Health.

  However, information provided for the Business Statement showed that the percentage of costs recovered through home care charges1 for three Liberal Democrat councils was higher than the England average of 12 per cent.

  1Source: Department of Health

  Percentage

  Council

  Recovery rate notified to DH

  Devon

  28

  Somerset

  39

  Oldham

  39

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of reintroducing(a) lone parent family premium in Income Support, (b) lone parent rate of Child Benefit and (c) both of the above at their real level as at April 1997. [137055]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  £ million

  Estimated annual long run cost

  Reintroducing lone parent premium in income related benefits

  150

  Reintroducing lone parent rate of child benefit

  110

  Total

  260

  Notes:

  1. Long run costs are expressed at 2001–02 levels assuming no lone parents are currently in receipt of the lone parent family premium, or the lone parent rate of Child Benefit.

  2. Costs are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  3. It is assumed that reintroducing the lone parent family premium in Income Support implies the reintroduction of the equivalent premia for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and Jobseekers' Allowance (IB).

  4. Income Support, Jobseekers' Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit lone parent premia are uprated by ROSSI from April 1997 to April 2001 levels. The lone parent Child Benefit rate is uprated by RPI from April 1997 to April 2001 levels.

  5. The Child Benefit and family premium rates in the income related benefits have increased in real terms since April 1997. If these rates had not increased in real terms, then the cost of reintroducing the lone parent premium in income related benefits, and lone parent rate of Child Benefit would have increased to some £500 million in the long run, assuming the current caseloads remain constant.

  487W

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the amount of Housing Benefit fraud in the United Kingdom for each year since 1992. [137128]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 November 2000]: Housing Benefit fraud was not measured routinely between 1992 and 1997. It is estimated, following a review carried out between September 1997 and March 1998, that confirmed fraud is £180 million but a further £430 million is suspected. We are working on introducing a consistent measure for fraud and error in Housing Benefit in all local authorities for April 2001.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what working estimate was used by his Department for benefit fraud, and what the actual figure of detected benefit fraud was, in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [139336]

  Mr. Rooker
  Previous estimates have shown that £2 billion a year has definitely been lost through fraud. A further £2 billion to £3 billion may have been lost in cases where fraud is strongly suspected.

  No checks were made for benefit fraud before 1995.

  Income Support Reviews
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take measures to ensure that the Benefits Agency reviews entitlement to Income Support during the lifetime of a claim and that such reviews replace the responsibility of the claimant to notify relevant changes in circumstances. [139290]

  Angela Eagle
  The Benefits Agency regularly checks that claimants receiving Income Support remain entitled. We do not intend, however, that these review checks should replace the responsibility of claimants to notify relevant changes in their circumstances, as has been the case for many years.

  Pension Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how much the(a) median and (b) mean Pension Credit payments would be in the current year had the Pension Credit already been implemented based on the figures in the Pension Credit consultation paper (Cm 4900). [139117]

  Mr. Rooker
  The costs of the Pension Credit will depend on decisions about the detailed design following the consultation exercise—such as the nature of the interactions with other benefits such as Housing Benefit and the detail of the legislation, when it has completed its passage through Parliament. We will bring forward estimates of the Pension Credit once we have considered responses to the consultation exercise.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 13 November 2000,Official Report, column 526W, if he will (a) extend his projections up to 2003–04 to include the Pension Credit and (b) indicate the take-up assumptions on which his estimates are based; [139748]
  488W
  (2) how many and what proportion of pensioners will qualify for the Pension Credit in (a) 2008–09 and (b) 2013–14 assuming that average earnings increase at an annual rate of 4 per cent. and prices increase at an annual rate of (i) 2 per cent. and (ii) 2.5 per cent. [139816]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answers 22 and 23 November 2000]: The costs of the Pension Credit will depend on decisions about the detailed design following the consultation exercise—such as the nature of the interactions with other benefits such as Housing Benefit and the detail of the legislation, when it has completed its passage through Parliament. We will bring forward estimates of the Pension Credit once we have considered responses to the consultation exercise.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library an analysis of the costs and benefits of the withdrawal taper for the savings element of the proposed pension credit being set at(a) the current standard rate tax, (b) 30 per cent., (c) 35 per cent. and (d) the current Housing Benefit withdrawal taper. [140668]

  Mr. Rooker
  The costs of the Pension Credit will depend on decisions about the detailed design following the consultation exercise—such as the nature of the interactions with other benefits such as Housing Benefit and the detail of the legislation, when it has completed its passage through Parliament. We will bring forward estimates of the Pension Credit once we have considered responses to the consultation exercise.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of differences between levels of Housing Benefit and rent in London. [139925]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested as no research has been commissioned to assess the impact of the differences between levels of Housing Benefit and rent in London.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of households receive(a) Income Support and (b) Family Credit in (i) England, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Wales at the latest date for which figures are available. [139456]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  The percentage of households receiving Income Support at May 2000 and Family Credit at August 1999

  Great Britain

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Income Support

  14

  14

  17

  17

  Family Credit

  3

  3

  4

  4

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a sample and subject to sampling error.

  2. Figures exclude claimants in residential care and nursing homes.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1998–99

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry (5 per cent. sample), August 1999.

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry (5 per cent. sample), May 2000.

  Social Security Claimants (Reimbursement)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he received the conclusions of the working party reviewing the rates of reimbursement for social security claimants who use their own vehicles to attend appointments on his Department's business; and when he will make a decision on the report's recommendations; [139995]

  (2) when the working party reviewing the rates of reimbursement for social security claimants who use their own vehicles to attend appointments on his Department's business (a) first met and (b) last met. [139996]

  Angela Eagle
  The review of the rates of mileage allowances payable to social security claimants using their own vehicles to attend departmental appointments is not yet complete.

  The first meeting of the review working party was on 15 July 1999, its most recent meeting was on 8 August 2000.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for the six-month period before 1 July 1998 and each full six-month period after 1 July 1998, how many social security claimants received reimbursements for use of their own vehicles to attend appointments on social security business; and what was the amount paid out on these reimbursements. [140006]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available.

  Social Security Budget
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list for each Social Security Department administrative area the amount spent on(a) Attendance Allowance and (b) Disability Living Allowance in each of the last five years; [140525]

  (2) if he will list by his Department's administrative areas the amount paid to (a) the elderly, (b) people with long-term illness or disability, (c) families, (d) unemployed people, (e) children and (f) others in each of the last 10 years, indicating in each case the percentage of the budget spent on each group. [140512]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent for each nominal security administrative region on Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance over the last 10 years. [140681]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

  Information Technology Services
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for ensuring an adequate infrastructure for the future delivery of information technology services within his Department; and if he will make a statement. [140955]
  490W
  Mr. Darling
  The current IT network and office infrastructure will not support our modernisation plans and we need to ensure that it does not constrain either the long-term aspirations of the Department or joined up government in the future.

  Following the successful completion of negotiations, the responsibility for delivery of a new, more cost effective network service for the Department transferred on 23 November to Arcway, a BT plc-led consortium. This offers the best approach for supporting the integrated IT that will be essential in delivering Government welfare reform.

  Benefit Rule Changes
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the introduction from April 2001 of changes to the backdating rules and to decision making and appeals for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit; and if he will make a statement. [140956]

  Angela Eagle
  We are developing a programme of work to resolve difficulties in the administration of Housing Benefit, and our response to consultation on the Housing Green Paper will be published shortly.

  During separate consultation on draft regulations covering the backdating rules and benefit decision making and appeals, we received representations from the local authority associations and a report from the Social Security Advisory Committee.

  We have considered very carefully the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee, the local authority associations and others on the proposal to align the backdating rules for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit with the other income-related benefits, and we have concluded that we should not proceed with it. The rules for the backdating of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit will therefore remain as now.

  We have also considered representations made by the local authority associations about the ability of local authorities to implement from April 2001 changes to decision making and appeals in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  This is an important new initiative and it is vital that the ability of local authorities to implement it should be reflected in the time available. We have therefore decided that the changes to decision making and appeals for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit should be deferred by three months, to July 2001. This includes discretionary housing payments, which will come in at the same time as the appeals changes.

  These measures are consistent with the programme of work being developed to resolve difficulties in the administration of Housing Benefit.

DEFENCE

  DARA
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the consultants' report into the proposed relocation of DARA at RAF St. Athan to Cardiff International Airport. [138885]

  Mr. Spellar
  DARA are currently conducting an in-house Investment Appraisal to identify cost effective proposals for the delivery of its future Aircraft Support services. While this process has involved some consultancy support it would not be appropriate to publish details of this commercial sensitive advice. I am therefore withholding this information under exemption 2 (Internal Discussion and Advice) and 7 (Effective Management and Operations of the Public Service) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Lynx Helicopters
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent representations he has received from the manufacturer of Lynx helicopter rotorheads concerning the sufficiency of their staff involved in the programme of rectification work on the helicopters' rotorheads; [139238]

  (2) how many Lynx helicopters, grounded due to problems with rotorheads, have been returned to service; [139234]

  (3) what plans he has for the completion of the rectification work on Lynx rotorheads; when this work will be completed; and what representations he has received on this matter; [139242]

  (4) what payment has been made to the manufacturer of Lynx helicopter rotorheads for the programme of rectification work on the helicopters' rotorheads; [139241]

  (5) what his estimate is of the total cost of rectification work on Lynx helicopter rotorheads. [139235]

  Mr. Spellar
  Monobloc main rotorheads, withdrawn as a result of the reduced service life announced in April, are being replaced with new heads of an alternative bolted design. Replacement main rotorheads are being procured through GKN Westland Helicopters, with components sourced from a number of different manufacturers. Long lead times for certain materials means that the recovery programme will take some time.

  We are in close contact with GKN Westland to ensure that replacement heads are available as quickly as possible. First deliveries are expected in the next month and will continue over the following two years. All available main rotorheads are being managed as a single pool, being fitted to either Navy or Army helicopters as required. Main rotorheads are currently available for around two thirds of the Lynx operational fleet allowing us to meet all our priority commitments. Previous plans already assumed the procurement of new bolted heads as part of a normal replacement programme. These plans have how had to be brought forward. In total, we expect to spend some £40 million on new Lynx main rotorheads in the next two years. Contract negotiations for these heads are ongoing and payments will be linked to deliveries.

  Defence Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been allocated for the acquisition programmes for FSCS and TRACER; when he expects them to be operational; and if he will make a statement. [139655]

  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 Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 28 November 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence on the collaborative Future Scout and Cavalry System/Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement (TRACER) programme seeking information on programme cost and operational dates. These matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The total cost to the UK of the Feasibility and Project Definition phases of TRACER is some £131M. The budget for the remaining acquisition phases of TRACER has not yet been finalised pending the outcome of Balance of Investment studies, which are under way. As indicated in my letter dated 22 November these studies are designed to determine the most cost-effective balance of numbers and capabilities between TRACER and Unmanned Air Vehicles, in meeting the battlefield commander's critical information requirements.
  The in-service date for TRACER, which is defined as one Formation Reconnaissance Squadron fully equipped and supportable on operations, is currently estimated to be October 2008.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what current ISTAR capability and UAVs are available; what Smart Procurement guidelines have been set for the UAV acquisition project; and if he will make a statement. [139654]

  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 Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 28 November 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence on the current Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability and the Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) acquisition project. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The current ISTAR capability contributes in both the imaging and electronic analysis areas using a range of platforms across the three environments. These include the long range aircraft such as the SENTRY E-3D, tactical reconnaissance aircraft such as the Jaguar and the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier, and land-based systems such as the recently introduced ODETTE electronic support system. In the future, the Airborne Stand-Off Radar (ASTOR) platform with its synthetic aperture radar and moving target indicator capability as well as improved tactical reconnaissance systems and enhanced land and maritime electronic analysis systems, will be introduced into service. The PHOENIX system is currently the only UAV asset within the ISTAR inventory. Originally developed as a Target Acquisition and Surveillance system, PHOENIX has now completed two operational tours where it has been used as part of the overall requirements for ISTAR.
  Within the context of Smart Acquisition guidelines and to optimise the overall requirements for a future ISTAR capability, a series of studies is in place aimed at identifying the most effective mix of both manned and unmanned assets. With regard to UAVs, the WATCHKEEPER project, as a part of this overall investment analysis, is seeking to establish the most cost-effective whole-life

  493W
  solutions and the optimum balance of investment in new, existing assets or a combination of the two. The UAV programme is being managed by an Integrated Project Team (IPT) bringing together the main stakeholders who have an interest in the ISTAR assets and the products they deliver. Industry has been involved from an early stage in an open and constructive relationship and has assisted in the development of the emerging requirements.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets were set for MINDER Route Proving during the competitive assessment phase; what plans there are for the development of a mix of sensors for locating and neutralising anti-tank and anti-personnel mines; and if he will make a statement. [139656]

  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 Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 28 November 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about targets set for the MINDER Route Proving System and the development of sensors for the neutralisation of mines. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  MINDER will be developed incrementally and each variant will have progressively more demanding targets to meet. Initially MINDER (RP) should be able to detect all basic surface laid landmines together with most buried mines. The later variants of the equipment should detect all buried landmines, and have an ability to detect off route mines.
  The Competitive Assessment Phase (CAP) will identify the mix of detection sensors that MINDER will have. Research so far suggests that it is likely to be a combination of metal detectors, ground penetrating radars and infra red detectors. Explosive detection systems may also be used.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the production of the Technology Demonstrator prototype; when is the estimated in-service date; what apabilities the close-in sensors and UWB sensors have for mine detection; and if he will make a statement. [139657]

  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 Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock dated 28 November 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Technology Demonstrator prototype and its sensors for mine detection. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  There are no plans to produce production versions of the DERA Technology Demonstrator prototype. The Route Proving (RP) and Reconnaissance variants of MINDER are, however, likely to utilise concepts used in the DERA prototype which will be developed and evaluated in the course of the Competitive Assessment Phase of the MINDER project. The estimated in-service date for MINDER (RP) is 2005.
  There is a large range of sensors which are being considered for MINDER (RP). Close-in sensors under consideration include Ground Penetrating Radar and Metal Detectors, both of which allow the detection of buried and surface laid mines. Forward-looking senors like Ultra Wide Band radar will be able to detect surface laid mines some distance ahead and should also be able to detect buried mines.
  494W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total value is of Swan Hunter's and BAE Systems Marine's contracts for the(a) ALSLs and (b) Type 45 Destroyer; what the current status is of the contracted programmes; when the programmes are expected to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [139652]

  Mr. Hoon
  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 Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 28 November 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the value of contracts placed with Swan Hunter and BAE SYSTEMS Marine for the Alternative Landing Ships Logistic (ALSLs) and Type 45 Destroyer, the status of the contracted programmes and expected completion dates. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The value of the contracts to be placed with Swan Hunter and BAE SYSTEMS Marine for 4 ALSLs is expected to be approximately £300M. Negotiations with both contractors are currently taking place to agree contract terms, conditions and price. It is our aim to bring these ships into service between Autumn 2004 and Summer 2006.
  On the Type 45, the MoD has not placed any contracts with Swan Hunter or BAE SYSTEMS Marine. It remains our plan to place the contract for the first three Type 45s with BAE SYSTEMS Electronic, the nominated Prime Contractor for the Type 45 Programme, by the end of this year, with the first ship to enter service in 2007. As the Secretary of State said in the House on 11 July (Official Record, cols. 701/2), we intend that the first and third ships will be assembled by BAE SYSTEMS Marine and the second by Vosper Thomycroft. The Prime Contractor will sub-contract to these two shipbuilders at prices to be agreed between the Companies. Negotiations are still underway and we are not yet in a position to state the value of work that might be placed with a particular yard. The planned modular assembly approach also means that there will be the opportunity for other shipbuilders to bid for the competed element of Type 45 manufacture work.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what competition has been conducted to procure an enhanced strategic sealift capability under PH arrangements; what the cost of the contracted programme is; when the improved strategic sealift capability will be available to the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [139651]

  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 Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 28 November 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the strategic sealift capability. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The competition for the strategic sealift service was subject to EC treaty and public procurement rules and was advertised in the official journal of the European Union. As announced by the Secretary of State for Defence on 26 October (Official Report columns 413–414), subject to final negotiations, we intend to sign a 25-year Public Finance Initiative (PFI) contract with AWSR Shipping Ltd. Based on expected usage of the ships, the contract will be worth around £950M and is expected that the full service will be available by 2003. An interim sealift service will be provided by charter in the short term. The service will be available to all Defence users requiring sealift.

  Vaccine-related Illnesses
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department and the War Pensions Agency intend to take to prevent soldiers from contracting vaccine-related illnesses in the future; and if he will make a statement. [139725]

  Dr. Moonie
  We endeavour to reduce the possibility of vaccine-related illnesses by offering vaccinations only when there is a justification for their use; by using only UK licensed vaccines, as far as possible; endeavouring as far as possible not to give multiple vaccines concurrently; and training MOD medical staff in the correct administration of vaccines.

  Royal Navy Fixed-wing Pilots
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed relocation of Royal Navy fixed-wing pilots from Yeovilton to the Midlands and on feedback from service families in relation to this proposal. [140127]

  Mr. Spellar
  As a result of the Strategic Defence Review decision to create Joint Force Harrier, Sea Harrier squadrons (and support staff) from RNAS Yeovilton will transfer to RAF Stations Cottesmore and Wittering in 2003. Relocation briefings have been given to Service and civilian personnel and their families. Informal feedback to date from these briefings indicates interest in schooling opportunities, the availability of Family Married Quarters, house prices and opportunities for work in the local area. The intention is to continue this form of communication with those involved to ensure their family relocation is made as smooth as possible. In addition, a questionnaire has been sent to all personnel earmarked for transfer. The anonymous results of this will be analysed by early spring.

  RAF Henlow
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effects the changes initiated by the Defence Logistics Organisation have had on employment at RAF Henlow. [140077]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF Henlow is home to elements of two Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) business units—the Defence Communication Services Agency (DCSA) and the Directorate General Defence Logistics Information Systems (DG Def Log IS).

  The former RAF Signals Engineering Establishment Agency, whose headquarters were at RAF Henlow, merged with the DCSA in April 2000 and became the DCSA's Directorate of Engineering and Interoperability, retaining its HQ at RAF Henlow. The future size and shape of this Directorate is under review as part of the DLO's goal of delivering effective front line logistic support at greatly reduced cost. While this review has been under way there have been restrictions on recruitment locally to ensure that staff are not appointed into posts which might be subject to change. There has also been a reduction in contracted-in support. Any changes proposed will be subject to full consultation.

  Elements of DG Def Log IS have also been established at RAF Henlow. These have incorporated the former Henlow based Logistic Support Services Agency and the
  496W
  Stevenage based Logistics Information Systems (RAF) project. Some 40 posts have been transferred into RAF Henlow as a result.

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and(a) George W. Bush and (b) Al Gore in respect of National Missile Defence; and if he will make a statement. [140310]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The Government have held regular discussions on the proposed US National Missile Defence system, and related issues, both with the current US Administration, including Vice President Gore, and with advisers to Governor Bush.

  NATO Ballistic Missile Defence Programme
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's contribution is to the NATO ballistic missile defence programme. [140017]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 27 November 2000, Official Report, column 417W.

  Defence Attachés
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it cost to maintain the system of defence attaches in the last 12 months. [140706]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the 12 months to the end of October 2000 the cost was £25.88 million.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are deployed at the US base of Diego Garcia. [139980]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: There are 40 British service personnel based on Diego Garcia. They are responsible for providing various security and administrative functions.

  HMS Coventry
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what renovations are under way on HMS Coventry; what the cost of the renovations is; what plans the Royal Navy has for HMS Coventry over the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [140740]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no renovations currently under way on HMS Coventry. Her last docking period was undertaken earlier this year, at a cost of about £5.5 million, to ensure she will be available for operational duties until she is due to be withdrawn from service in late 2001. Following her naval decommissioning, HMS Coventry will be available for disposal.

  DERA Bid
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to date, including staff costs,
  497W
  consultancies and consultation of the DERA Boscombe Down bid for the future strategic tanker aircraft project. [140587]

  Dr. Moonie
  The costs to date of the DERA Boscombe Down element of the bid for the main operating base for the future strategic tanker aircraft project are in the region of £175,000. The cost have been incurred over a two year period.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to make further changes to the location of the Territorial Army units. [140883]

  Mr. Spellar
  Three changes are to be made to the locations of units announced as part of the Territorial Army restructuring on 17 November 1998,Official Report, columns 749–71 by the then Secretary of State for Defence. These involve:
  Changing the final location of HQ 101 Bn REME (V) from Harry Weale Hall, Queensferry to Hightown Barracks, Wrexham.
  Changing the location for 59 Sig Sqn (V) from Deysbrook to Aintree and sell Deysbrook Barracks complete.

  Changing the location of A (The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)) Company, 52nd Lowland Regiment from TAC Dalmeny Street to TAC East Claremont Street.

  These changes are being made because they represent more cost-effective solutions to locating the units in question.

  In addition, the intention is to retain the TA Centre in Chorley to house E Sqn 5 GS Med Regt. which will be moving from Hull.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Publications
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department has spent on publications since 1 January. [136639]

  Clare Short
  £520,000.

  Kenya
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid to Kenya. [136620]

  Clare Short
  Following the appointment of a reform team in July 1999, a reform agenda was put in place in Kenya. This led to Kenya negotiating new support from the IMF and the World bank, conditional on improvements in economic management and action against corruption. Britain is providing budget support of £30 million on the same conditions. This brings our total planned assistance to poverty reduction in Kenya in 2000–01 to £64 million, including £15 million to help relieve Kenya's worst drought for several decades.

  Palestine
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the individual schools in the Palestinian Authority area which have been 498W
  the beneficiaries of United Nations Works and Relief Agency development assistance for Palestinian education since 1995–96. [140446]

  Clare Short
  Funding for UNRWA has been for its core budget, and the development of a five-year education plan, rather than individual schools.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the individual schools in the Palestinian Authority area which have been the beneficiaries of United Kingdom development assistance for Palestinian education since 1995–96. [140447]

  Clare Short
  Nearly all of the schools in the Palestinian Authority have benefited in some way. All primary school head teachers, and most secondary school heads, have participated in a School Review and Development Planning programme, and over 12,000 teachers have received support for their personal development.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what have been the overall sums of money(a) spent on and (b) taken in receipts at, the Millennium Dome. [134992]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that in cash terms total expenditure to 31 October 2000 was £728,113,000. Receipts to 31 October were £159,529,000 trading income (tickets, sponsorship (including value-in-kind), and other commercial income), and £571,980,000 National Lottery grant.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will provide details of the county court judgments that have been made against the New Millennium Experience Company. [139039]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: The details of the four county court judgments to which the hon. Member refers are as follows:

  £

  Company

  Claimed and paid

  Stocksigns

  235.06

  Power Plant Services

  939.83

  Display World Supplies

  301.91

  Service Point UK Ltd.

  131.49

  All the above have been removed from the Register.

  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that it has been notified of three further county court judgments. All three payments have been made:

  £

  Company

  Claimed and paid

  Glen Howard Neil Salway

  150.00

  Telecline Ltd.

  2,054.94

  Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport

  5,812.00

  499W
  The first of these three cases has been removed from the Register. The necessary processes to remove the final two are under way.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps were taken by the management of the millennium dome to minimise the dangers to the public from the operation carried out by the police on 7 November. [138912]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) worked closely with the police over many weeks to formulate and refine an Operational Plan which would ensure minimum risk and maximum safety for its staff and visitors. No action was taken to apprehend the suspects until they had reached a point where they could be easily contained by the police. The area where the vault is located was not open to the public and the immediate staff members were withdrawn to a place of safety before or at the start of the incident. The safety of staff and visitors was a top priority for NMEC and the Metropolitan police service.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many children have performed in "Our Town Story" at the Dome to date; and how many schools have participated. [139016]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 November 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that, by the end of the year there will have been 220 performances of "Our Town Story" in which 210 local education authorities (LEAs) will have participated. As the LEAs have selected each cast of 100 it is not possible to give details of the number of schools which have taken part. Details of the current performance schedule, however, are included in the table. By the end of the year approximately 20,000 children will have performed in "Our Town Story".

  "Our Town Story" is one of a number of extremely successful National Programme initiatives that have been an integral part of the Millennium Experience at the Dome. The programme has enabled and encouraged thousands of communities to participate in events and activities.

  Education authority and local borough

  Date

  Stirling

  5 January

  London Borough of Camden

  6 January

  London Borough of Ealing

  7 January

  Oldham

  10 January

  Blackpool

  14 January

  Warwickshire

  17 January

  Dudley

  18 January

  Slough

  20 January

  Reading

  21 January

  Oxfordshire

  23 January

  City of Edinburgh

  25 January

  Bath and North East Somerset

  28 January

  Trafford

  31 January

  South Gloucestershire

  1 February

  Wakefield

  2 February

  London Borough of Lambeth

  3 February

  Torbay

  4 February

  Kingston upon Hull

  7 February

  Calderdale

  8 February

  Warrington

  10 February

  Argyll and Bute

  11 February

  Tameside

  14 February

  500W

  Education authority and local borough

  Date

  Salford

  15 February

  London Borough of Merton

  16 February

  Swansea

  17 February

  Gwynedd

  18 February

  Flintshire

  21 February

  Neath Port Talbot

  22 February

  Blaenau Gwent

  23 February

  Monmouthshire

  24 February

  Torfaen

  25 February

  Bridgend

  28 February

  Ceredigion

  29 February

  Wales Day

  1 March

  Caerphilly

  2 March

  Sir Benfro (Pembrokeshire)

  3 March

  East Ayrshire

  4 March

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6 March

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  7 March

  London Borough of Haringey

  8 March

  Cumbria

  9 March

  Northern Ireland

  13 March

  Peterborough

  20 March

  Cambridgeshire

  21 March

  Luton

  22 March

  Suffolk

  23 March

  Hertfordshire

  24 March

  Bedfordshire

  27 March

  Norfolk

  28 March

  Essex

  29 March

  Southend

  30 March

  Thurrock

  31 March

  Cardiff

  3 April

  Swindon

  4 April

  Wiltshire

  5 April

  Plymouth

  6 April

  Northumberland

  7 April

  Nottingham City

  10 April

  Manchester

  11 April

  Scottish Borders

  12 April

  Renfrewshire

  13 April

  Glasgow City

  14 April

  Orkney Islands

  15 April

  England Day

  24 April

  Gateshead

  1 May

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2 May

  West Dunbartonshire

  3 May

  Poole

  4 May

  Bournemouth

  5 May

  Isle of Anglesey

  6 May

  Sandwell

  8 May

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10 May

  Bolton

  11 May

  London Borough of Croydon

  12 May

  North Yorkshire

  13 May

  Richmond upon Thames

  15 May

  Kingston upon Thames

  16 May

  London Borough of Southwark

  17 May

  London Borough of Bexley

  19 May

  Herefordshire

  22 May

  Worcestershire

  23 May

  Stoke on Trent

  24 May

  Walsall

  25 May

  Milton Keynes

  26 May

  London Borough of Islington

  30 May

  Wirral

  31 May

  Knowsley

  1 June

  Sheffield

  2 June

  Perth and Kinross

  3 June

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5 June

  North Tyneside

  6 June

  Gloucestershire

  7 June

  London Borough of Enfield

  8 June

  South Lanarkshire

  9 June

  St. Helens

  12 June

  East Renfrewshire

  13 June

  501W

  Education authority and local borough

  Date

  Midlothian

  14 June

  Inverclyde

  15 June

  Falkirk

  16 June

  Hampshire

  19 June

  West Berkshire

  20 June

  East Sussex

  21 June

  Kent

  22 June

  Medway

  23 June

  London Borough of Greenwich

  24 June

  Buckinghamshire

  26 June

  Northamptonshire

  27 June

  Barnsley

  28 June

  Bristol

  29 June

  Leeds

  30 June

  Hartlepool

  3 July

  Cheshire

  4 July

  Solihull

  5 July

  Wolverhampton

  6 July

  South Tyneside

  7 July

  London Borough of Hackney

  10 July

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  11 July

  Lincolnshire

  12 July

  Derby City

  13 July

  Isle of Wight

  14 July

  Newport

  17 July

  Vale of Glamorgan

  18 July

  Southampton

  19 July

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  20 July

  Stockton

  21 July

  Surrey

  24 July

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  25 July

  Nottinghamshire

  26 July

  Doncaster

  27 July

  Moray

  4 September

  West Lothian

  5 September

  Shetland Islands

  6 September

  Clackmannanshire

  7 September

  East Dunbartonshire

  8 September

  Dundee City

  11 September

  Fife

  12 September

  Aberdeen City

  13 September

  Halton

  14 September

  Birmingham

  15 September

  Devon

  18 September

  Isles of Scilly

  19 September

  Wrexham

  20 September

  Carmarthenshire

  21 September

  Merthyr Tydfil

  22 September

  Powys

  25 September

  Lancashire

  26 September

  Wigan

  27 September

  Rochdale

  28 September

  Bury

  29 September

  Rotherham

  30 September

  Blackburn with Darwen

  2 October

  Isle of Man

  3 October

  Derbyshire

  4 October

  North East Lincolnshire

  5 October

  Rutland

  6 October

  Corporation of London

  7 October

  Middlesbrough

  10 October

  Sunderland

  11 October

  Darlington

  12 October

  Redcar and Cleveland

  13 October

  London Borough of Bromley

  14 October

  London Borough of Westminster

  15 October

  Bradford

  16 October

  London Borough of Sutton

  17 October

  North Lincolnshire

  18 October

  Kirklees

  19 October

  York

  20 October

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  23 October

  Highland

  24 October

  East Lothian

  25 October

  502

  Edcation authority and local borough

  Date

  Western Isles

  26 October

  North Lanarkshire

  27 October

  Wokingham

  28 October

  North Ayrshire

  30 October

  South Ayrshire

  31 October

  Shropshire

  1 November

  Telford and Wrekin

  2 November

  Coventry

  3 November

  Bracknell Forest

  4 November

  Cornwall

  6 November

  Dorset

  7 November

  Somerset

  8 November

  North Somerset

  9 November

  London Borough of Newham

  10 November

  East Yorkshire

  11 November

  Denbighshire

  13 November

  Conwy

  14 November

  Durham

  15 November

  Sefton

  16 November

  Leicester City

  17 November

  Leicestershire

  18 November

  Stockport

  19 November

  London Borough of Lewisham

  20 November

  Angus

  21 November

  London Borough of Barnet

  22 November

  London Borough of Brent

  23 November

  Liverpool

  24 November

  Jersey

  25 November

  London Borough of Harrow

  27 November

  London Borough of Havering

  28 November

  London Borough of Redbridge

  29 November

  Scotland Day

  30 November

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  1 December

  Aberdeenshire

  2 December

  Staffordshire

  3 December

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  4 December

  London Borough of Hounslow

  5 December

  West Sussex

  6 December

  Brighton and Hove

  7 December

  Portsmouth

  8 December

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what date he has set for Lazard to conclude negotiations with the Legacy consortium over the purchase of the Millennium Dome; and what plans he has to re-open the competition to new bidders in the event of those negotiations being unsuccessful. [139796]

  Janet Anderson
  The involvement of Lazard in the process for selling the Millennium Dome has concluded with the award of preferred bidder status to Legacy plc. The competition team will now take forward the negotiations with Legacy plc. Progress will be reviewed regularly, and if all goes well we expect to exchange contracts during February.

  In the event of the failure of negotiations with Legacy plc, the Government would pursue other possible uses of the Dome.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of likely revenue resulting from the sale of the contents of the Millennium Dome. [140151]

  Janet Anderson
  The information requested is commercially confidential. To release details of likely revenue from the sale of assets could impair the ability of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) to negotiate with potential buyers and to obtain the best value from the sale of the assets.
  503W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish an inventory of the contents of the Millennium Dome and list their legal owners. [140183]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: A full inventory of the contents of the Dome comprises many thousands of items from the building and the exhibit structures, to the knives and forks in the restaurant, to the desks and chairs in the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) office space. This information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what work is being undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers regarding the invoicing of catering and hospitality services at the Millennium Dome. [140423]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: I understand that no such work is being undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the major capital projects recently awarded grants of more than

  National lottery awards to capital projects over £15 million since 1 May 1997

  Region/country Project title/description

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Award date

  Award amount (£)

  East Midlands

  The National Space Science Centre

  Millennium Commission

  National Space Science Centre

  11 June 1997

  26,000,000

  East Midlands total

  26,000,000

  Eastern

  Norfolk and Norwich Millennium Project

  Millennium Commission

  Norfolk and Norwich Millennium Company Ltd.

  11 June 1997

  30,069,000

  Eastern total

  30,069,000

  London

  English National Stadium, Wembley

  Sport England

  Wembley National Stadium Ltd.

  17 October 1997

  120,000,000

  British Museum—Education and Information Centre

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  British Museum

  20 October 1997

  15,055,000

  Victoria and Albert Museum British Galleries

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  22 July 1998

  15,000,000

  The Millennium Dome1

  Millennium Commission

  New Millennium Experience Company

  4 February 2000 to 5 September 2000

  179,000,000

  London total

  329,055,000

  North East

  Conversion of the Baltic Flour Mill to a contemporary visual art centre

  Arts Council of England

  Gateshead Metropolitan borough council

  10 June 1997

  37,905,000

  Stage 3: Music Centre

  Arts Council of England

  Gateshead Metropolitan borough council

  19 October 1999

  43,810,000

  North East total

  81,715,000

  North West

  Upgrade, refurbishment and expansion of facilities and reinstatement works

  Arts Council of England

  The Royal Exchange

  13 May 1997

  17,110,250

  Manchester Commonwealth 50 Pool

  Sport England

  Manchester City council

  21 May 1997

  21,869,600

  Manchester Millennium Quarter

  Millennium Commission

  Manchester City council

  8 July 1998

  20,090,000

  NMGM 2001 Celebration of Links

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  22 July 1998

  22,746,800

  Eastlands SportCity (incorporating Commonwealth Games Stadium and UKSI NW Network Centre)

  Sport England

  Manchester City council

  29 March 1999

  92,000,000

  North West total

  173,816,650

  South East

  Stage 3 refurbishment of the Brighton Dome

  Arts Council of England

  Brighton Festival Society Ltd.

  29 July 1998

  15,000,000

  South East total

  15,000,000

  South West

  The Eden Project

  Millennium Commission

  The Trustees of The Eden Trust

  20 May 1997

  42,150,000

  South West total

  42,150,000

  504W
  £15 million are located in each region of the UK; and how much money has been allocated to each scheme and to each region. [139081]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 22 November 2000]: According to the latest information supplied by the distributing bodies, the number and total amount of National Lottery awards to major capital projects of £15 million or more since 1 May 1997, broken down by region and country, are as shown:

  Region/country

  Number of projects awarded grants of£15 million or more

  Total amount awarded to projects awarded grants of £15 million or more (£)

  East Midlands

  1

  26,000,000

  Eastern

  1

  30,069,000

  London

  4

  329,055,000

  North East

  2

  81,715,000

  North West

  5

  173,816,650

  South East

  1

  15,000,000

  South West

  1

  42,150,000

  West Midlands

  1

  20,000,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4

  79,676,000

  Northern Ireland

  1

  45,000,000

  Scotland

  1

  35,000,000

  Wales

  27,000,000

  The schemes which received these Lottery grants are listed in the following table:
  505W

  National lottery awards to capital projects over £15 million since 1 May 1997

  Region/country Project title/description

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Award date

  Award amount (£)

  West Midlands

  To upgrade buildings and facilities

  Arts Council of England

  Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd.

  14 January 1998

  20,000,000

  West Midlands total

  20,000,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Sheffield—Remaking the Heart of the City

  Millennium Commission

  Sheffield City council

  10 September 1997

  20,500,000

  Megna

  Millennium Commission

  The Megna Trust

  12 November 1997

  18,600,000

  The Deep

  Millennium Commission

  European Maritime Insitute of Hull Ltd.

  12 November 1997

  18,476,000

  Sheffield National Network Centre

  Sport England

  Phoenix Sports Ltd.

  20 January 2000

  22,100,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside total

  79,676,000

  Northern Ireland

  The Odyssey Project

  Millennium Commission

  The Odyssey Trust Company Ltd.

  11 June 1997

  45,000,000

  Northern Ireland total

  45,000,000

  Scotland

  The Glasgow Science Centre

  Millennium Commission

  Glasgow Science Centre

  12 November 1997

  35,000,000

  Scotland total

  35,000,000

  Wales

  Wales Millennium Centre

  Millennium Commission

  Wales Millennium Centre Ltd.

  12 November 1997

  27,000,000

  Wales total

  27,000,000

  1This is a mixed programme which includes both capital and non-capital elements, and is of national significance.

  BBC
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his plans for the future regulation of the BBC. [140140]

  Janet Anderson
  We intend to publish the Communications White Paper next month, and it will propose new measures to replace current legislation on broadcasting and telecommunications. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot say at this stage what the White Paper will say on future regulation of the BBC.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the criteria he will apply in making any recommendations about the appointment of the next Chairman of the BBC. [140139]

  Janet Anderson
  The criteria for the post of Chairman will be set out in the job specification at the relevant time.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to hold discussions with the Prime Minister about the appointment of the next Chairman of the BBC. [140138]

  Janet Anderson
  The appointment of the Chairman of the BBC Board of Governors is made by Her Majesty The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to offer his views to the Prime Minister as part of the normal appointments process, at the appropriate time.

  Appointments (Broadcasting Authorities)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his policy is on political impartiality to be observed in appointments to senior positions in the national broadcasting authorities. [140141]

  Janet Anderson
  All appointments to the Department's public bodies are made on merit. Candidates are asked to provide information on significant political activity in the past five years. This reflects the guidance set down by the 506W
  Commissioner for Public Appointments. Appointments to management positions are the responsibility of the broadcasting bodies.

  Free TV Licences
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 2000, to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac),Official Report, column 287W, on free TV licences, if he will estimate the total cost of extending free TV licences to all those aged 60 or above. [140301]

  Janet Anderson
  The estimated cost of extending free television licences to everyone aged 60 years or above is £560 million a year at current licence fee levels, excluding administrative costs.

  Football (Supporters Direct Scheme)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the operation of the supporters direct scheme for football clubs indicating the(a) number of trusts agreed, (b) number of trusts established and (c) number of elected supporter directors. (140090]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: Supporters Direct has been contacted by groups of supporters representing 91 clubs since its launch on 5 September, ranging from Premier League sides to non-league clubs playing in the Football Association's National Game pyramid.

  16 supporters' trusts have been formed so far, with a further seven agreed in principle. Nine clubs have some form of supporter representation at Board level.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the applications
  507W
  for National Lottery grants and the amounts refused by each (a) parliamentary constituency in Staffordshire and (b) Lottery board for each of the last five years. [139856]

  Kate Hoey
  We have contacted the National Lottery distributing bodies to request the information required, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will rank by parliamentary constituency the total value of National Lottery grants awarded by the lottery boards since May 1997; [139857]

  (2) what the average value is of National Lottery grants given to each constituency by the lottery boards since May 1997. [139858]

  Kate Hoey
  I have placed copies of a table showing the total amount awarded to each parliamentary constituency, the average value of these awards, and the average amount awarded per constituency since 1 May 1997 in the Libraries of both Houses. The parliamentary constituencies are ranked in descending order according to the amount of Lottery grants they have received since 1 May 1997. The table was compiled using information on awards supplied to us by the distributing bodies.

  Elite Sports Funding
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish details of the elite sports funding review announced by the Prime Minister on 19 October. [140774]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  UK athletes did exceptionally well in Sydney, our best performance for 80 years. We now want to build on that to produce an even more effective performance at the Commonwealth Games in 2002 and the 2004 Olympics in Athens. Following the decision of the Sports Cabinet on 6 October that there should be a review, the Prime Minister has asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to lead a group examining the way our top athletes are supported through the Lottery, looking especially at two key components:the world class performance programme structure and funding and
  the underpinning support structures provided by the UK Sports Institute
  taking into account the work of the Sports Strategy Implementation Groups. The review is urgent given that the Commonwealth Games are only 20 months away and the UK Sports Institute is being developed.

  My right hon. Friend has been appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with myself and will report directly to us. The group will be advised by Sue Campbell, sports adviser to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Employment. The first meeting of the group is planned for Tuesday 28 November.
  508W
  Members of the group:

  The full list of members of the group are:

  The right hon. Dr. Jack Cunningham MP (Chair)

  John Anderson (Performance Director, Canoeing)

  Brendan Foster (Athletics and Broadcasting)

  Peter Keen (Performance Director, Cycling)

  Mark Lewis-Francis (Athletics)

  Steve Pullen (Judo Paralympics)

  Jane Sixsmith (Women's Hockey)

  One member has still to be appointed

  Terms of reference

  The group, led by my right hon. Friend, has the following terms of reference:

  Phase I

  To review the World Class Performance Programme, in particular:

  its contribution to success in the Sydney Olympics in different sports and any lessons to be learned

  the Lottery based funding

  the relationship between the funding provided by UK Sport and that provided by the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Sports Councils

  the links between the different elements of the programme as they relate to elite athletes and those with promise

  and to make recommendations to ensure that effective systems are in place for the Commonwealth Games in 2002 and in the lead up to the Athens Olympics in 2004.

  Phase II

  To review the current structure of the UK Sports Institute in particular

  the links between the UK Sports Institute and the Sports Institutes of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  the support which the Institutes give to elite athletes and the relationship to the world class performance programme

  and to make recommendations to implement an effective UK wide strategy to give athletes access to the best facilities and services in the most effective and efficient way possible.

  Indemnity Undertakings
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many indemnity undertakings were given by Departments, under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980, for the six-month period ended 30 September; and what was the value of(a) contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given under that section which remained outstanding at 30 September, (b) non-statutory Government indemnities in respect of loans handled by the Government Art Collection which remained outstanding at 30 September and (c) non-statutory undertakings to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection which remained outstanding at 30 September. [140830]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The provision for the Government Indemnity Scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non-national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects or
  509W
  bringing into the public domain the conclusions of any study. In the six-month period ended 30 September 2000, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Numbers

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  664

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  89

  The National Assembly for Wales

  56

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  33

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under section 16 and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 2000 is:

  £

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  1,343,458,706

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  905,848,807

  The National Assembly for Wales

  67,609,314

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  4,039,502

  The value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 2000 is:
  Value: £5,400,000.

  The value of non-statutory undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 2000 is:
  Value: £225,819,015.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the creditors' ledger of the New Millennium Experience Company was last reconciled. [140425]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that creditor ledger reconciliations are performed on an ongoing, daily basis.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people are currently employed by the New Millennium Experience Company; and how many will be employed on(a) 1 January 2001, (b) 1 February 2001 and (c) 1 March 2001. [140422]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) currently directly employs 1,398 people. Plans for the first quarter of 2001 are being finalised, but at this stage it is estimated that about 230 people will be required in January, about 140 in February and about 40 in March. NMEC has introduced a comprehensive re-deployment programme for those people who will cease to work for the Company on 31 December including job fairs at the Dome involving major employers, many of whom are sponsors of the Millennium Experience. The aim is to ensure that all employees have the opportunity of employment in the New Year.

WALES

  Census
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received with regard to the 2001 census in Wales; and if he will list the nature and date of each representation. [135220]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have received a number of representations on this subject, mostly concerning the absence of a "Welsh" tick-box under the question about ethnic group.

  The Office for National Statistics has announced that there will be a new study into Welsh identity, using information gathered from the census and from an expanded and enhanced Labour Force Survey in Wales. There will also be a significant advertising campaign in Wales to alert people to the option of entering "Welsh" in the ethnic group section of the census. The National Statistician has confirmed that if people indicate that they are Welsh they will be counted as Welsh, and a report on the results will be produced.

  The census provides information crucial to all the people in Wales given its role in the allocation of resources from central to local government. High levels of participation in the census are vital to the people of Wales. Full advantage has to be taken of this once in a decade opportunity to obtain a rich seam of information on post-devolution Welsh identity.

  Regional Policy (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the First Secretary concerning regional policy initiatives as they affect Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement. [137011]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues, including the impact of regional policy initiatives on various parts of Wales.

  The National Assembly works in collaboration with other partners to encourage the development of indigenous businesses in all parts of Wales, as well as attracting overseas investors. Recently announced projects by BAE Systems; Paramount Foods; Mainetti; and Dailycer will create more than 2,000 new job opportunities in Alyn and Deeside.

  Apprenticeships (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the First Secretary concerning the level of applications for apprenticeships in small and medium sized enterprises in Alyn and Deeside;and if he will make a statement. [137013]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of topics, including the demand for apprenticeships in North Wales. However, I understand that information is not held centrally on the level of applications to small and medium sized enterprises in Alyn and Deeside.

  Flooding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales concerning financial help for the County of Flintshire following the November flooding; and if he will make a statement on the national flood assistance money for(a) Flintshire and (b) Wales. [140554]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Secretary to discuss a range of matters, including the effects on Wales of the recent bad weather.

  I have confirmed that the Welsh budget will be increased by £3 million over the four year period to 2003–04, as a consequence of additional funding made available for flood prevention work in England. It will be for the National Assembly to allocate this sum according to its own priorities.

  Edwina Hart, Assembly Secretary for Finance, Local Government and Communities, has already announced that, under the Bellwin arrangements, local authorities will receive 100 per cent. reimbursement of eligible expenditure above a threshold which is set at 0.2 per cent. of each authority's revenue budget.

  Children's Commissioner for Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. [140450]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have received a number of representations requesting further powers for the Children's Commissioner for Wales.

  Housing Needs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure that specific Welsh needs are taken into account when legislation is drawn up on the proposals in the Housing Green Paper. [140586]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I are in touch with Ministers at the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and at the National Assembly for Wales, and my officials are also in contact with their counterparts in those Departments. I have also encouraged direct contact between the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Assembly at both ministerial and official level.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Officers
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce a support system within the Prison Service for staff who have been suspended; and if he will make a statement; [139467]
  512W
  (2) what plans he has to introduce an independent support service to support prison officers experiencing (a) stress and (b) other work-related problems; and if he will make a statement. [139469]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service Staff Care and Welfare Service already offers independent support to staff who are suspended within the Prison Service. The nature of this support will vary, dependent upon the wishes and needs of the client and the level of involvement they wish to have with the Welfare Service.

  Staff Care and Welfare Service also provides advice for all staff in the Prison Service experiencing stress and other work-related problems.

  In addition, the Prison Service is developing an integrated occupational health strategy which will identify the management actions and support services required to promote mental well being.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been introduced within the Prison Service to tackle the harassment of prison officers by other officers; and if he will make a statement. [139468]

  Mr. Boateng
  Procedures were introduced in 1996 which allow members of staff throughout the Prison Service to lodge complaints if they perceive that they had been harassed, discriminated against or bullied by a colleague. Investigations are dealt with under standard Prison Service procedures and if the complaint is substantiated, appropriate disciplinary action follows.

  The guidance on combating harassment and discrimination is currently being revised. Mandatory training is being introduced for first line managers which will include advice on diversity and ensuring staff are treated fairly. A review is also under way of all diversity training which will include raising awareness and dealing with all forms of inappropriate behaviour.

  I have made it clear that racism must be eradicated from the Prison Service; so too must all forms of harassment, discrimination and bullying. The measures described are part of a lengthy programme of work to achieve this.

  Immigration
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have lodged appeals against being refused visas as family visitors since 2 October. [139718]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since 2 October, there have been 33 recorded appeals lodged against a refusal of a visa as a family visitor.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have applied for consideration under the regularisation scheme for overstayers; and how many of these applications have been(a) decided, (b) granted and (c) refused. [139717]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of applications received under the regularisation scheme, which closed on 1 October, is over 15,000. Some were received out of time. Approximately 250 applications have been granted. Around 9,250 are awaiting substantive consideration and the remaining 5,800 await an initial assessment of eligibility. I regret that further information could be
  513W
  obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for facilitation of illegal entry have been initiated in(a) 1999 and (b)

  Persons proceeded against at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for facilitation of illegal entry offences under s25 Immigration Act 1971, 1999 and Quarter 1 (January to March 2000)1

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Proceeded against3

  Convicted4

  Offence2 description

  Act and section

  1999

  2000 Q11

  1999

  2000 Q11

  Knowingly facilitating the entry of an illegal entrant5

  25(1) (a)6

  233

  41

  153

  43

  Knowingly facilitating the entry of an asylum claimant5

  25(1) (b)6

  20

  3

  6

  —

  Total

  253

  44

  159

  43

  1Provisional

  2Principal immigration offence

  3Includes proceedings terminated early

  4Includes persons convicted at the Crown court who may have been proceeded against at magistrates courts in earlier years

  5Triable either way offences. Cases may be dealt with by either magistrates

  6 As added by section 5 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 courts or committed for trial to the Crown court

  Prison Service Personnel
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the policy of the Prison Service to treat as a disciplinary matter an approach by a member of the Prison Service to his Member of Parliament about employment matters; and if he will make a statement. [139808]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 23 November 2000]: The Prison Service's policy in this area reflects the policy for all civil servants in that they must not attempt to bring political or other influences to support any personal claims as a civil servant. However, this policy also makes it clear that this does not restrict a member of staff's right to approach their Member of Parliament.

  I am quite clear that the restrictions on civil servants do not include restricting their right to approach their MP and am not aware of any case where a member of the Prison Service has been disciplined for doing so. The Prison Service Code of Discipline is currently being revised and we will ensure that this policy is clear to all staff.

  Hinduja Family
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) of 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 402W, on the Hinduja family, for what reason the outcome of the investigations was not awaited before a decision on whether or not to grant citizenship was made. [140306]

  Mrs. Roche
  At the time the decision was made, no proceedings were being taken against Mr. Hinduja. The allegations had been made nearly 10 years previously and it was not apparent that any investigations by the Indian authorities were still under way.

  Police Station Closures
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) of 13 November 2000,
  514W
  to the latest date for which information is available; and how many resulted in convictions. [139715]

  Mrs. Roche
  Available information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings database is given in the table:

  Official Report, column 539W, on police station closures, how many police stations have (a) opened and (b) closed in Sussex in each year since 1979. [140266]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Chief Constable that he is unable to provide information on the number of police stations that have opened or closed between March 1979 and March 1990. Since March 1990, the number of police stations in Sussex has increased by two to 36, with one new police station opened in each of the financial years 1998–99 and 1999–2000. The information provided by the force indicates that no police stations were closed between 1990 and 2000.

  Metropolitan Police (Intelligence Briefings)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which(a) hon. Members and (b) Members of the House of Lords (i) were offered and (ii) accepted intelligence briefings from the Metropolitan police on the manifestation of corruption and the Metropolitan Police Services response to it. [139998]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have asked the Metropolitan police to provide the information requested and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I receive it.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Putney will receive a reply to his letters of 11 May and 17 October on behalf of his constituent Mr. Gul. [138075]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 27 November 2000.

  I apologise for the delay in replying.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to police forces about the recruitment of individuals with criminal records. [139481]
  515W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office has not issued guidance to police forces regarding the recruitment of persons who have convictions and who wish to become police officers. It is for individual chief officers to decide whether a particular conviction should be a bar to the recruitment of an applicant.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what correspondence he has received from the RUC concerning the recruiting of former RUC officers and reservists to police forces in England and Wales. [139929]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None. However, the Royal Ulster Constabulary Voluntary Severance Support Unit has communicated with all police forces in England and Wales to indicate a potential recruitment base from former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and RUC Reserve.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many senior investigating officers are working within the Metropolitan Police Service's area major investigating teams; and how many of them are women. [139779]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Service has 31 major investigating teams each led by a senior investigating officer, none of whom are women. The force is encouraging women officers to join its specialist branches, with the objective of reflecting the community it serves.

  Fuel Emergency Precautionary Measures
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the sums spent, indicating the relevant votes by Her Majesty's Government, on fuel emergency precautionary measures since September; and if he will make a statement. [139850]

  Mr. Straw
  It is too soon to be able to provide a detailed reply. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures are available. The broad categories are likely to be: police costs; Army driver training and support; staff costs across Government Departments (e.g. overtime); any expenditure by local authorities or others that the Government agrees to meet; Government websites; and call centres.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued in respect of(a) juveniles, (b) adults and (c) in total of (a) and (b) in (i) Coventry South, (ii) the West Midlands and (iii) nationally. [139319]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 23 November 2000]: At least 140 anti-social behaviour orders have been issued since the measure was implemented on 1 April 1999. The figure is not broken down by local authority area,
  516W
  although we are aware of at least 12 in the West Midlands police force area. We cannot provide, from the figures available, a breakdown by age of the defendant.

  According to Coventry City Council, at least three orders are in force in Coventry South, all of which are against juveniles.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Salisbury will receive a reply to his letter of 3 September to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), about Porton Down. [140245]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  A reply has now been sent to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). His letter was carefully considered, and information sought from other Government departments and the police, but the delay in replying was excessive. I am very sorry he had to wait so long.

  Sex Change Operations
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what Prison Service policy is on the transfer of prisoners to(a) men's and (b) women's prisons following sex change operations; and on how many occasions such transfers have occurred in each of the last 10 years; [140143]

  (2) what his policy is in respect of requests by serving prisoners for access to NHS sex change operations. [140148]

  Mr. Boateng
  Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition for which treatment, including gender re-assignment surgery, is available on the National Health Service (NHS). The Prison Service aims to provide prisoners with access to the same range and quality of health services as the general public receives from the NHS. A prisoner who had been receiving treatment for gender dysphoria under the supervision of an NHS specialist would normally be permitted to have gender re-assignment surgery on the recommendation of that specialist.

  A post-operative transsexual prisoner would normally be held in an establishment for prisoners of his/her gender of choice but the decision in an individual case would be reached only after careful consideration of all the relevant factors. In the last 10 years no prisoners have been transferred from establishments for prisoners of their gender at birth to establishments for prisoners of their gender of choice following gender re-assignment surgery while in prison custody.

  Redgrave and Charman
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 31 October 2000,Official Report, column 199WH, concerning disciplinary hearings in relation to John Redgrave and Michael Charman, (a) if procedures for setting the date for the hearing were compliant with regulations (b) what was the nature of the apology tendered by the CIB to counsel for Redgrave and Charman; and if he will make a statement. [140083]
  517W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis informs me that the disciplinary hearing for John Redgrave and Michael Charman was set in accordance with the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985.

  The Metropolitan police were notified that counsel for Mr. Redgrave was not available for the hearing. Out of courtesy, letters of apology were sent and the hearing was cancelled. I understand that Mr. Redgrave's and Mr. Charman' s solicitors, Russell Jones and Walker, are having difficulty in finding dates agreeable to both counsel.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Detective Inspector John Redgrave's suspension will be lifted; and if he will make a statement. [140089]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Detective Inspector Redgrave will remain suspended from duty as he is charged with Discreditable Conduct contrary to the Police Discipline Code. A discipline board will be convened next year on a date yet to be arranged.

  Operation Nectarine
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of the combined Kent Police-CIB Operation Nectarine; and if he will make a statement. [140072]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 380W.

  Children's Manifesto
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on "Our Children, Their Future—A Children's Manifesto" published by NSPCC, Barnardos and the Child Poverty Action Group. [140415]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received a copy of the document, but no other representations have been received in this Department.

  A copy has also been sent to the Head of the Family Policy Unit at the Home Office with a request for a meeting. This will take place shortly.

  Mr. Gargan
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the briefings and complaints section to respond to Mr. Gargan of Westboume Road, Torquay, following his letter of 3 October. [140337]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Briefing and Complaints Section wrote to Mr. Gargan on 24 November asking for further information. Once he replies an offer will be made to reimburse his expenses. I am sorry for the delay in dealing with Mr. Gargan' s claim for compensation.

  Carers (Abuse)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will strengthen the right of access 518W
  to police files of persons who have complained of abuse while (a) in care and (b) their carers were under investigation; and if he will make a statement. [140004]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The Freedom of Information Bill, which finished its parliamentary stages yesterday, and I hope will be enacted very shortly, creates a right of access to personal information held by the police where the disclosure would be consistent with the data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Immigration (Northern Ireland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to create a dedicated immigration centre in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [138881]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of persons in Northern Ireland who are detained under the Immigration Act 1971 has always been small. Such detainees are detained in Magilligan or Maghaberry Prison. The Immigration Service and the Northern Ireland Prison Service recognise the difficulties of using prisons for people detained under the Immigration Act and are currently undertaking a joint review of future provision of detention facilities in Northern Ireland. The review's conclusions are expected by the end of the year and the Government will make its decisions public. However, given the small number of persons detained, it seems most unlikely that a dedicated detention facility in Northern Ireland will be viable on cost or efficiency grounds.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what health services and support are available to young people(a) sentenced and (b) remanded in custody; and what specialist mental health services are available to repeat young offenders. [139320]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 23 November 2000]: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 6 July 2000, Official Report, column 297W.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list by police authority area how many(a) 15, (b) 16 and (c) l7-year-olds were given custodial sentences in each of the last 10 years; and if he will give the length of sentences given; [140617]

  (2) if he will list by police authority area how many (a) 15, (b) 16 and (c) 17-year-olds were on remand in each of the last 10 years; and how many went on to serve a prison sentence. [140618]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings database, on the number of young offenders given custodial sentences by length of sentence is given in the tables. Due to disproportionate costs selected years only are given.

  Data on remands are of insufficient quality to meet the request.
  519W

  Table A: Number of young offenders aged 15, 16 and 17 given custodial sentence for indictable offences by length of sentence and police force area, 1990

  Age and police force area

  Total immediate custody1

  4 months and under

  Over 4 months and to 6 months

  Over 6 months and up to 1 year

  Over 1 year and up to 18 months

  Over 18 months and up to 2 years

  Over 2 years 3 years

  Age 15

  Avon and Somerset

  12

  11

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  6

  2

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  7

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  17

  13

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  8

  7

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  7

  2

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  Devon and Cornwall

  6

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  14

  5

  7

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Essex

  9

  4

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  45

  30

  13

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  8

  6

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Humberside

  12

  5

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  3

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  17

  10

  3

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Leicestershire

  6

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Lincolnshire

  9

  4

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  10

  7

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  46

  29

  4

  5

  1

  —

  3

  Norfolk

  4

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  21

  14

  5

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  14

  9

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  South Yorkshire

  11

  9

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  14

  9

  2

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Suffolk

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Surrey

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  7

  2

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  5

  3

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  8

  4

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  West Midlands

  35

  18

  9

  2

  —

  1

  1

  West Yorkshire

  30

  20

  6

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  6

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  3

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales

  21

  11

  8

  2

  —

  —

  —

  England and Wales

  441

  272

  87

  43

  1

  6

  18

  Age and police force area

  Over 3 years and up to 4 years

  Over 4 years and up to 5 years

  Over 5 years and up to 7 years

  Over 7 years and up to 10 years

  Over 10 years

  Life

  Sec 53(1)

  Average sentence length (months)

  Age 15

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.4

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.2

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21.0

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.8

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.5

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.9

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  22.1

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.0

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.1

  Essex

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.8

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.9

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.3

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.1

  Humberside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.7

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.6

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.3

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.2

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.8

  520W 521W

  Age and police force area

  Over 3 years and up to 4 years

  Over 4 years and up to 5 years

  Over 5 years and up to 7 years

  Over 7 years and up to 10 years

  Over 10 years

  Life

  Sec 53(1)

  Average sentence length (months)

  Merseyside

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.0

  Metropolitan police

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.8

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.8

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.5

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.6

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.7

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.6

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.0

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.5

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.9

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.7

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.0

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.2

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.2

  West Midlands

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.6

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.8

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.0

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.2

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.0

  North Wales

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.0

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.5

  England and Wales

  7

  5

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  7.4

  Age and police force area

  Total immediate custody1

  4 months and under

  Over 4 months and to 6 months

  Over 6 months and up to 1 year

  Over 1 year and up to 18 months

  Over 18 months and up to 2 years

  Over 2 years 3 years

  Age 16

  Avon and Somerset

  15

  11

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  16

  9

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  2

  4

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Cheshire

  19

  8

  7

  2

  —

  —

  —

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  34

  17

  12

  3

  —

  1

  1

  Cumbria

  9

  3

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Derbyshire

  18

  2

  3

  11

  —

  1

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  20

  15

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  23

  9

  7

  6

  —

  1

  —

  Essex

  12

  4

  3

  3

  —

  —

  2

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  70

  31

  28

  6

  —

  1

  4

  Hampshire

  21

  11

  8

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Hertfordshire

  14

  5

  5

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Humberside

  27

  5

  11

  8

  —

  1

  2

  Kent

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  20

  13

  5

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Leicestershire

  23

  14

  3

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  9

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Merseyside

  27

  12

  9

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Metropolitan police

  141

  69

  33

  22

  —

  4

  6

  Norfolk

  8

  7

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  10

  9

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  4

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Northumbria

  35

  15

  16

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  35

  12

  9

  7

  —

  2

  1

  South Yorkshire

  40

  22

  7

  4

  —

  3

  1

  Staffordshire

  28

  13

  8

  6

  —

  —

  1

  Suffolk

  5

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  4

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  11

  8

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Thames Valley

  20

  12

  5

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Warwickshire

  7

  4

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  West Mercia

  13

  8

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1

  West Midlands

  101

  55

  23

  18

  —

  2

  1

  West Yorkshire

  64

  36

  15

  9

  —

  3

  —

  Wiltshire

  5

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  5

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  Gwent

  12

  10

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  North Wales

  11

  4

  4

  1

  —

  2

  —

  South Wales

  29

  13

  11

  3

  —

  —

  2

  England and Wales

  980

  487

  261

  147

  —

  29

  30

  522W 523W

  Age and police force area

  Over 3 years and up to 4 years

  Over 4 years and up to 5 years

  Over 5 years and up to 7 years

  Over 7 years and up to 10 years

  Over 10 years

  Life

  Sec 53(1)

  Average sentence length (months)

  Age 16

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.4

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.9

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.3

  Cheshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  6.8

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.9

  Cumbria

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12.3

  Derbyshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.2

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.0

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.4

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.2

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.0

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.7

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.0

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.9

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —`

  —

  —

  —

  9.3

  Kent

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18.2

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4.5

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.2

  Lincolnshire

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22.0

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.9

  Metropolitan police

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  3

  7.6

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.2

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.8

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.8

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.3

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13.7

  South Yorkshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  7.9

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.3

  Suffolk

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15.1

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.8

  Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.7

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.9

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.3

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.5

  West Midlands

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  6.1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.1

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.5

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.0

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.3

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.5

  South Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.7

  England and Wales

  11

  4

  3

  —

  —

  8

  8

  7.1

  Age and police force area

  Total immediate custody1

  4 months and under

  Over 4 months and to 6 months

  Over 6 months and up to 1 year

  Over 1 year and up to 18 months

  Over 18 months and up to 2 years

  Over 2 years 3 years

  Age 17

  Avon and Somerset

  32

  15

  5

  8

  1

  1

  2

  Bedfordshire

  30

  9

  5

  7

  6

  1

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  14

  7

  1

  —

  4

  —

  2

  Cheshire

  45

  11

  12

  17

  3

  2

  —

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  67

  28

  8

  18

  5

  3

  2

  Cumbria

  39

  20

  8

  7

  1

  2

  1

  Derbyshire

  45

  13

  6

  15

  7

  4

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  37

  19

  6

  6

  2

  —

  4

  Dorset

  14

  9

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Durham

  43

  20

  5

  9

  3

  2

  3

  Essex

  36

  12

  8

  6

  6

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  10

  4

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  183

  79

  43

  40

  7

  2

  9

  Hampshire

  31

  16

  7

  5

  1

  —

  2

  Hertfordshire

  29

  11

  4

  7

  3

  —

  4

  Humberside

  78

  26

  17

  11

  15

  5

  2

  Kent

  39

  12

  6

  11

  4

  3

  3

  Lancashire

  78

  26

  18

  21

  7

  4

  —

  Leicestershire

  53

  16

  16

  10

  5

  4

  2

  Lincolnshire

  25

  12

  4

  1

  5

  1

  1

  Merseyside

  69

  30

  14

  16

  4

  4

  —

  Metropolitan police

  266

  87

  42

  65

  24

  16

  15

  524W 525W

  Age and police force area

  Total immediate custody1

  4 months and under

  Over 4 months and to 6 months

  Over 6 months and up to 1 year

  Over 1 year and up to 18 months

  Over 18 months and up to 2 years

  Over 2 years 3 years

  Norfolk

  18

  9

  3

  4

  2

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  23

  12

  7

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Northamptonshire

  27

  5

  3

  14

  4

  1

  —

  Northumbria

  83

  32

  28

  11

  8

  2

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  102

  22

  18

  25

  17

  3

  13

  South Yorkshire

  83

  29

  22

  20

  5

  3

  2

  Staffordshire

  53

  18

  10

  14

  6

  1

  4

  Suffolk

  18

  5

  5

  3

  4

  —

  —

  Surrey

  7

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  27

  9

  3

  8

  1

  —

  2

  Thames Valley

  46

  13

  4

  15

  10

  3

  1

  Warwickshire

  20

  4

  3

  6

  5

  2

  —

  West Mercia

  43

  19

  6

  8

  5

  3

  2

  West Midlands

  224

  80

  41

  57

  27

  12

  5

  West Yorkshire

  113

  25

  22

  35

  16

  3

  7

  Wiltshire

  10

  5

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Dyfed Powys

  8

  1

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  20

  6

  8

  3

  1

  1

  —

  North Wales

  24

  9

  8

  3

  2

  1

  1

  South Wales

  81

  29

  17

  10

  9

  4

  10

  England and Wales

  2,293

  818

  459

  522

  237

  97

  104

  Age and police force area

  Over 3 years and up to 4 years

  Over 4 years and up to 5 years

  Over 5 years and up to 7 years

  Over 7 years and up to 10 years

  Over 10 years

  Life

  Sec 53(1)

  Average sentence length (months)

  Age 17

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.0

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12.0

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.9

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.1

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  11.2

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.8

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.4

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.6

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.4

  Essex

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.0

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.7

  Greater Manchester

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.3

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.0

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.0

  Humberside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  9.7

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.0

  Lancashire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.2

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.0

  Lincolnshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.7

  Merseyside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.8

  Metropolitan police

  10

  4

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  12.2

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.1

  North Yorkshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.9

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.3

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.3

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  13.6

  South Yorkshire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.6

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.6

  Suffolk

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.9

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.0

  Sussex

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16.1

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.5

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.2

  West Mercia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.2

  West Midlands

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9.2

  West Yorkshire

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12.5

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.2

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.8

  Gwent

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.0

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.6

  South Wales

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12.0

  England and Wales

  32

  14

  4

  2

  —

  4

  2

  10.0

  1Immediate custody includes detention in a young offender institution and under s53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933

  526W 527W
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each young offenders' institution, how many(a) suicides and (b) incidents of self-harm have been recorded since 1989. [140670]

  Mr. Boateng
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of trends over the last 10 years of diagnosable mental health disorders among(a) young prisoners on remand and (b) sentenced young offenders. [140619]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been three studies of the prevalence of mental disorder in the prison population of England and Wales published since 1990. Two were undertaken for the Home Office/Prison Service by the Institute of Psychiatry.

  The first, for which the fieldwork was done in 1988–89, surveyed mental ill-health among sentenced prisoners and the fieldwork for the second study, of the unsentenced population, was completed in 1993–94. A third study, of psychiatric morbidity among the whole prison population of England and Wales, was undertaken in 1997 for the Department of Health by the Office for National Statistics. The report of this third study was published in 1998, and a further more detailed analysis of the data relating to young offenders followed in October 2000.

  The very considerable differences in methodology between the first two studies and the third mean that it is not easy to make simple comparisons. I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the correspondence in the Library.

  Driving Cautions
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cautions have been issued in the last three years by police officers patrolling the security cordon around the City of London against(a) drivers not wearing seat-belts and (b) drivers speaking on hand-held mobile telephones while driving. [140738]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been(a) applied for and (b) issued in each police authority area of England and Wales since January 1999; and if he will make a statement. [140656]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No applications have been received from local authorities to establish child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Following consultation with local authorities and the police, we propose to extend the upper age limit to 15 and are considering what other improvements might be made.

  Electoral Commission
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff that(a) are and (b) will be employed in or by (i) the Party Funding Unit, (ii) the Electoral Commission project team and (iii) the
  528W
  Electoral Commission are members of political parties; how many members of each political party there are in each of categories (i) to (iii) above; what restriction is to be placed on party membership or political activity by members of the Electoral Commission staff once the Commission is established; what his policy is on members of staff of the Electoral Commission who are members of political parties dealing with confidential information relating to other political parties; and if he will make a statement. [140663]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the terms of the Civil Service Code, civil servants are required to conduct themselves with honesty, integrity, impartiality and objectivity. The restrictions on the involvement of civil servants in political activities are set out in the Civil Service Management Code. There is no requirement on civil servants to disclose membership of a political party.

  The Electoral Commission will appoint its own staff in due course. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill has now been amended so as to preclude the chief executive of the Electoral Commission from retaining or taking up membership of a political party. This restriction will not extend to other members of the Electoral Commission's staff. We would expect the Electoral Commission to require its staff to discharge their duties in a similar way to civil servants.

  Political Funding
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill allows for the foreign funding of(a) political parties participating in a referendum and (b) other referendum participants in (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) the rest of the United Kingdom; if it is the Government's policy to allow (A) organisations campaigning in a referendum in Northern Ireland on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland to receive funds from abroad and (B) Northern Ireland political parties subject to an exemption order from Part IV of the Bill to campaign in Great Britain in a UK-wide referendum; and if he will make a statement. [140664]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill will ban political parties from receiving foreign donations. This ban will also, under Part VII of the Bill, extend to other permitted participants in a referendum campaign in any part of the United Kingdom. However, clause 70 of the Bill makes special provision for Northern Ireland parties. It is the Government's intention to exercise the order-making power in clause 70 so as to disapply the provisions of Part IV of the Bill in respect of Northern Ireland parties for an initial period of four years. The restrictions on the acceptance of donations will be disapplied for all purposes; the Bill does not place restrictions on how or where political parties, including Northern Ireland parties, may spend funds received from a particular source.

  Political Funding (Electoral Register)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 111W, on the electoral register, (a) what mechanisms will be put in place to enable political parties, the Electoral Commission and others to verify that political donations from individuals are

  529W
  permissible donations between the commencement of the provisions of Part IV of Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and the establishment of the central record of electors in October 2001 and how it is intended that such donations are to be verified as permissible to the standard required by the Bill, (b) for what reasons it was decided not to proceed with the interim solution previously proposed by his Department, when the decision was made and what consultations there have been with political parties about that decision (i) before its being made and (ii) subsequently, (c) what discussions there have been with political parties about the costs incurred and new administrative arrangements to be put in place as a result of the decision not to proceed with the interim solution; what estimate has been made of the total costs arising for (i) political parties represented in the House and (ii) other political parties; and if such costs are expected to exceed the level of additional expenditure on start up costs announced on 21 November and (d) for what reasons it has not been possible to establish a central record since the publication of Cm 4413; when it was decided by his Department that such a central record would be required; and if he will make a statement. [140667]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government will be making regulations under the Representation of the People Act 2000 to allow registered political parties and others to obtain copies of the electoral registers free of charge.

  We have always recognised that complying with the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill will involve the commitment of resources by parties, but we have not received any detailed information from the majority of the political parties about the costs to them of checking donations against the registers.

  We have also recognised the need to make access to the electoral registers easier so as to facilitate compliance with the Bill. The Improvement and Development Agency was asked in April to look at ways of doing so. Pursuant to a reply given on 6 November, we placed a paper in the Library which proposed a solution. The solution proposed is, however, a significant IT project and it cannot be ready before October 2001.

  We therefore considered, in addition, whether an interim solution was possible. But we concluded on 17 November that there was none available which could be relied upon or which would give value for money. This conclusion was announced as quickly as possible in the debate in Another Place on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill on 21 November 2000, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 696–97.

  We also announced that, to further assist parties with checking the registers at the outset, we intended to increase by £200,000 the sum available under the Bill to help with start-up costs. The Bill has now been amended accordingly.

  Lord Birt
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2000,Official Report, column 211W, on Lord Birt, if he will list the dates on which he has met
  530W
  Lord Birt in his capacity as adviser to the Government on crime; what relevant information he has received from him; and if he will make a statement. [140751]

  Mr. Straw
  I met Lord Birt on 25 May. My officials have also had regular discussions with him in that period. These meetings have focused on analysing existing data on offenders, offences and victims.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights (Police Training)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has made to the assessment of the police training programme on the Human Rights Act 1998 prepared by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [140005]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable is preparing a response to the Human Rights Commission's report. I will consider this before commenting.

  A copy of the Commission's report has been placed in the Library.

  Change Management Team
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 2000,Official Report, column 799W, for what reason he does not consider it appropriate to comment on the perceived community background of members of the change management team. [140028]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are strict requirements governing the confidentiality and proper use of community background monitoring data. The provision of community background data at the level asked for would breach those requirements.

  RUC
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings he has had with(a) present and (b) former members of the RUC since the publication of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. [140085]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since publication of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, Ministers have met with police associations which represent former and serving police officers. Also, officials and I have had numerous meetings, telephone conversations and exchanges of correspondence with members of the police family during this period.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 125W, on Special Advisers, if he will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, on each of the occasions when departmental or non-departmental Special Advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity. [135254]
  531W
  Mr. Byers
  During the period 31 March 1999 to 31 March 2000, Special Advisers in this Department travelled overseas once on official business to Brussels at a cost of £403. The cost of this visit was accounted for in expenditure on Ministers' travel overseas published by the Prime Minister on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W, which for 1999–2000 was £4.6 million compared to £7.9 million for the last year of the previous Administration.

  EU Grants
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has reached agreement with the European Commission over the payment of grants, discounts or subsidies for(a) the coal industry, (b) Rover, (c) Nissan, (d) the Universal Bank, (e) Regional Venture Capital funds and (f) the Climate Charge levy [135655]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The position on each case is as follows:

  (a) yes;

  (b) no notification is before the Commission;

  (c) discussions are continuing;

  (d) no notification is before the Commission;

  (e) discussions are continuing;

  (f) this is a matter for Treasury Departments.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 462W, what action he is taking to prevent the closure of directly managed post offices and their transfer to agency status until new consultation procedures are in place. [138771]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In the light of the White Paper "Post Office Reform: A World Class Service for the 21st Century" and a subsequent recommendation by the Performance and Innovation Unit, discussions are taking place between the Post Office and the Post Office Users' National Council on a revised code of practice and consultation procedures relating to the closure or relocation of post offices. The Government's moratorium on conversions of directly managed post offices to agency status was lifted in December 1998 following agreement of a Post Office strategy whereby at least 15 per cent. of the total business transacted by the counters' network is done at remaining Crown offices.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what progress has been made in the establishment of the fund to improve the quality of post offices in deprived urban areas by installing security measures and modernising premises; [139105]

  (2) what the mechanism is for allocating funds being made available to install security measures and to modernise post offices in deprived urban areas. [139106]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: Ring-fenced funding has been allocated from 2001–02 to help sustain and improve post offices in deprived urban areas. Discussions on the criteria and mechanisms for allocating funding are taking place between my Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Post Office.
  532W
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Post Office proposal for a formula for calculating a social network payment for sub-post offices is commercially confidential. [140261]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: Proposals on the future of the Post Office Counters network have been submitted to me by the Post Office "In Strictest Confidence". The Post Office plan is commercially confidential.

  Military Exports (Israel)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what spare parts and other components have been exported by British companies in the last three months, for use in helicopters by the Israeli military; and what export licences for such equipment are pending. [138987]

  Dr. Howells
  Licences to export arms and other goods whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the Export Control Organisation (ECO) of the Department of Trade and Industry is the licensing authority. The ECO of the DTI does not compile records of licensed exports. Some licences are only used in part, while others may not be used at all. The extent to which the exports permitted by a licence are made is dependent on various factors; for example the customer's requirements may be less than originally expected or the expected contract may simply not materialise. Statistics on UK exports of military equipment are compiled by HM Customs and Excise. This information is set out in Part III of the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls.

  As of 16 November 2000, 44 applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) and 19 applications for an Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) covering the export to Government or commercial consignees or end-users in Israel are awaiting a decision. It should also be noted that OIEL applications cover multiple shipments of specified goods to specified destinations or specified consignees, not specified end-users. These figures have been obtained by searching the ECO's computer databases using the entries relating to military aircraft spares.

  In addition, Israel is a permitted destination on certain Open General Export Licences covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences are placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many applications for permanent licences to export CS gas to Israel have been made each year since 1997; [139232]

  (2) how many applications for permanent licences to export CS gas to Israel have been refused in each year since 1997. [139233]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The export of CS gas is controlled under the following entries in Part III of Schedule I of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended (commonly known as the Military List): CS and other irritants under entry ML7; cartridges (as ammunition) containing CS irritants under entries ML3 or PL5021 and canisters containing CS irritants under ML4 or PL5030. However, certain other
  533W
  devices may also contain tear gas, for example, portable anti-riot devices for administering an incapacitating substance under PL5001; grenades under ML4 or PL5030; ammunition (including artillery and mortar) under ML3 or PL5021; gas projectors or generators under ML2 or PL5018; gas projecting equipment for controlled ground vehicles, combatant vessels or aircraft, that are specially designed or modified for military use under entries ML6, ML9, or ML10 respectively; and portable devices designed for self-protection by the administration of an incapacitating substance under entry 1A905 of the

  Rating

  2 May to 31 December 1997

  1 January to 31 December 1998

  1 January to 31 December 1999

  1 January to 10 November 2000

  Number of SIEL applications received

  ML2

  1

  2

  0

  2

  ML3

  8

  12

  9

  12

  ML4

  7

  8

  14

  13

  ML6

  6

  15

  3

  7

  ML7

  1

  4

  1

  0

  ML9

  7

  2

  8

  11

  ML10

  16

  36

  21

  46

  Number of OIEL applications received

  ML2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML4

  0

  2

  1

  3

  ML6

  0

  3

  1

  5

  ML7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML9

  0

  3

  2

  6

  ML10

  0

  7

  3

  15

  Note:

  There were no SIEL or OIEL applications received covering the export of goods with the ratings PL5001, PL5018, PL5021, PL5030 or 1A905

  It Would entail disproportionate cost to establish Whish, if any of export of CS gas. However, details of export licensing decisions between 2 May 1997 and 31 December 1999 have been set out in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; copies are in the Library of the House. The reports list by country of destination the numbers of export licences issued and refused in each equipment for which licences have been granted.

  Between 2 May 1997 and 10 November 2000, one application for a SIEL was refused covering the export to consignees or end-users in Israel of goods with the relevant ratings. The paper records have been examined and this application covered the the export of CS gas. In the same period no application for an OIEL were refused covering goods with the relevant ratings.

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

  Euro
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the cost to his Department of converting to the euro. [139510]

  Mr. Byers
  The costs to my Department would depend on the approach taken by the public sector as a whole.
  534W
  Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulation 1996, as amended. It should be noted that many other goods are also controlled under each of the entries referred to above.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated. Between 2 May 1997 and 10 November 2000, 272 applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) and 45 applications for an Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) have been received covering the export to consignees or end-users in Israel of goods with the relevant ratings.

  Enterprise Funds
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money was(a) spent and (b) loaned by the Enterprise Funds (i) in 1999–2000 and (ii) so far in 2000–01. [139731]

  Mr. Byers
  During the financial years 1999–2000 £39.11 million (gross) was spent on the Enterprise Fund's programmes. For the financial year 2000–01 £25.05 million (gross) has been spent on the Fund's programmes to the end of October.

  In neither of the financial years has any money been loaned by the Enterprise Fund.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department' s expenditure on clean coal technology(a) was in 1999–2000 and (b) is planned for 2000–01. [139730]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department's expenditure on clean coal technology in 1999–00 was £2.5 million. Expenditure presently planned for.2000–01 is £4.3 million.

  Both figures are net of VAT.

  BNFL
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans BNFL have to order new nuclear reactors. [139732]
  535W
  Mr. Byers
  I understand that BNFL have no plans to order new nuclear reactors.

  Venture Capital
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has been appointed as the Fund of Funds manager to lead his Department's venture capital activity; and what this manager's budget is for 2000–01. [139728]

  Mr. Byers
  No such post exists.

  Westport Private Equity was appointed Fund of Funds manager for the UK High Technology Fund.

  Legal Profession (OFT Inquiry)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the report of the OFT inquiry into the legal profession. [139737]

  Mr. Byers
  The Director General of Fair Trading expects to deliver his report on restrictions in the professions to me during December.

  European Union (Public Undertakings)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which article of a European Union or Community treaty prohibits a member state from(a) initiating or providing a public monopoly service not subject to competition or long-term leasing or management contract by competition or a chosen non-public agency and (b) establishing or re-establishing publicly-owned public service monopolies. [139933]

  Dr. Howells
  The EC Treaty contains a number of provisions that may be relevant to the provision of public services. Of particular relevance may be Article 86 (formerly Article 90), which among other things provides that in the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which member states grant special or exclusive rights, member states shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to those rules provided for in Article 12 (formerly Article 6) and Articles 81 to 89 (formerly Articles 85 to 94).

  Block Exemption (Car Manufacture)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the operation of the block exemption by car manufacturers, in relation to EC Council Regulation 1475/95. [139903]

  Dr. Howells
  The European Commission published its evaluation of the operation of the EC cars block exemption (EC Council Regulation 1475/95) on 15 November. The Government are studying this carefully but note its conclusion that the block exemption has not achieved all of its aims. In particular, the report concludes that consumers do not derive a fair share of the benefits of the European Single market from the operation of the selective and exclusive distribution system permitted by the block exemption.

  Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accepted the conclusion of the UK Competition Commission that the system of
  536W
  selective and exclusive distribution, which is used by nearly all car suppliers in the UK, operates against the public interest.

  False Trade References (Scotland)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce legislation to make the giving of false trade references a criminal offence in Scotland. [140075]

  Dr. Howells
  I have no plans for such legislation. It would already be a criminal offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 for a trader knowingly or recklessly to mislead by misdescribing goods or services.

  Motor Vehicle Clocking
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to make the clocking of motor vehicle odometers a criminal offence. [140074]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to reply I gave him on 21 November 2000,Official Report, column 106W.

  Nissan (Sunderland)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what aid he plans to pay to Nissan in respect of its Sunderland plant; and how much has been paid to date. [140166]

  Mr. Byers
  A grant offer of £40 million of Regional Selective Assistance has been made to Nissan to secure production of the new Micra for the Sunderland plant. The offer is currently being appraised by the European Commission.

  Haulage Companies
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many haulage companies were declared bankrupt in 1994. [140265]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The number of company compulsory liquidations for the road transport industry in England and Wales in 1994 was 235. The corresponding number for individual bankruptcy orders was 1,149. The road transport industry includes road haulage, car hire, taxis, bus services, and other road passenger transport—detailed figures solely for road haulage are not available.

  Receivership (Astra Holdings)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what papers have been removed from the Official Receiver by the administrative receivers relating to(a) John Drewe, (b) Allivane International and (c) companies associated with Astra Holdings; for what reason and under whose authority the papers were removed; and if he will make a statement. [138748]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The Official Receiver is not aware that any of the accounting records of Astra Holdings plc, stored on his behalf with a commercial storage company, have been removed by the administrative receivers.

  Community Hospitals Group
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on the Competition Commission's report on the proposed takeover of Community Hospitals Group by BUPA. [140573]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish the Competition Commission's report on BUPA's proposed acquisition of Community Hospitals Group as soon as is practicable.

  Industry (Funding)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total value was of(a) Government and (b) EU financial assistance to British industry, excluding agriculture and fishing, in the last financial year; and what his most recent estimate is for the current financial year. [140380]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: DTI's expenditure in support of its objective of promoting enterprises, innovation and increased productivity was £730 million in 1999–2000, and is expected to be £935 million in 2000–01. These figures include expenditure by British Trade International and exclude all science expenditure.

  It is not possible to supply figures for EU assistance given to British industry or to supply them in financial years. Allocations for Britain's Objective 1, 2 and 56 areas (i.e. excluding Northern Ireland) for the two calendar years 1999 and 2000 are £960 million and £980 million respectively. This is mainly European Regional Development Fund allocations but includes approximately £120 million in each year for agricultural purposes.

  Contracted and installed wind generation capacity and electricity generated

  Scotland

  England

  Wales

  Contracted MW DNC

  Installed MW DNC

  Generation GWh

  Contracted MW DNC

  Installed MW DNC

  Generation Gwh

  Contracted MW DNC

  Installed MW DNC

  Generation Gwh

  1995

  45.6

  6.18

  0

  117.164

  33.145

  170

  145.104

  32.977

  171

  1996

  89.23

  14.6

  46

  117.164

  37.452

  176

  145.104

  35.337

  180

  1997

  89.23

  21.76

  108

  349.176

  40.217

  194

  256.777

  58.28

  267

  1998

  89.23

  21.76

  161

  640.868

  41.24

  237

  330.918

  62.717

  371

  1999

  166.72

  25.13

  146

  640.868

  48.418

  56

  330.918

  62.717

  186

  2000

  166.72

  33.42

  89

  640.868

  50.465

  46

  330.918

  62.717

  90

  Notes

  1. Contracted and Installed data are cumulative

  2. Generation data are for the year only

  3. Contracts for NFFO 1 and 2 projects ended on 31 December 1998

  4. Contracted and Installed data for England and Wales include ex-NFFO 1 and 2 assuming that these projects have continued

  5. Generation data for England and Wales for 1999 and 2000 do not include ex-NFFO contracts as data are not readily available

  6. Data for 2000 are to 30 June only.

  538W

  Accident Prevention
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the costs were of(a) the recent campaign targeting older people on the prevention of falls in the home and (b) other accident prevention initiatives in the last five years. [140669]

  Dr. Howells
  The "slips, trips and broken hips" campaign which DTI launched in May 1999 targeting older people on the prevention of falls in the home has cost £0.5 million to date.

  Money Management Education
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to provide more support to money management education. [140095]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: I see all forms of consumer education as a priority, and acknowledge that money management is an essential part of everyday life. People need basic skills, knowledge and understanding to manage their personal finances and provide for their future. Consumer education should be a continuing process, starting in schools and continuing through adult life.

  Changes to the National Curriculum have brought consumer education and personal finance education to the fore.

  That is why the DTI, in partnership with the DfEE, Financial Services Authority, the Basic Skills Agency and the Consumers' Association, is managing an EU funded project to produce high quality teaching materials. The teaching materials will help young people and adults develop consumer skills and knowledge in various topics including budgeting and banking; money management and also personal finance for 14–16 year olds. In Spring 2001 the materials will be disseminated though teaching establishments and the local communities in England and Wales.

  Wind Generation Capacity
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each year since 1995 in respect of(a) Scotland, (b) England and (c) Wales (i) the (A) contracted and (B) installed wind generation capacity and (ii) the electricity generated by (A) and (B). [140657]

  Mr. Caborn
  Available information is set out in the table.

  In addition, over the past five years the DTI has spent £5.5 million on other home safety awareness initiatives such as carbon monoxide poisoning, garden safety, DIY safety, electric blankets, burns and scalds, clothing fires, fireworks, household chemicals and toys.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent by his Department on research into the prevention of accidental injuries(a) in total and (b) on those related to consumer products in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [140678]
  539W
  Dr. Howells
  The Department of Trade and Industry has spent £2.8 million over the last 12 months on research into the prevention of accidental injuries in the home, all of which was related to consumer products. This amount includes money spent on the Home Accident Surveillance System collecting and collating accident statistics.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    EU Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there is right of appeal over rejection of a request to participate under Clause L of the enhanced co-operation proposals at the IGC. [139906]

    Mr. Vaz
    The procedures for authorising the participation of a member state in an enhanced co-operation in the field of foreign policy implementation have yet to be agreed.

    We have made clear enhanced co-operation must be open to all member states wishing to participate; and that this must be reflected in the Treaty.

    General Affairs Council
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 20 and 21 November; and if he will make a statement. [140121]

    Mr. Vaz
    The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 20–21 November adopted the "A" points listed in document no. 13291/00 and noted the resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament in its sessions of 2–6 and 23–27 October in Strasbourg listed in document nos. 11935/00 and 11941/00. Copies of these documents will be placed in the House Libraries as soon as they become available.

    Western Balkans

    The Council agreed on its final preparations for the Zagreb Summit on 24 November. It also agreed the text of the CARDS regulation and the European Agency for Reconstruction. The texts will be adopted formally by the GAC on 4 December. The Council adopted the Commission proposal to extend the Autonomous Trade Measures to the FRY and Macedonia. It also adopted the negotiating mandate for Croatia's Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) and instructed the Commission to start full negotiations for an agreement. Finally, the Council adopted the final text of the Macedonia SAA.

    Enlargement

    The UK led member states in welcoming the Commission's Enlargement Strategy paper, and its ambitious and realistic recommendations for injecting dynamism into the accession process. The key recommendations were for a "road map" or timetable, envisaging the conclusion of negotiations in the first half of 2002, and for procedures to facilitate future progress in the accession negotiations (including the handling of candidates' transition period requests and the "conditional closure" of chapters where a few difficult issues can be
    540W
    set aside for later negotiation). These proposals were in line with the Prime Minister's call, in his speech in Warsaw in October, for a "specific framework leading to the conclusion of negotiations and accession" in time for new member states to participate in the elections for the European Parliament in 2004.

    EU/Turkey Pre-accession Strategy

    The Council deferred discussion until 4 December General Affairs Council.

    MEP's Statute

    The Presidency provided an update on the negotiations with the European Parliament to regulate the salaries, expenses and conditions of MEPs. The UK emphasised that the key to any agreement was an expense regime based on real costs actually incurred, transparent, accountable and with external, independent checks; and that the most logical position on salaries was an average of the 15 member states. The UK and other member states reiterated the need for at least the option of national taxation for MEPs.

    Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs)

    The Commission presented their proposal for a new OCT Decision, which includes special trade provisions and developmental assistance for the OCTs. The UK, along with France, Denmark and the Netherlands, offered initial comments, and emphasised that some technical aspects of the proposal needed further consideration.

    North Korea

    The Council agreed Presidency proposals for co-ordinating member states' policies towards North Korea.

    IGC: Session with the EP

    The Conclave met on Sunday evening. Ministers discussed Commission Size, Vote Reweighting, QMV and the Charter of Rights. The next Conclave takes place on 3 December.

    Defence

    Foreign and Defence Ministers adopted a declaration on the outcome of the Capabilities Commitment Conference.

    Common EU Foreign and Security Policy
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect on UK-US relations of the creation of(a) a common EU foreign and security policy and (b) an EU Rapid Reaction Force. [140145]

    Mr. Vaz
    I can do no better than to quote the US Secretary of State's statement of 20 November.

    Mrs. Albright described that day's Capabilities Commitment Conference in Brussels, where EU nations offered to make troops available for EU-led operations, as a
    strongly positive development we wholly support.

    She noted that the US,
    along with other Allies, are working closely with the European Union to make this initiative a success and to create a true strategic partnership between two key Western institutions—NATO and the European Union. Creation of this capability promises to improve Europe's ability to act in ways that will strengthen European and transatlantic security.
    541W

    European Convention on Human Rights
    Ms Jenny Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [140333]

    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intends to sign Protocol XII of the European Convention on Human Rights; for what reason it did not sign it at the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Convention; and if he will make a statement. [140521]

    Mr. Hain
    The Government have no plans at present to sign Protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Among other concerns, the Government believe that the scope of issues which could be brought to the European Court for binding decision under Protocol 12 is unacceptably open-ended and uncertain. Once the Protocol comes into force, the Government will follow carefully how it is interpreted by the European Court to see if our concerns are allayed.

    Ireland (British Passports)
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British passports have been issued by the Embassy in Dublin in each of the past five years; how many British passport holders he estimates live in the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [140730]

    Mr. Hain
    The British Embassy in Dublin has issued the following numbers of British passports in each of the past five years;

    1996: 4,701

    1997: 5,199

    1998: 5,649

    1999: 6,831

    2000: 6,588 to 31 October, 2000. We estimate that the end year total will be between 7,300 and 7,500.

    There are no reliable estimates of the total number of British passport holders resident in the Republic of Ireland.

    Trade (EU Market Access)
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what impact offering duty free access to least developed countries will have on the EU rice and sugar markets' tariff structures. [136827]

    Mr. Caborn
    I have been asked to reply.

    The European Commission's proposal is to amend the EU's scheme of Generalised Tariff Preferences (GSP) so as to extend duty free access without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The proposal provides for this duty free treatment for rice and sugar to be achieved progressively, as follows: LDCs will be able to receive a 20 per cent. reduction of the Common Customs Tariff duties payable on their exports of these products from 1 January 2001; a 50 per cent. reduction from 1 January 2002; an 80 per cent. reduction from 1 January 2003; culminating in full elimination on 1 January 2004. This
    542W
    proposal does not address the CAP regimes for Rice and Sugar. The European Commission has made two other, separate proposals for reform of these two CAP regimes.

  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Light Rail
    Mr. McCabe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will approve the new light rail lines contained in his Department's 10-year plan. [138946]

    Mr. Hill
    Outside London, five light rail lines to be funded in the period covered by the 10-Year Plan have already been approved. We are currently considering a number of proposals for future lines, including those in Leeds, the West Midlands, Bristol and South Gloucestershire, and Portsmouth and South Hampshire. I hope to make announcements about each of these four proposals as soon as possible.

    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase investment in light rail systems. [138957]

    Mr. Hill
    Our 10-Year Plan provides for a substantial increase in funding for light rail schemes where these offer good value for money as part of integrated transport strategies.

    Valerie Davey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce further proposals for light rail lines. [138967]

    Mr. Hill
    We are currently considering a number of proposals for new light rail lines, including those in Leeds, the West Midlands, Bristol and South Gloucestershire, and Portsmouth and South Hampshire. I hope to make announcements about each of these four proposals as soon as possible.

    Connex South Eastern
    Mr. Efford
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding train cancellations due to rail track repairs on Connex South Eastern. [138951]

    Mr. Hill
    The rail network has been severely disrupted by the temporary emergency speed restrictions imposed by Railtrack for safety reasons in the aftermath of the tragic accident at Hatfield. Connex South Eastern have planned a series of cancellations to their normal timetable which passengers have been informed about in advance to enable them to plan their journeys.

    Neighbourhood Wardens
    Mr. Plaskitt
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role neighbourhood wardens will play in improving the management of public areas. [138952]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    Neighbourhood Warden Schemes are designed to meet local needs. Therefore the management of public areas is dependent on what is needed locally. Wardens should link with other services in neighbourhoods to improve the reporting of environmental
    543W
    and community safety issues. The schemes are still developing their plans for implementation and a number of different models in different areas are under consideration.

    Ports
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the criteria to be met before locating new container ports on non-brownfield sites. [138953]

    Mr. Quinn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his strategy for developing British ports. [138954]

    Mr. Hill
    The Government announced yesterday the publication of a ports policy paper, "Modern Ports". On the issue of port development, "Modern Ports" says that we will maintain a balanced policy on development which aims to makes the best use of existing and former operational land, secures high environmental standards, but supports sustainable projects for which there is a clear need.

    Ms Squire
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on developing British ports. [138973]

    Mr. Hill
    The Government announced yesterday the publication of a ports policy paper, "Modern Ports".

    Climate Change
    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on emissions trading and global warming. [138955]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Government recognise that emissions trading is a key part of the long-term solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, both domestically and internationally. Despite the breakdown of the recent international climate change talks in The Hague, we achieved some progress in developing the rules for international emissions trading. We hope to be able to build on that progress when talks are resumed next year. In addition, the Government have recently started public consultation on proposals for a domestic trading scheme, the framework for which is expected to be in place by April next year.

    Area Cost Adjustment
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the area cost adjustment. [138956]

    Ms Armstrong
    After consulting local authorities and other stakeholders, and in line with our White Paper commitment to use up-to-date data, I have decided to update the New Earning Survey element of the Area Cost Adjustment for use in the 2001–02 Local Government Finance Settlement.

    Highway Maintenance
    Mr. Neil Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received about highway maintenance funding. [138958]
    544W
    Mr. Hill
    In preparing our plans to tackle the backlogs in local highway maintenance, as set out in "Transport 2010: The 10-Year Plan", we worked very closely with the Local Government Association. They provided valuable advice on the funding levels required.

    Mrs. Anne Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to give local authorities the powers to co-ordinate roadworks. [138969]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    Under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 the street authority (which for maintainable streets means the highway authority) must do everything in their power to co-ordinate works of all kinds in their streets. This responsibility covers utility street works and the authority's own works for road purposes.

    Public Service Agreements
    Dr. Starkey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the proposals put forward by local authorities to pilot public service agreements. [138959]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    The PSA submissions received from the 20 pilot local authorities contain a wide range of proposals to improve services and are currently being considered by the DETR, in conjunction with other Government Departments. Constructive negotiations are taking place between central Government and the local authorities involved.

    Licensing
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received concerning the licensing of landlords; and if he will make a statement. [138960]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Two hundred and twenty responses to the consultation on the Housing Green Paper commented on our proposals for the selective local licensing of private landlords in areas of low housing demand. A further fifteen separate representations have been made in the past six months. We will make a statement shortly on how we propose to take forward all the Green Paper proposals following consultation.

    Town and Country Planning
    Sir Sydney Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the law relating to town and country planning. [138961]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We are undertaking a comprehensive programme to modernise the town and country planning system and update planning policies. New regulations have been introduced, for example in relation to the development plans process and planning appeals procedures. However, we have no immediate plans to introduce new primary legislation, though we remain committed to removing Crown immunity from planning control and have confirmed in the Urban White Paper that we intend to bring forward new legislation to reform the system of compulsory purchase as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

    MV Derbyshire Inquiry
    Maria Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that Mr. Justice Colman's recommendations regarding safety at sea in the report on the re-opened inquiry into the loss of the MV Derbyshire are implemented. [138963]

    Mr. Hill
    Mr. Justice Colman makes a total of 24 safety recommendations addressed to the Department, Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the International Association of Classification Societies or the International Maritime Organization. My officials have already started discussions with those to whom recommendations are addressed to agree the appropriate way forward on each individual recommendation. These discussions will necessarily take some time and, in some instances, must await completion of the analysis of ongoing research. We hope to be able to submit a comprehensive report to Parliament early in 2001.

    City Centres
    Jane Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve road conditions in city centres. [138964]

    Mr. Hill
    By tackling the backlog of expenditure on carriageway, footway, bridge, and street lighting maintenance, estimated to be £7 billion, in the next 10 years, we will greatly improve road conditions in city centres as well as more rural areas.

    Floods (West Sussex)
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on planning issues in relation to flood relief measures in West Sussex. [138965]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    The Government are committed to reducing, as far as practicable, the risk to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding. They have provided guidance in Department of the Environment Circular 30/92, "Development and Flood Risk", which advises local planning authorities and others on the arrangements for ensuring that planning decisions take account of any risk of flooding, whether inland or on the coast. Revised guidance on this important policy area is due to be issued in PPG25 shortly.

    Manchester Airport
    Mr. Goggins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on heavy rail investment as part of the ground transport interchange at Manchester airport. [138966]

    Mr. Hill
    Manchester Airport PLC, Rai1track and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority are working together to reach agreement on how this project is to be funded and to establish whether the franchise replacement process can serve this project.

    Planning Appeals (Flooding)
    Mr. Brazier
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he is giving inspectors on appeals relating to planning 546W
    applications in balancing housing need against regulations of the Environment Agency in cases involving potential flooding. [138968]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    Planning guidance is a material planning consideration which inspectors, as well as local planning authorities, must take into account in reaching their decisions.

    In addition to the general guidance in Circular 30/92 on "Development and Flood Risk", which is being updated in PPG25, guidance on housing is given in PPG3 on "Housing". This requires the assessment of the suitability of sites for housing against flood risk, taking into account that such risk may increase as a result of climate change.

    Affordable Housing
    Mr. Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve availability of affordable housing to people in rural areas on low incomes. [138970]

    Mr. Mullin
    The Government are publishing its Rural White Paper today. This sets out our strategy for increasing the provision of affordable housing in rural areas. This strategy includes a significant increase in resources for the provision of affordable housing and more effective use of authorities' powers to deliver affordable housing through the planning system.

    Midland Metro
    Mr. Pearson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in evaluating the proposals for extension of the Midland Metro. [138971]

    Mr. Hill
    My Department is currently considering proposals for Midland Metro extensions to Birmingham city centre and to Brierley Hill, alongside other bids for major schemes as part of the local transport plan process. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

    Nuclear Waste Storage
    Mrs. Lawrence
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the Government consultation document on the storage of nuclear waste. [138834]

    Mr. Mullin
    We will publish a radioactive waste management consultation paper very soon. This will begin the process which will lead to the implementation of a radioactive waste management policy capable of commanding widespread support across the UK.

    Floods
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment has been made of the impact on the safety of(a) the sewerage system, (b) dams and dykes and (c) public water supplies of the countrywide floods in November. [138984]

    Mr. Meacher
    Overall, the floods appear to have had little impact on the water supply and sewerage infrastructure. My Department is in discussion with representatives of the water companies to see what lessons can be drawn.
    547W
    While the sewerage system in some areas was unable to cope with the volumes of water generated, the safety of the system itself appears to have been largely unaffected.

    There appear to have been no significant impacts on dam safety. Research sponsored by my Department is looking at the effect on reservoirs of more frequent and severe storm events. Many river dykes and flood storage areas were severely tested and the initial impression is that most performed to, or beyond, their design standard. A detailed assessment must await the Environment Agency's report on the event once the waters have subsided and immediate actions have been completed.

    On water supplies, water companies took all necessary action to safeguard public health in supplying drinking water. This included the issue by four companies of advice to boil water as a precautionary measure where pumping stations or treatment works were flooded and the temporary removal from supply of some groundwater sources due to flooding.

    Homeless Families
    Mr. Love
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his latest estimate is of the number of homeless families in(a) temporary accommodation and (b) bed and breakfast accommodation in (i) Greater London, (ii) Birmingham and (iii) Manchester; and if he will make a statement. [139432]

    Mr. Mullin
    Information on households accommodated under statutory homelessness provisions of the 1985 and 1996 Housing Acts in England is published in a quarterly Information Bulletin (to be called Statistical Release in future), "Statuary Homelessness Statistics".

    Tables 5 and 6 of the Bulletin present a national and London summary of the number of households in accommodation arranged by local authorities as at the end of each quarter, while Table 8 sets out available information at London borough level. Supplementary tables present key information reported by each local authority, including the numbers in bed and breakfast and in other forms of temporary accommodation.

    Copies are held in the Library and the latest edition, published on 12 September, covers statistics up to and including the second quarter of 2000.

    Housing (Flood Plains)
    Mr. Love
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role is played by the Environment Agency when local authorities are considering applications for planning permission to build housing on a flood plain; and if he will make a statement. [139414]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    The role of the Environment Agency is clearly explained in Circular 30/92 on "Development and Flood Risk", which is currently being revised and strengthened as the new PPG25. It is to advise on flood risk to the development proposed, on the basis of its own surveys of flood risk and any information provided by the applicant, and to advise how proposed development would itself affect flood risk. It also has to consider how development would affect rivers and existing new flood defence operations in relation to its own interests.
    548W
    The Agency is a statutory consultee for various types of development, including all development requiring environmental impact assessment and local planning authorities generally consult it on applications with flooding implications. As part of its flood defence supervisory duty, the Agency is committed to keeping its guidance to local planning authorities under review and updating it as needed. In partnership with local authorities, it reports to MAFF, DETR and the NAW on the success of its responses to planning applications, including where decisions have been against the Agency's advise.

    As a possible means of strengthening the Agency's role, we are looking carefully at the responses to applications and considering the option of a Direction to local planning authorities for them to refer to the Secretary of State major applications which they propose to approve contrary to sustained objections from the Environment Agency.

    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the planning applications for building on flood plains which have been opposed by the Environment Agency in the past 12 months. [140719]

    Mr. Raynsford
    This is information that is collated by the Environment Agency. They report annually in June to MAFF and DETR on MAFF's high-level target 12—Development in areas of flooding. The June 2000 report covered the period from October 1999 to March 2000, and included details of over 400 applications ranging from small extensions to major residential developments. The Agency has also recently cited over 900 applications to which they have objected in 1999–2000. I have asked the Agency for a copy and will look at it carefully when I receive it.

    Drug Driving
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory on the effects of cannabis on driving will be published. [139738]

    Mr. Hill
    We expect to publish the first phase of the research on the effects of cannabis on driving before the end of the year. A further phase of the research programme, on the combined effects of alcohol and cannabis on driving, is in progress and will be completed next year.

    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will initiate a television campaign to publicise the dangers of driving under the influence of(a) illicit drugs and (b) drugs sold over the counter at pharmacists. [139723]

    Mr. Hill
    As explained in the Government's Road Safety Strategy "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", the risks of driving while impaired by drugs need to be publicised.

    The Department will be considering how this might be done in the light of what we have learned from research. For both medicinal drugs and illegal drugs, we aim to find the most effective way of conveying warnings to those most at risk. This may not necessarily be a television

    549W
    campaign but could be a targeted form of publicity which would allow advice to be tailored more precisely to specific types of drug or to the likely users of them.

    Rent Tribunals (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people from ethnic minority communities sit on rent tribunals covering the Greater London area. [139762]

    Mr. Mullin
    There are 10 members from ethnic minorities appointed to sit on rent tribunals in the Greater London area. This represents 10 per cent. of the total membership of the London Rent Assessment Panel, from which rent tribunals are drawn.

    Empty Properties (Wandsworth)
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with Wandsworth Borough Council on the number of council properties that have been empty for periods longer than three months; and if he will make a statement. [139763]

    Mr. Mullin
    We have had no discussions with Wandsworth Borough Council on this issue.

    Environment Agency (Complaints)
    Mr. Levitt
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many complaints the Environment Agency has received in the last year in total; how many it has received in relation to(a) human sewage in water courses, (b) animal or chemical fertiliser pollution in water courses, (c) industrial pollution, (d) landfill sites and (e) quarries; and, of the complaints about quarries, how many related to (i) noise, (ii) dust and (iii) leachates. [139918]

    Mr. Mullin
    In the year to March 2000, the Environment Agency received 592 complaints. Figures for the most recent period available, April to October 2000, show it received 318 complaints.

    The Agency's recording system does not break down complaints into categories requested and to do so would involve disproportionate cost.

    Complaints relating to dust and noise are directed to the relevant local authority, as they are responsible for their regulation.

    We will be discussing with the Agency ways in which it might alter its recording system so as to produce functional breakdowns of complaints in future.

    Building Regulations
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what surrogate price he used to reflect the value of carbon saved into the cost of fuel, within the costings included in his consultation document on proposed alterations to Part L of the Building Regulations. [133594]

    Mr. Meacher
    [holding answer 23 November 2000]: The proposed amendments to part L of the Building Regulations have been subject to a full economic analysis of the costs and benefits involved. However surrogate prices for the value of carbon saved have not been used
    550W
    in the analysis, due to the absence of a consensus on appropriate values to employ. This accords with the approach taken in evaluating the costs and benefits of other measures included within the Government's draft Climate Change Programme.

    National and international studies on surrogate pricing have produced widely differing estimates of the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Expressed in terms of dollars, these estimates range from around $10 to $200 per tonne of carbon equivalent emissions in the period 2000–10.

    Our proposals cover both new construction and more types of work on existing buildings. Around half the estimated carbon reductions in 2010 of 1.33 Mtonnes would come from the existing stock. For new dwellings average energy consumption and hence carbon emissions and householders costs would be reduced by about a quarter.

    We have estimated that for new build the proposals would, if implemented, add up to £1,400 to the construction cost of new dwellings dependent upon size and up to £10 per m2 for other buildings. Some of those who have responded to our consultation believe these figures are too low and have suggested the figure for dwellings could be nearer £2,000. My department is now considering the proposals in the light of the consultation response in conjunction with the Building Regulations Advisory Conunittee, and we will take these views into account. However, we shall want to know what surrogate carbon price would balance the national cost and benefit equation before making any decisions on how much and when the Building Regulations requirements should change.

    Housing Regeneration Companies
    Ms Buck
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for the role of housing regeneration companies in revitalising cities. [139792]

    Mr. Mullin
    The Housing Corporation is working with registered social landlords to pilot five housing regeneration companies in Coventry, Liverpool, London, Rochdale and Yorkshire. The aim is to test whether a single organisation can co-ordinate and deliver regeneration in a specific neighbourhood. The pilot housing regeneration companies will work across housing tenures, contributing to physical improvements in the housing stock and to wider initiatives such as training, employment and enabling communities to be more involved in the management of their neighbourhoods. In the light of these initiatives we will consider whether this approach could be adopted more widely to support the implementation of our regeneration policies set out in the Housing Green Paper and the Urban White Paper.

    Flyposting
    Mr. McDonnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the individuals and companies prosecuted for the illegal erection of poster hoardings in the London area in 1999 and 2000; [140499]

    (2) how many prosecutions have been pursued for the illegal erection of poster hoardings in (a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999 and (f) 2000; [140502]
    551W
    (3) what has been the average fine levied on persons or companies convicted of the illegal erection of poster hoardings in (a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999 and (f) 2000. [140501]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    This information is not held centrally.

    Radioactive Discharges
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses were received to the consultation paper on a UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001–20; how many were received from outside the United Kingdom; if he will list the countries from which submissions were made; and when he estimates the strategy will be(a) completed and (b) published. [140513]

    Mr. Mullin
    In total 89 responses were received. Two responses were received from outside the United Kingdom, both from the Republic of Ireland. The Government plan to complete and publish the final version of the strategy by spring 2001.

    Railtrack
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, for each year since its formation, the grant paid to Railtrack, broken down by(a) capital developments, (b) safety measures, (c) conservation work, (d) revenue support and (e) training. [139975]

    Mr. Hill
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: In 1994–95 and 1995–96, when Railtrack was still in the public sector, grants of £32 million and £34 million were paid towards the cost of maintaining level crossings. Since its privatisation in 1996 the company has recovered those costs, and other costs, through access charges paid by passenger train operating companies and freight operating companies. So, although no grant has been paid direct to the company since 1996, its profitability is contingent on public money. Some 90 per cent. of its income is paid to it in access charges, a substantial proportion of which are supported by public money.

    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the proportion of Railtrack profits derived from(a) track access charges, (b) sale of assets, (c) franchising of stations and (d) other sources. [139977]

    Mr. Hill
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The derivation of Railtrack's profits is a commercial matter for the Railtrack Board. The company's Annual Report and Accounts 1999–2000 show that its 1999–2000 turnover of £2,547 million was made up of £2,175 million from passenger train operating companies, £158 million from freight operating companies, £135 million from property rental, £20 million from property sales and £59 million from other income (principally from Eurostar UK Limited, Heathrow Express and London Underground).

    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the capital value of Railtrack(a) at the time of its establishment and (b) at the latest available valuation; and what sales of assets by the company have taken place. [140111]
    552W
    Mr. Hill
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: Information on the value of Railtrack's assets is published in the company's annual reports and accounts which show that, on 31 March 1995, Railtrack had total assets of some £4.8 billion and net assets of some £1.5 billion. On 31 March 2000, those figures were some £8.4 billion and £3.5 billion respectively.

    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to discuss with Railtrack the representation at board level of professional engineers. [139828]

    Mr. Hill
    None. The composition of Railtrack's Board is a matter for the company and its shareholders.

    Planning Applications
    Mr. Norman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the planning applications he has called in for each of the last three years, together with the eventual decision he has taken following review. [140714]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

    Railway Deaths (Defective Doors)
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many passenger deaths on British railways due to defective doors there were in each of the last 20 years. [140480]

    Mr. Hill
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: Records are not kept on the number of passenger deaths resulting from defective doors. Figures are, however, kept on the number of passenger deaths resulting from falling from train doors. The table shows this information in the last 20 years. The numbers have reduced over recent years from a high of 26 in 1987 to two recorded during 1999–2000. It is not possible to say how many of these would have been as a result of defective doors.

    Passenger fatalities falling from train doors 1980 to 1999–20001

    Year

    Number

    1980

    14

    1981

    16

    1982

    11

    1983

    13

    1984

    14

    1985

    16

    1986

    12

    1987

    26

    1988

    19

    1989

    19

    1990

    19

    1991–92

    19

    1992–93

    9

    1993–94

    8

    1994–95

    6

    1995–96

    3

    1996–97

    2

    1997–98

    2

    1998–99

    5

    1999–2000

    2

    1 28 November 2000

    Note:

    In 1993 the HSE Slam Door Report was published

    River Mersey
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the companies that have been prosecuted for illegally discharging sewage and industrial waste into the River Mersey in each of the last 20 years and the number of times each such company has been prosecuted. [140481]

    Mr. Mullin
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

    London Underground
    Mr. Wyatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what channels for appeal are open to the general public in respect of complaints against London Underground Ltd. [140359]

    Mr. Hill
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: Members of the public who wish to complain or appeal against the services or facilities provided by London Underground Ltd. (LUL) can make representations to the London Transport Users Committee set up under statute to consider such representations, and make recommendations on matters relating to transport services in London.

    Appeals against penalty fares on the underground are considered by LUL. Members of the public have 21 days to appeal in writing. This is a non-statutory procedure.

    Accident Prevention
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was spent by his Department on(a) research into the prevention of (i) transport related accidents, (ii) accidents in the home and (iii) occupational injuries and (b) public awareness campaigns on the prevention of road accidents through road safety training in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [140660]

    Mr. Mullin
    For the financial year 1998–1999:

    My Department spent a total of £8.33 million (excluding VAT) on research into the prevention of transport accidents—this covers research on improved vehicle safety (£1.03 million), road safety (£3.86 million), road engineering measures (£1.62 million) and shipping (£0.81 million), as well as research funded by the Health and Safety Executive on railways safety (£1.01 million) for which they have the policy lead. (The total figure does not include research carried out by the CAA, which is responsible for air safety regulation.)

    The figure for spend on research into the prevention of occupational injuries will take more time to collate. When available, the information will be posted in the House of Commons Library.

    DETR(C) does not sponsor research aimed directly at the prevention of accidents in the home. Nevertheless, we are interested in research findings on the incidence of accidents from various sources as part of the evidential base for assessing housing health and safety, and draw on relevant research carried out by those departments who have the policy lead in this area. The Health and Safety
    554W
    Executive spent £0.18 million (excluding VAT), mainly on carbon monoxide emission from gas fires in domestic premises.

    The figures for public awareness campaigns on the prevention of road accidents through road safety training are not available. The Department does spend approximately £12 million per annum on the THINK! Road Safety publicity campaign, but not necessarily through training.

    In addition the Marine and Coastguard Agency spend £0.43 million on publicity campaigns and events promoting maritime safety.

    Private Hire Vehicles
    Mr. Efford
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the system of licensing provided for in the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 will be implemented. [140884]

    Mr. Hill
    I have today laid before the House the Private Hire Vehicles (London) (Operators' Licences) Regulations 2000 and associated commencement orders. These regulations will provide for the Public Carriage Office to start processing applications for minicab operator licences from 22 January next year and will oblige operators to comply with statutory requirements by 22 October next year.

    The licensing of minicab operators in London will bring important benefits to London's travelling public. The operators are the hub of the minicab trade; they fulfil a key role in influencing the overall standard of service, and I am sure that they will use their licensed status to ensure that passengers in London receive a safe and efficient service.

    The licensing of drivers and vehicles will follow as soon as practicable. Transport for London will be responsible for making the necessary regulations.

    Advertisement Control
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has reached a final decision on the future of areas of special control of advertisements; and if he will make a statement. [140885]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    The Consultation Paper `Outdoor Advertisement Control' highlighted the problems associated with the current operation of the ASCA regime. In particular, because local planning authorities have not undertaken systematically the five yearly reviews of these areas, the status of some areas has changed over time to the extent that they may no longer meet the criteria for designation. This is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs which needs to be addressed.

    The announcement of 29 June 2000, Official Report, column 600W, proposed to address the problem by limiting the geographic scope of ASCAs, requiring all advertising hoardings in areas of the countryside not within an ASCA to obtain express consent, and giving local authorities responsibility for determining those applications.
    555W
    We have considered further the responses received since that announcement. As a result, we are proposing an alternative means of addressing the problem by seeking instead to clarify and update the current position regarding designated areas.

    The Department is therefore writing to all local planning authorities asking them to undertake a review of ASCAs in their areas in order to satisfy themselves that their extent remains appropriate and necessary. The current legislative scope of the ASCA regime will thus remain unchanged.

    Eurocontrol Treaty
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects(a) the EU to become a signatory of the Eurocontrol Treaty and (b) the proposals for the EU single sky to come into force; and if he will make a statement. [140737]

    Mr. Mullin
    The Government fully support Community accession to Eurocontrol, but are unable at present to give a date when this will take place.

    There is no formal date when any proposals arising from the single sky initiative will come into force, but it is expected that the process should be completed by 2005.

  HEALTH

    Tobacco Control
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on employment in the UK of adoption of the European Directive concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products; [133825]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on UK exports of the European Directive concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products; [133830]

    (3) if he will conduct an economic impact assessment of the proposal for a European Directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products; and if he will make a statement. [133834]

    Yvette Cooper
    We have consulted with potentially affected parties regarding the costs and benefits of implementing this proposal, including the impact on exports and employment, and are satisfied that the estimated costs are outweighed by the benefits of enhanced regulation of tobacco products and thereby increased protection for public health. We strongly support the proposed Directive.

    A further consultation will take place with interested parties once the Directive has been adopted and the United Kingdom Government come under an obligation to implement it.

    Benzodiazepines
    Dr. Naysmith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on trends in the prescribing of benzodiazepines and the action his Department is 556W
    taking to implement the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines in January 1988 concerning the continued long-term use of these drugs. [136013]

    Ms Stuart
    There has been a gradual reduction in the number of benzodiazepines dispensed in the community in England from 16.6 million in 1991 to 13.4 million in 1999.

    Health professionals are reminded of the Committee on Safety of Medicines advice on benzodiazepines in a boxed warning in the British National Formulary. Product information for all benzodiazepines includes warnings and patient information leaflets have been updated to include advice about usage.

    It is for individual clinicians, in consultation with their patients, to make decisions about prescribing, bearing in mind the risks and benefits of particular treatments.

    Salmon Farming
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on public health of the methods used in the farming of salmon. [136562]

    Ms Stuart
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: There is currently no evidence to suggest that salmon farming methods affect the health of farm workers or the wider community here, or in other countries where salmon are farmed. Furthermore, European Community legislation requires monitoring for a wide range of chemical residues in both wild and aquacultured fish. The situation is constantly monitored and salmon are tested for both unlicensed residues and residues of licensed medicines in line with European Union legislation. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate in Surrey collates this information.

    Abattoirs
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) small, (b) medium and (c) large abattoirs have closed since May 1997. [136758]

    Ms Stuart
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Abattoirs producing meat for sale for human consumption must be licensed in order to operate. They are classified as either full or low throughput. A licence may be revoked for a number of different reasons. These include where premises fail to comply with the requirements of the regulations or cease operating for commercial reasons.

    The number of abattoir licences revoked in the United Kingdom since May 1997 is as follows:

    Fresh meat

    Poultry meat, farmed game meat and rabbit meat

    Full throughput

    Low throughput

    Full throughput

    Low throughput

    England

    21

    46

    13

    10

    Scotland

    5

    1

    0

    3

    Wales

    0

    1

    0

    5

    Northern Ireland

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Total in Period

    27

    48

    13

    19

    Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the use of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to permit the creation of embryos by cell nuclear transfer. [138669]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 16 November 2000]: Research involving the creation of an embryo by cell nuclear transfer is not prohibited by the 1990 Act provided it is for one of the current specified research purposes.

    Counsel's advice to the Government is that the 1990 Act includes the use of embryos created by cell nuclear replacement, which means that embryos created in this way are subject to regulation by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

    We announced in our response (Command 4833) to the Donaldson Committee Report "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility" (June 2000) our intention to bring forward legislation, when the parliamentary timetable allows, to set out unequivocally the ban on reproductive cloning by the cell nuclear replacement technique.

    Emergency Contraception
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to frame the proposed re-classification of levonorgestrel 0.7 mg as an over the counter product so that it does not contravene Section 58A of the Medicines Act 1968 in relation to its side-effects; and if he will make a statement. [138893]

    Ms Stuart
    The proposals to widen availability of emergency contraception follow an application to reclassify levonorgestrel 0.75 mg for emergency contraception from prescription only to pharmacy availability for women aged 16 years and over. The application was referred for independent expert advice to the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). In formulating their advice, the CSM carefully considered each of the relevant criteria for prescription control laid down in Section 58A of the Medicines Act 1968. The Committee concluded that all the steps required to supply safely emergency contraception could be successfully completed in a pharmacy and advised that levonorgestrel 0.75 mg for emergency contraception may safely be supplied as a pharmacy medicine for women aged 16 and above. The Committee noted that information on correct use would be provided with the product including any possible side effects and advice on what action to take.

    The results of a public consultation on the proposal, and the advice of the Medicines Commission, were presented to Ministers for a decision. If we decide to proceed with the reclassification, an Order will be laid before the House shortly.

    Prescription Medicines
    Mr. Hurst
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to reduce the financial 558W
    losses to the NHS as a result of prescription medicines not being returned by patients; and if he will make a statement. [139114]

    Ms Stuart
    In September, we published our pharmacy programme "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan". This sets out a range of initiatives designed to help patients to get the most out of their medicines and to reduce waste. We will invest at least £30 million in the next three years to support that work.

    Stem Cell Research
    Mr. Reed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research involving the(a) creation of embryos and (b) use of adult stem cells by cell nuclear transfer (i) is being funded by his Department and (ii) has been funded in each year since 1995; and at what cost per annum. [139487]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Department has not funded any research in this area.

    Richard Neale
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the holding of a public inquiry into the case of Richard Neale; and if he will make a statement. [140303]

    Mr. Hutton
    We have received several representations requesting a public inquiry into the case of Richard Neale. We are presently taking advice into the form of any inquiry which would best answer the questions that have been raised by this case. Any inquiry would be full, independent and expertly advised.

    Autism
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) evaluations and (b) comparative studies have been made in the last 10 years of interventions and therapies for children with autism. [140749]

    Mr. Hutton
    There is a large volume of research on all aspects of autism. Details of projects can be found on the National Research Register (NRR) which also contains details of projects and trials funded by the Medical Research Council and other research funders. The NRR shows that there are currently 51 ongoing and 82 completed projects on autism.

    Recent research on autism was drawn together in the 1998 report "Educational Interventions for Children with Autism: A Literature Review of Recent and Current Research" by Rita Jordan and Glenys Jones of the University of Birmingham which was commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to hold centrally information on the number of children under the age of 10 years, by local authority, who have been diagnosed with autism in each year since 1990. [140743]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Department has undertaken an initial survey of children in need, including disabled children. In analysing the returns to this survey we are giving further consideration to how we can revise the categories of
    559W
    impairment used so that we have a better understanding of the services needed for disabled children, including those with autism.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assist the study of autism announced by the MRC on 3 April; and if this study will provide information on the number of children under the age of 10 years who have been diagnosed with autism in each year since 1980. [140742]

    Mr. Hutton
    We are keeping in touch with the Medical Research Council (which is funded mainly by Government) on this research study. It is a case controlled study comparing matched samples of autistic and non-autistic children and looks at causal factors rather than incidence. The study will not, however, provide information on the number of children under the age of 10 who have been diagnosed with autism since 1980. We will be taking a close interest in the progress of the study and its outcome.

    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent reviews his Department has made of the use of the drug secretin for treating sufferers of autism; and if he will make a statement. [140747]

    Mr. Hutton
    The most recent published results of a scientifically controlled trial on secretin of which the Department are aware appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, 9 December 1999, volume 341, number 24. This came to the conclusion that secretin achieved no significant improvement in various outcome measures as compared with a placebo.

    Accidental Injuries
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent annually by his Department on(a) research into the prevention of accidental injuries and (b) public awareness campaigns to prevent accidental injuries in each of the last five years; and what the costs to the NHS were of treating accidental injuries in the same period. [140666]

    Ms Stuart
    The main Government agency for health related research is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department for Trade and Industry. The Department of Health funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the National Health Service. For the last five years the combined funding by these bodies into the prevention of accidental injuries was as follows.

    Date

    £

    1996–97

    117,305

    1997–98

    366,068

    1998–99

    702,412

    1999–2000

    682,954

    2000–01

    146,302

    1 Department of Health only

    Over the last five years the Department has run several campaigns to prevent accidental injuries. Spending in those years when campaigns were run was as follows:
    560W

    Date

    £

    1997–98

    108,000

    1998–99

    78,494

    1999–2000

    1212,530

    2000–01

    123,000

    1 budget

    The annual cost to the NHS of treating accidental injuries has been estimated at about £1.6 billion each year (Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation 1999).

    Medical Research
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means his Department(a) monitors and (b) evaluates medical research undertaken elsewhere in the world. [140543]

    Ms Stuart
    The Department has established mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating medical research undertaken elsewhere in the world. In general, this is an ongoing activity and is part of the day-to-day work of many officials particularly in-house scientists and doctors who are sometimes national and international experts themselves. It is also part of the remit of many of the Department's advisory committees to advise on new scientific discoveries and to present recommendations for further research. The Department is able to call on advice from the Medical Research Council which itself maintains close contact with the progress and implications of medical research around the world. In addition, there are four specific mechanisms.

    The National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC) at the University of Birmingham provides advance notice to the Department of new and emerging health technologies that might require urgent evaluation, consideration of clinical and cost impact or modification of clinical guidance. Health technologies include pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tests and procedures, surgery, rehabilitation and health promotion activities. The NHSC hosts the Secretariat for EuroScan, the European Information Network on New and Changing Health Technologies. EuroScan was developed to explore the potential for and benefits of sharing information on selected emerging health technologies or new applications of existing ones.

    The United Kingdom Cochrane Centre has the overall purpose of facilitating and co-ordinating reviews primarily in the specialised area of randomised controlled trials of health care. Cochrane Reviews place an emphasis on completeness and continuous updating. They are extremely thorough and put a lot of work into identifying relevant research from around the world. The UK Cochrane Centre helped establish the Cochrane Collaboration, which is an independent, international organisation that aims to help people make well informed decisions about health care by preparing, maintaining and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions. The Cochrane Reviews are undertaken by Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs) comprising experts in particular fields from all over the world.

    The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) commissions and supports experts to undertake specific systematic reviews in areas of priority to the National Health Service. In conducting reviews, the UK Cochrane

    561W
    Centre and CRD work closely together and take account of all work relevant to their area, including work funded in this country by organisations other than the NHS, and work undertaken overseas. The CRD also maintains the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) which contains approximately 500 abstracts of systematic reviews.

    The NHS Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme is a national programme of research funded by the Department's research and development programme. The purpose of the programme is to ensure that high quality research information on the cost, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies available to those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. The National Co-ordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA), which is part of the Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development at the University of Southampton, co-ordinates the HTA programme on behalf of the research and development programme. Much of the work of the programme comprises systematic reviews of the worldwide literature on particular topics. The HTA Programme maintains links with international HTA organisations such as the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment and the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care. There is also close collaboration between the NCCHTA and other international agencies. In particular, NCCHTA works closely with the UK Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination to ensure co-ordination between these related activities.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Advanta Seeds
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice Ministers or officials in his Department gave Advanta UK or companies associated with Advanta UK, about disclosure of information that rapeseed sold to British farmers was contaminated with genetically modified rapeseed. [126865]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 19 June 2000]: No advice was given other than to inform Advanta of the Government's intention to make a public announcement.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will publish the written records of meetings held by his officials with Advanta Seeds between 17 April and 17 May; [128365]

    (2) pursuant to his oral statement of 8 June 2000, Official Report, column 501, if he will list the (a) dates on which meetings took place between Advanta Seeds and officials from his Department between 17 April and 17 May, (b) names and functions of the officials attending those meetings, (c) subjects discussed, (d) conclusions reached and (e) advice given by his officials to Advanta Seeds. [128466]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    A note of the meeting on 17 April has been published. No other meetings with Advanta took place in the period specified.

    GM Crops
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the location of each of the genetically modified maize trials taking place in the United Kingdom. [128363]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    All the genetically modified (GM) maize under trial in the UK has a Part C marketing consent under EU Directive 90/220. This means it has undergone a detailed safety assessment and been approved for commercial release across the EU. The Directive does not require the disclosure of GM plantings with Part C approval, but the locations of Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) trials of GM maize are available on the DETR website www.environment.detr.gov.uk, and the locations of National List trials of GM maize have been made available at civil parish level as follows:

    Variety/county

    Parish

    Sheridan

    Oxfordshire

    Stoke Talmage

    Somerset

    Brockley

    Yorkshire

    Bramham cum Oglethorpe

    Cambridgeshire

    Histon

    Shropshire

    Ercall Magna

    The locations of other trails of GM maize do not need to be notified to the Government. However, we understand that only four such trails have been undertaken this year, and that these have been very small in scale, mainly co-located with other publicised trials, and subject to the same guidelines for GM cropping as in the FSE trials, including the application of separation distances between the GM plants and equivalent non-GM plants. The industry has agreed there will be no commercial growing of GM crops until the FSE trials has been completed and evaluated.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total acreage of GM crops planted in the UK under(a) Part B consents and (b) Part C consents. [136491]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Part B consents for GM plants under Directive 90/220 stipulate a maximum growing area. For plantings this year a total maximum area of about 650 hectares has been permitted, but it is expected that in practice the area actually sown will have been smaller. Plantings this year under a Part C consent are thought to total approximately 60 hectares. This includes Farm Scale Evaluation trials, National List trials and other small-scale trials.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on gene stacking in herbicide resistant GM crops; and what investigations the Government have made on the potential impact of this phenomenon on British agriculture. [136739]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Gene stacking refers to plants with multiple GM traits, which may be developed intentionally or created unintentionally through cross-pollination. When considering proposed GM releases the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) evaluates the potential for, and implications of, stacked genes. If a proposed release poses an unacceptable risk to human health, animal health or the environment ACRE does not recommend approval. Other

    563W
    authorities in Europe have also considered this issue and it was the subject of a workshop held by the European Commission in 1998. ACRE has been kept informed of developments in this area.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what crop trials have been carried out exclusively in other countries to provide an adequate research basis for Government decisions on GM crop commercialisation; and, in particular, the inclusion of GM seed varieties on the national seed list. [139640]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]: The only GM crop trials, for the purposes of National List applications, that have been conducted in other countries are tests for varietal distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS). Such DUS tests have been conducted only in France, by the French authorities, for the GM forage maize varieties Chardon LL and Sheridan. The tests and trials for all other GM varieties which are the subject of UK National List applications are conducted in the UK.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which Minister is responsible for the issuing of Part C consents for GM crop trials. [136685]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: In respect of England it is the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, acting jointly; for Scotland it is the Minister for Rural Development; for Wales it is the Secretary for Rural Affairs; and for Northern Ireland it is the Minister of the Environment.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a full list of all GM crop trials currently licensed in this country, broken down by crop trial program [136723]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Details of all GM trials under Part B of Directive 90/220 are already published in a public register held by DETR. The locations of these trials are also given on the DETR website www.environment.detr.gov.uk as are, separately, the locations of the farm scale evaluation trials. The locations of National List trials of GM varieties are available on the MAFF website www.maff.gov.uk. Other small-scale trials of GM plants with Part C consent do not need to be notified to the Government. For further background on this matter I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on 25 October 2000, Official Report, column 141W.

    Ministerial Code
    Mr. Robathan
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many times Ministers in his Department have sought the advice of the Permanent Secretary under the circumstances envisaged in Paragraphs 118, 121 and 123 of the Ministerial Code; and on which occasions such advice was sought; [129170]
    564W
    (2) on how many occasions since May 1997 Ministers in his Department have made a declaration of interest to their colleagues under circumstances envisaged in Paragraph 110 of the Ministerial Code. [129156]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    Information relating to internal advice and consultation is not disclosed under Exemption II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of written parliamentary questions tabled by hon. Members to his Department for answer on a named day in this Session have received a holding answer. [132442]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 25 July 2000]: To date 90 per cent. of Named Day questions have received holding replies this Session. This Department regularly receives large numbers of Named Day questions, many for answer on the earliest permitted date; the latest example being the 52 questions which were tabled on Wednesday 1 November for answer the following Monday. Forty of these were tabled by one Member, the hon. Gentleman, on a wide range of topics, including three on an addendum slip to a report. In view of these numbers, and mindful of the need to use resources in the most effective way, I am content, when answering such questions, to apply the criterion set out on page 295 of "Erskine May"' s Parliamentary Practice which states that
    the priority markings for written questions should be used sparingly and, in particular, the earliest permitted date should be reserved for those questions to which an urgent answer is genuinely required.

    Meetings and Telephone Conversations
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish (i) the date and (ii) the subject of (1) meetings and (2) phone conversations he has had with(a) the Belgian Minister for Agriculture and Small and Medium-sized Business, (b) the Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, (c) the German State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry, (d) the Greek Minister for Agriculture, (e) the Spanish Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (f) the French Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, (g) the Irish Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, (h) the Italian Minister for Agriculture and Forestry Policy, (i) the Luxembourg Minister for Agriculture, Viticulture and Rural Development, (j) the Dutch Minister for Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, (k) the Austrian Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water Management, (I) the Portuguese Minister for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, (m) the Finnish Minister for Agriculture and Forestry, (n) the Swedish Minister for Agriculture, (o) the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, (p) the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection and (q) the American Secretary of Agriculture, since the beginning of this year. [134028]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    In addition to the regular EU Agriculture Council meetings, I have met and spoken with colleagues as outlined in the table. The discussions have covered a range of agricultural issues.
    565W

    Country

    Meeting

    Telephone call

    (b) Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries

    29 September 2000

    —

    30 September 2000

    —

    1 October 2000

    —

    16–17 October 2000

    —

    (e) Spanish Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    9–10 July 2000

    —

    (f) French Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries

    26 June 2000

    24 May 2000

    (g) Irish Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development

    20 January 2000

    —

    21 March 2000

    —

    (h) Italian Minister for Agriculture and Forestry Policy

    29 September 2000

    5 April 2000

    30 September 2000

    —

    1 October 2000

    —

    (j) Dutch Minister for Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries

    12 April 2000

    —

    29 september2000

    —

    30 september2000

    —

    1 October 2000

    —

    (l) Portuguese Minister for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries

    16 May 2000

    —

    (n)Swedish Minister for Agriculture

    29 September 2000

    —

    30 September 2000

    —

    1 October 2000

    —

    (o) European Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries

    24 January 2000

    13January 2000

    1 February 2000

    10 March 2000

    9 March 2000

    25 July 2000

    (p) European Commission for Health and Consumer Protection

    6 March 2000

    19 April 2000

    1 June 2000

    (q) American Secretary of Agriculture

    14 February 2000

    —

    9 March 2000

    —

    Expenditure
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage change in real terms of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Intervention Board and Forestry Commission departmental expenditure limits in the period covered by the 2000 Spending Review; and what this increase would have been had the expenditure limits been calculated by the cash budgeting method. [134010]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 23 October 2000]: The percentage increases in departmental expenditure limits in real terms in the period covered by the 2000 Spending Review in cash and resource budgeting terms are as follows:

    Departmental expenditure limits—percentage changes in real terms 2001–02 to 2003–04

    2001–02

    2002–03

    2003–04

    Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    Percentage increase

    Cash

    26.6

    34.8

    35.8

    Resource

    24.8

    32.6

    33.4

    Forestry commission

    Percentage increase:

    Cash

    16.3

    21.8

    18.8

    Resource

    16.8

    22.2

    19.2

    Intervention board

    Percentage increase:

    Cash

    3.2

    3.7

    3.7

    Resource

    5.3

    3.1

    -4.3

    Note:

    The increases are based on the 2000–01 spending plans

    Mail Couriers
    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many items of mail from his Department to the House it is estimated were not delivered by the external courier firm contracted to deliver it since 1 January; what is the company's name; and if he will discuss the firm's performance with other Government Departments. [135102]

    Mr. Morley
    An employee of City Despatch Services Ltd., the external courier firm contracted by my Department to deliver mail to the House of Commons, was found to have failed to deliver a significant quantity of mail between May and August this year. This amounted to around 2,300 individual items, including just over 700 substantive letters to Members of the House. The undelivered mail, which was discovered at a private residence following a police investigation, also included acknowledgement letters and press notices, as well as a small number of Library deposits. The Department's contract with City Despatch Services Ltd. was terminated. The police have no reason to believe that there is any further undelivered mail which remains undiscovered, or that any other employee of City Despatch Services Ltd. is implicated. None of this mail had been opened or tampered with in any way.

    I deeply regret this incident and the consequent effect on the service Members of the House will have received from MAFF during the last few months. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture wrote to the Speaker of the House on 22 September and subsequently to the

    567W
    hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) to explain the circumstances and offer his apologies.

    In addition, the Department has been discussing this unfortunate case with other Departments, and has reviewed the mail tracking system to ensure that this cannot occur again.

    Officials in MAFF opened all the undelivered mail and those not requiring amendment were re-sent immediately with an apology and an explanation. The remainder were re-drafted as speedily as possible and almost all have now been re-sent.

    ERDP
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many successful claimants there were in 1999 for each of the(a) agri-environment and (b) other schemes that make up the ERDP. [136759]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information is as follows:

    Agri-environment Schemes

    Countryside Stewardship Scheme

    There were approximately 8,700 agreement holders accepted into the Scheme between 1991 and 1998 who were eligible to claim in 1999. The majority of these will have made at least one claim relevant to their agreement.

    Footnote: Annual management payments are made in arrears at the end of each agreement year. Claims for capital works can be made at any time after the work is completed. Interim claims for capital works may be made above a minimum of £250. Therefore, number of claims paid may include more than one eligible claim from the same individual.

    Arable Stewardship Scheme

    There were 75 agreement holders accepted into the Scheme in 1998 who were eligible to claim in 1999. The majority of these will have made at least one claim relevant to their agreement.

    Footnote: As for Countryside Stewardship.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas

    There were 9,855 successful claims for annual payments paid in 1999.

    Footnote: A very small number of claimants may have been eligible to make more than one claim.

    Organic Farming Scheme/Organic Aid Scheme

    The number of agreement-holders eligible to claim in 1999 for OFS was 1,270. The number of agreement holders eligible to claim for the OAS was 388.

    Footnote: Information on the number of actual claims paid in the year is not available.

    Other Schemes under the ERDP

    Farm Woodland Scheme/Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

    There were some 6,050 successful claims paid under FWS/FWPS in 1999 as part of the ongoing annual payments to compensate for agricultural income forgone as a result of planting woodland on farmland.

    Footnote: These claims relate to applications approved under the FWS 1988, the FWPS 1992 and FWPS 1997. In general, under the FWPS, most of the first annual payments in respect of approvals
    568W
    entered into in one year do not fall due until the following year. The number of claims paid may include more than one eligible claim from the same individual.

    Woodland Grant Scheme

    There were 10,210 successful claims paid in 1999, including first and second instalment payments.

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance (now superseded by the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme)

    There were 12,345 successful claims paid in 1999.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will summarise changes since 1995 in the rate of individual payments made under each agri-environment scheme included in the ERDP. [136628]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The agri-environment schemes have been subject to a rolling review programme. Part of this programme has been a commitment to review the individual payments made under the schemes on a two or three yearly basis. The setting of the payment rates is governed by an EU Regulation, which requires them to be based upon income foregone. Tables showing all the changes in individual payment rates made following reviews each year since 1995 are being placed in the Libraries of the House.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes the majority of farmers will experience in their incomes as a direct result of the mechanisms of the ERDP. [136732]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Most farmers will see a reduction in their direct subsidy payments as a result of modulation. Some farmers will be able to enhance their revenues by participating in ERDP measures. Because the funds from modulation will be matched by new government funding the revenues received by the farming industry as a whole will be increased.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide estimates of the proportion of the total funding for the ERDP that will be(a) paid directly to farmers on an income forgone basis, (b) paid directly to farmers on the condition that it will be used to purchase specified goods and services and (c) paid directly to farmers without pre-requirement to forgo income or conditions on its use. [136728]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The indicative financial tables in the ERDP (which will be published shortly and posted on the MAFF website) show that:
    around 62 per cent. of programme expenditure is assigned to agri-environment schemes and the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme (where payments are based on income forgone); and
    the remaining 38 per cent. is assigned to the Hill Farm Allowance Scheme, Woodland Grant Scheme, Rural Enterprise Scheme, Processing and Marketing Grant, Vocational Training Scheme and Energy Crops Scheme. The basis of grant aid is different for each of these schemes and is set out in the ERDP scheme literature on the MAFF website. It does not involve income forgone.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which agri-environment schemes will be included in the ERDP. [136493]
    569W
    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The agri-environment schemes included in the ERDP are the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, the Organic Farming Scheme and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which farm subsidy schemes will be modulated as part of the ERDP. [136494]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: In order to fund additional measures in the ERDP, all farmers who receive direct payments under CAP support schemes will have those payments modulated from 2001.
    These schemes are:

    Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

    Beef Special Premium Scheme

    Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

    Slaughter Premium Scheme

    Extensification Premium Scheme

    Arable Area Payments Scheme (including flax and hemp)

    Hops

    Seeds

    Potato Starch.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many successful claims were made in 1999 for each of the farm subsidy schemes that will be modulated as part of the ERDP. [136760]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    The numbers of successful claims made in England in 1999 for each of the farm subsidy schemes that will be modulated to fund additional measures in the ERDP were as follows:

    Arable Area Payments Scheme: 74,189

    Flax and Hemp: 1,918

    Hops: 14

    Seeds: 1,154

    Potato starch: 101

    Sheep Annual Premium Scheme: 33,176

    Beef Special Premium Scheme: 112,393

    Suckler Cow Premium Scheme: 21,873.

    The new Slaughter Premium and Extensification Premium Schemes will also be modulated.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the percentage change in average farm incomes since 1997 for(a) UK and English agriculture as a whole and (b) each agricultural sector in the UK and England. [136490]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information requested is published in Table 1.1 of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1998–99". This is available from the Library of the House or through the MAFF website.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures of farm income the Government recognises; and how these differ from one another. [136492]
    570W
    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information is published in Appendix 3 of "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom, 1998–99". This is available from the House of Commons Library or through the MAFF website.

    Farmers
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have left agriculture in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years broken down by month and year. [136717]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Information on the number of farmers leaving farming is not available. The overall number of farmers, spouses, partners and directors is given in the table. However, these are net figures, which include farmers coming into as well as leaving agriculture. These figures are obtained from the June Census and therefore cannot be broken down by month. Figures for 2000 will be available on 9 January.

    Farmers, spouses, partners and directors in the United Kingdom

    Thousand

    Year

    Number

    1989

    375

    1990

    374

    1991

    371

    1992

    372

    1993

    376

    1994

    375

    1995

    371

    1996

    371

    1997

    368

    1998

    368

    1999

    361

    Note:

    In 1998 the June Census was redesigned. Therefore, figures from 1998 onwards are not comparable with those for earlier years.

    Source:

    June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

    Annual Report (Error)
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1) pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2000,Official Report, column 100W, on what date he was informed that the report contained the error; [136741]

    (2) on what date the addendum slips were printed; [136742]

    (3) on what date the website text was corrected; [136736]

    (4) if a copy of the report with the appropriate addendum slips has been placed in the Library; [136735]

    (5) on what date the publishers were asked to insert an addendum slip into the report. [136737]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    I was informed of the error, and of the steps taken to rectify it, in August.

    The publishers were asked to insert an addendum slip on 16 August, and the website text was corrected on

    571W
    17 August. There was a delay, but the addendum slip has now been printed, and a copy of the report containing the slip has been placed in the House Library.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of green box payments to farmers for the maintenance of animal welfare standards; and if he has plans to include such payments within the ERDP. [136722]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: In the Strategy for Agriculture announced earlier this year the Government pledged its support for farm animal welfare to be addressed in the World Trade Organisation negotiations on agriculture. Those negotiations have now begun and the European Commission has tabled a paper proposing discussion of various animal welfare options including the use of green box payments. At present it is too early to judge the likely outcome of such discussions.

    BSE
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost of the BSE inquiry. [137365]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    The estimated cost of the BSE Inquiry to the public purse, including the cost of the Inquiry itself, and the liaison units, legal support for individuals and direct costs of witnesses who are serving civil servants in the main departments concerned, up to the date of reporting, is about £29 million.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the purchase of bovine material known to be infected with BSE for the purpose of research by non-Governmental bodies. [139631]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]: My Department maintains an archive of BSE infected tissues which can be supplied to researchers on application provided they can fulfil some basic conditions relating to the use and the safe handling of the material. There is no charge for these tissues. If the consignment is unusually large the researchers may be asked to cover the transport costs.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent contacts there have been between his Department and Professor Stanley Prusiner regarding the prion theory of the origin of BSE. [139744]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 22 November 2000]: MAFF is currently funding Professor Prusiner to further his studies of TSEs. Professor Prusiner presented his recent findings and talked in detail about his theory for the origin of BSE to MAFF officials in September this year (2000).

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for the United Kingdom the 572W
    research groups engaged in researching the origin, development and impact of BSE, and their level of Government funding. [139742]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 22 November 2000]: Research groups that have been funded this financial year (2000–01) to study the origin, development of the epidemic or impact of bovine BSE are:

    £

    Veterinary Laboratories Agency

    1,963,929

    Institute of Animal Health

    333,582

    Oxford University

    20,616

    Dr. W. V. S. Wijeratne

    71,039

    University of Edinburgh

    28,018

    Central Science Laboratory

    135,149

    King's College, London

    108,108

    In my statement to the House following publication of the Phillips Inquiry I announced that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I would be commissioning an independent assessment of the origins of BSE which will be considered by SEAC. This will cover the scientific and epidemiological evidence presented to the Inquiry and other published and, where possible, emerging scientific work in the UK and elsewhere.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research the Government are funding concerning the prion theory of the origin of BSE. [139743]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 22 November 2000]: The research councils, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the Medical Research Centre (MRC) support basic research in this area. The research projects that they, and other funders of TSE research in the UK, are currently funding are listed on the MRC website: www:\mrc\ac\uk.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions his Department applies to access to BSE-injected material by independent researchers. [140194]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: MAFF funds the maintenance of an archive of tissues and body fluids collected from cattle naturally and experimentally infected with BSE. Requests from independent researchers are met, taking account of the availability of the sample requested, whether arrangements can be made to collect the sample if it is not already held, and whether there are competing demands for the same sample, in which case a judgment has to be made on the relative priorities of the respective requests. Independent researchers are asked to confirm that the material provided will only be used for BSE research, that they have laboratories of the required disease containment level for handling the BSE agent and that the material will not be made available to other workers or organisations without prior permission from MAFF.

    Beef Exports
    Mr. Robertson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the exports of British beef to other EU countries. [137028]
    573W
    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 8 November 2000]: The quantity and destination of exports from the UK are commercially confidential as only two slaughterhouses are currently approved to export beef under the Data-based Export Scheme (DBES). In line with the Strategy for Agriculture and the improving BSE situation in the UK, we are continuing to press the Commission to make proposals to relax export controls, especially in Northern Ireland.

    The European Commission's case against France in the European Court of Justice for failure to lift its ban on imports of British beef is nearing the end of the written part of the procedure.

    French Beef
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European counterparts on a Europe-wide ban on exports of French beef; and if he will make a statement. [138275]

    Ms Quin
    My right hon. Friend the Minister attended a meeting on 13 November with Commissioners Byrne and Fischler at which the question of BSE and French beef was discussed. Advice from the Food Standards Agency is that such a ban would not be justified at the present time.

    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has made to the European Commission on(a) ending the French ban on British beef and (b) the banning of French beef in the UK. [139591]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    On 6 September, the UK Government submitted a Statement in Intervention in support of the European Commission's position in the Commission's European Court of Justice case against the French Government for their failure to lift their ban on British beef. I made plain to the Commission and to other member states at the Agriculture Council on 20–21 November that the ban should be lifted.

    Preliminary Food Standards Agency advice is that there is currently no need to ban imports of French beef. However, the Agency is commissioning a risk assessment.

    Swine Fever
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to visit a pig farm placed under swine fever restrictions. [139643]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]: I visited a farm affected by swine fever restrictions on 15 November.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation for pig farms placed under swine fever restrictions is available; and when further compensation schemes will be available. [139644]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]: To address welfare problems for those producers whose pigs do not have classical swine fever but are nonetheless caught by movement controls, the Government have introduced the Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. A
    574W
    payment to producers is linked to the scheme, but it is a welfare scheme and has no compensation element. £1.7 million has already been paid out under the scheme.

    The industry is about to begin consultations on a levy based Development Scheme that will be used to top-up Government payments under the Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme. On completion of that consultation exercise, including addressing any objections, Ministers will be asked to decide whether or not to put a scheme before Parliament for approval.

    Over-30-months Scheme
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has of the quantity of cattle carcases in storage awaiting disposal under the over-30-months scheme arrangements. [139632]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]: There are no cattle carcases in storage waiting disposal under the OTMS arrangements.

    During 1996–97, approximately 76,000 tonnes of material, representing some 230,000 carcases, was consigned to cold storage pending rendering and incineration capacity being made available. The last consignment of carcase material was removed from cold storage for processing in October 1997.

    Chardon LL
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will summarise the conclusions of the official testing of Chardon LL in France and explain how these provided the British Government with the reassurances required to proceed with the inclusion of the variety on the national seed list. [139629]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]: Before a variety is placed on the National List it must be shown to be distinct, uniform and stable. The French authorities' testing of Chardon LL concluded that the variety was distinct from other varieties by virtue of its tolerance to glufosinate ammonium, uniform in terms of reproduction and stable in its essential characteristics.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will outline the approval process for the inclusion of a genetically modified seed variety on the national seed list; and at what stage in this process Chardon LL is. [139639]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]: Applications for the addition of plant varieties to the National List are considered in accordance with the requirements of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982. (as amended). For the main agricultural and vegetable species, a variety must be distinct, uniform and stable. Most agricultural varieties must also be of satisfactory value for cultivation and use in the UK. Where material derived from a plant variety is intended to be used as a food or food ingredient which falls within the scope of Regulation No. 258/97/EEC concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, this must have been authorised under the novel food regulation. For a genetically modified plant variety Ministers also require that a marketing consent has been promulgated under

    575W
    Directive 90/220/EC on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. A proposal to add or refuse a variety for the National List is published in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette. Any person affected may make written representations and/or ask to make oral representations before a person appointed by Ministers. A decision by Ministers is not taken until they have considered these representations. An appeal against any decision of the Ministers would be heard by the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal.

    Chardon LL was proposed for addition to the National List in March 2000. A number of affected persons made written representations and/or asked to make oral representations. A Hearing began on 2 October and was adjourned on 15 November until further notice pending resolution of concerns about the DUS system used in France. Meanwhile, MAFF has sought the views of the European Commission on the legal status of the French authorities DUS testing procedures. Chardon LL will only be added to the UK National List if all the legal requirements have been made in full.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the inclusion of Chardon LL on the national seed list. [139637]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]: Chardon LL was proposed for addition to the National List in March 2000. A number of affected persons made written representations and/or asked to make oral representations. A Hearing began on 2 October and was adjourned on 15 November until further notice after information came to light that the DUS testing of the variety by the French authorities may not have complied with EC requirements. MAFF has sought the views of the European Commission on the legal status of the DUS testing procedures used by the French authorities for this variety. Chardon LL will only be added to the UK National List if all the legal requirements have been met in full.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to limit the right to trigger public hearings into the inclusion of seed varieties on the national seed list under the Seed Regulations 1982. [139628]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]:
    I have no immediate plans to propose changes to the arrangement for requesting a hearing on proposed national list decisions. However I shall wish to consider, in the light of the hearing on the proposed addition of a genetically modified plant variety, Chardon LL, to the National List, whether the current arrangements are satisfactory for all parties. If changes are proposed, all interested parties in due course will be fully consulted.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the public cost to date has been of the public inquiry into the inclusion of Chardon LL on the national seed list; and what estimate he has made of the final cost. [139638]
    576W
    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 21 November 2000]: Up to 15 November 2000, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has expended the sum of £72,741 on the Hearing on the proposed addition of Chardon LL to the National List. Further costs have been incurred but the detailed information necessary to provide a more precise figure is not yet available.

    The final cost of the Hearing will depend on the duration of the Hearing which currently stands adjourned.

    Pigs
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the instances since 1979 in which the pig sector has been subject to a levy for purposes related to disease outbreaks. [139741]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 22 November 2000]: In 1983, a levy was introduced with the industry's consent for the purpose of eradicating Aujeszky' s disease.

    Organic Crops
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlay his policy concerning the level of Government funding for research into organic crops. [140197]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The MAFF programme of research into organic farming supports the achievement of the environmental benefits which may be secured from this system of farming. Funding for this programme has more than doubled since 1997, and it is now one of the highest in Europe.

    Pig Meat
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on trends in the level of pig meat imports into the UK since 1997. [140205]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: Official Overseas Trade Statistics show that the level of pig meat imports into the UK since 1997 has been as follows:

    Units

    Thousand tonnes1

    £ million

    Pork—fresh or frozen

    1997

    147

    215

    1998

    158

    178

    1999

    214

    215

    January-August 1999

    138

    137

    January-August 2000

    16

    17

    Bacon, ham, etc.

    1997

    240

    520

    1998

    232

    376

    1999

    231

    399

    January-August 1999

    143

    244

    January-August 2000

    17

    29

    Pig offal—fresh or frozen

    1997

    17

    9

    1998

    19

    9

    1999

    19

    6

    January-August 1999

    12

    4

    January-August 2000

    1

    —

    577W

    Units

    Thousand tonnes1

    £million

    Pig meat and offal products

    1997

    46

    105

    1998

    54

    106

    1999

    42

    103

    January-August 1999

    27

    65

    January-August 2000

    2

    6

    1 Product weight

    Source:

    HM Customs and Excise

    Pig Farmers
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) the economic position of British pig farmers and (b) animal welfare of his proposals for a reduction in domestic pig production. [140204]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: I have made no proposals for a reduction in current British pig production. On the contrary, I believe the market can absorb the present level of domestic pig production and this is reflected in the fact that our market price is some 15 to 20 per cent. higher than the EU average.

    Farm Diversification
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to channel state support for farm diversification through bodies other than the Countryside Agency. [140196]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The England Rural Development Programme provides grant aid for a range of farm diversification activities including agricultural and non-agricultural enterprises and grants for planting woodland and energy crops. The Programme has been drawn up in collaboration with other Government Departments, environmental and countryside agencies and rural interests but MAFF and the Forestry Commission are responsible for operating the Programme.

    Some other Government Departments and agencies also provide support for farm diversification.

    Flood Prevention
    Sir Michael Spicer
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on responsibility for flood preventative measures. [138947]

    Mr. Morley
    MAFF has policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence in England. Operational responsibility falls to the "operating authorities", the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and local authorities.

    The Environment Agency has a statutory supervisory duty over all matters relating to flood defence and has permissive powers to undertake sea defence works and works on designated main rivers. Internal drainage boards have permissive powers and undertake works on ordinary watercourses within their districts while local authorities have similar powers on ordinary watercourses outside those districts. Where defences are privately owned, responsibility rests with the riparian owner. Finally, maritime local authorities have coast protection powers and may also undertake sea defence works.
    578W
    Mr. David Heath
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to reform the system of financing flood prevention. [138972]

    Mr. Morley
    The Government are currently carrying out a review of the funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence, focusing in particular on the mechanisms and the balance of costs and benefits achieved. This review should be completed by September 2001.

  CABINET OFFICE

    Alcohol and Tobacco
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the estimated number of deaths resulting from(a) alcohol use and (b) tobacco use in each of the last 10 years. [140343]

    Ms Stuart
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

    There is no currently accepted definition of the term "alcohol-related". Estimates provided by different methods of calculation since 1985 produce a range between 4,000 and 40,000 for the number of alcohol-related deaths to which the table refers.

    In the case of tobacco-related deaths, information is not available on a year by year basis. However, the available evidence suggests that smoking causes in the region of 120,000 deaths in the United Kingdom each year.

    Alcohol-related deaths in England and Wales

    Number

    Royal College of Psychiatrists (1986)

    4,000

    McDonnell and Maynard (1985)1

    5,099–8,073

    Godfrey and Maynard (1992)1

    6,467–9,633

    Royal College of Physicians (1987)

    17,000

    Godfrey and Maynard (1992)2

    22,508

    Anderson (1988)

    28,000

    Royal College of GPs (1986)

    40,000

    1Based on Adelstein and White

    1Based on Centre for Disease Control

    Source:

    Health Education Authority: Health Update: Alcohol (1997)—after Godfrey, C. and Hardmen, G. (1994)

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 348W, on Special Advisers, if he will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, on each of the occasions when departmental or non-departmental Special Advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity. [135250]

    Mr. Blunkett
    During the period 31 March 1999 to 31 March 2000, Special Advisers in this department travelled on official business to the US/Canada at a total cost of £3,482 and to Brussels at a total cost of £325. The costs of these visits were accounted for in expenditure on Ministers' travel overseas published by the Prime Minister
    579W
    on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W, which for 1999–2000 was £4.6 million compared to £7.9 million for the last year of the previous Administration.

    Teachers
    Mr. Prior
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many qualified teachers have not gone on to be practising teachers in each of the last five years. [138901]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The number of candidates who obtained Qualified Teacher Status in England each year, who had not entered teaching in the maintained schools sector in England or Wales by 31 March in the following year, is as follows:

    Calender year of completion

    Not entered the maintained schools sector1

    1994

    6,650

    1995

    8,550

    1996

    8,080

    1997

    7,690

    1998

    7,490

    1 Teachers who entered service in the independent, Further Education and Higher Education sectors are included in the table as 'not entered service"

    4,640 candidates who obtained Qualified Teacher Status in England during the calendar year 1994 had not entered teaching in the maintained schools sector in England or Wales by March 1999.

    There was a growth of 2,000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

    Mr. Prior
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers are not teaching through reasons of ill health. [138903]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    In March 1999 there were approximately 30,000 teachers who had taken ill health retirement from the maintained schools sector in England, had not returned to teaching and were aged under 60. About 28,000 of these teachers had retired by March 1998.

    £

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    Schools Capital

    1,661,000

    5,090,000

    98,606,000

    9,122,000

    Standards Fund

    1,077,689

    1,373,399

    4,438,776

    9,050,649

    Schools Standards Grant

    —

    —

    —

    1.500,000

    School Budget Support Grant

    —

    —

    —

    282,000

    Former GM Schools Transitional Funding

    —

    —

    —

    71,418

    Former GM Schools Insurance Grant

    —

    —

    6,186

    —

    Four Year Old Nursery Education Grant

    3,229,878

    67,906

    172,897

    1—

    Three Year Old Nursery Education Grant

    209,282

    1—

    Leadership and Management Programme for New Headteachers (HEADLAMP)

    7,791

    7,194

    16,009

    23,857

    Playing for Success: Study Support Centres at Football Clubs

    0

    127,000

    67,500

    2—

    The Mitchell High School (100 per cent. project grant, out of school hours learning activities pilot)

    —

    15,000

    —

    —

    Federation of Worker Writers and Community Publishers (100 per cent. project grant, Partners for Study Support scheme)

    —

    —

    —

    4,805

    1Grants for three and four Years Nursery Education Grant are determined by the number of nursery places provided termly in the LEA. Final figures for 2000–01 are not therefore available.

    2Claims in respect of Playing for Success are mainly settled retrospectively and the outturn for the financial year 2000–01 will not be known until April 2001

    580W
    The annual number of teachers with ill health retirement has now stabilised, following the reform of the Teachers Pensions Scheme in 1997.

    Mr. Prior
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers are aged(a) 20 to 24, (b) 25 to 29, (c) 30 to 34, (d) 35 to 39, (e) 40 to 44, (f) 45 to 49, (g) 50 to 54 and (h) 55 years and over. [138933]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Full-time teachers, by age, in the maintained schools sector in England at March 1999 are as follows:

    Age Range

    Number of Teachers

    20–24

    16,500

    25–29

    52,900

    30–34

    41,300

    35–39

    36,200

    40–44

    56,200

    45–49

    81,600

    50–54

    58,500

    55 and over

    22,100

    Total

    365,300

    Note:

    All numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

    The full-time equivalent number of regular teachers in the maintained sector has increased by 6,900 since January 1998.

    There was a growth of 2000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

    SSA (Stoke)
    Mr. Stevenson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) formats, (b) value and (c) specific purpose of grants additional to the education standard spending assessment in Stoke-on-Trent local education authority for each year since 1997. [139516]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Listed are the Department's funding allocations for education in Stoke-on-Trent local education authority for each year since 1997. Details of the individual grants within the Standards Fund and Capital grants have been placed in the Library.
    581W
    In addition, one Specialist School (an Arts College) was designated in September 2000 and will receive a capital grant of £100,000 this year. The grant must be used to undertake building work and/or to purchase equipment to enhance the school's facilities for the teaching of the specialist arts. Also, while not paid to Stoke-on-Trent LEA, £241,607 was paid to "Stoke-on-Trent Rainbow Zone" Education Action Zone in 1999–2000 which was passed on to schools in Stoke. For 2000–01, £395,000 has been paid to date to "Stoke-on-Trent Rainbow Zone".

    Since 1997–98 spending per pupil in England has increased by £300 in real terms.

    Exclusions
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils were excluded from schools in each of the London boroughs during the last 12 months. [139773]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information requested is shown in the following table.

    Number of permanent exclusions by local education authority area—England 1998–99

    Number of permanent exclusions1

    England

    10,438

    London

    1,782

    Inner London

    639

    Camden

    32

    City of London

    0

    Hackney

    36

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    48

    Haringey

    43

    Islington

    36

    Kensington and Chelsea

    29

    Lambeth

    40

    Lewisham

    65

    Newham

    54

    Southwark

    108

    Tower Hamlets

    32

    Wandsworth

    76

    Westminster

    40

    Outer London

    1,143

    Barking and Dagenham

    39

    Barnet

    42

    Bexley

    61

    Brent

    77

    Bromley

    87

    Croydon

    131

    Ealing

    74

    Enfield

    76

    Greenwich

    79

    Harrow

    42

    Havering

    41

    Hillingdon

    66

    Hounslow

    67

    Kingston upon Thames

    25

    Merton

    24

    Redbridge

    42

    Richmond upon Thames

    45

    Sutton

    39

    Waltham Forest

    86

    1 Includes maintained primary, maintained secondary. maintained special and non-maintained special schools

    582W
    Further information on permanent exclusions will be published at the end of November 2000 in a Statistical Bulletin, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

    We are providing £174 million next year to help schools and LEAs tackle exclusion—a third more than in 1999–2000 and 10 times more than in 1996–97. This is helping to pay for more than 1,000 on-site Learning Support Units which take disruptive pupils out of the classroom quickly, improve their behaviour and reduce the need for exclusion. Where an exclusion is necessary, provision for excluded pupils is being greatly increased. There are now 1,000 more places and 250 more teachers in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) than in 1997. The quality of PRUs is improving and by 2002 all local education authorities will be required to provide a full timetable for excluded pupils.

    Special Needs Schools
    Ms Ward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money special needs schools will receive from the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement. [140069]

    Jacqui Smith
    Special schools in England will receive over £6 million for repair and renewal of school buildings in the current financial year, their share of the £167 million extra funding announced in the pre-Budget statement. To reduce red tape and prevent delay the money will be devolved direct to schools and will be available to them in the next few weeks. Each special school will get an allocation in proportion to its existing allocation of formula capital for this year, equating to about £3,500, plus £26 per pupil. This means that, in total, a special school with 100 pupils will now get around £13,000 this year for repairs and improvement.

    Impartial Teaching
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department has taken to ensure that the material on European Union issues it supplies to schools does not breach the requirements for impartial teaching of politically controversial matters. [140149]

    Jacqui Smith
    The Department has a commitment to reducing the bureaucratic burden on schools and closely monitors all information which it sends out. We do not regularly supply material on the European Union, or any other political topic, to schools. Any information it was deemed necessary to distribute would be balanced and impartial.

    Arts Student Award Funding
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the current evaluation programme for arts student award funding. [139529]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 23 November 2000]: A three year evaluation programme of the dance and drama awards scheme for performing arts students, which was introduced in September 1999, will be completed by the end of 2002. We expect the report to be published early in 2003 and available through the internet and other sources. We have successfully replaced the lottery which

    583W
    existed in the past, putting talent before postcodes. Instead of paying fees of up to £8,000, award-winners only pay at most £1,050, in line with university students.

    Special Educational Needs
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the number of cases taken to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal each year since its inception, indicating in how many cases the tribunal ruled that additional support should be provided for children with special needs.[140526]

    Jacqui Smith
    The information showing the number of appeals registered with the SEN Tribunal since 1994–95 when it was established is contained in a number of tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The figures show appeals by local education authority and the number upheld by the Tribunal. A case is listed as "upheld" when any of the points at issue are decided in the parent's favour. Appeal figures only are given for the academic year ending July 2000, as finalised decisions have not yet been made in all cases for that year.

    Data on the number of cases since 1994 that involve additional support being provided by local education authorities are not available. Appeals can cover a range of issues and not all are to do with additional provision by the LEA; they can also include appeals on the identification of a child's special educational needs, and this may not include how these will be met.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if all local education authorities recognise dyslexia as a special educational need; and how many local education authorities have been taken to Tribunal for Special Educational Needs appeals in disputes over children with dyslexia since its establishment. [140527]

    Jacqui Smith
    We would expect all local education authorities (LEAs) to recognise dyslexia as a special educational need.

    In 1998–99, 818 of the 2,412 cases (33.9 per cent.) referred to the SEN Tribunal in England and Wales concerned children with literacy difficulties, including specific learning difficulties (dyslexia). Of cases, which were actually heard, 439 of 1,220 (36 per cent.) concerned such children. However, the Tribunal records do not enable the LEAs concerned to be identified.

    We are committed as a Government to helping all children with special educational needs and are taking a number of steps to raise the awareness of dyslexia and help teachers to improve the identification and assessment of children who have or may have dyslexia, including through baseline assessment. The National Literacy Strategy has raised standards for all children, including those with dyslexia.

    We are also taking work forward in partnership with some of the voluntary organisations that support children with dyslexia, including the British Dyslexia Association and the Dyslexia Institute.

    External Advisers
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of schools 584W
    in England and Wales have (a) used and (b) booked an appointment to use before the end of the autumn term, the services of an accredited external adviser in establishing the head teacher's objectives for the academic year 2000–01. [140517]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    67 per cent. of eligible schools in England have requested the services of an accredited external adviser. 17 per cent. of the total of eligible schools have to date used the services of an adviser and 33 per cent. of the total have confirmed visits with an adviser.

    The data relate to England because the statutory performance management arrangements for heads apply only to schools in England.

    New Technologies in Schools
    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown of how the £1 billion for new technologies in schools will be spent. [140434]

    Mr. Wills
    The £1 billion programme will be used to support the enrichment of schools' ICT facilities. Most of this will be channelled through the Standards Fund, including £245 million in 2001–02 (already announced as the final year of our £657 million investment in ICT in schools between 1998 and 2002) plus £710 million of new funding between 2002 and 2004.

    A further £155 million will be made available for centrally funded projects between 2002 and 2004. Details of these will be announced in due course.

    Teenage Pregnancy
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many female pupils were excluded from school because of pregnancy in England between 1980 to 2000; and if he will make a statement; [140542]

    (2) if he will list the 10 education authorities with (a) the highest and (b) the lowest percentage rates of school exclusions because of pregnancy; and if he will make a statement. [140483]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The detailed information requested by my hon. Friend is not held centrally by the Department. The latest information on permanent exclusions will be published later this week in a Statistical Bulletin, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

    The DfEE issued guidance in 1999 to all local education authorities and schools, which made it clear that pregnancy on its own was not a reason for exclusion from school.

    In addition to our drive to cut truancy and school exclusions, we are also working to cut teenage pregnancy rates and to reduce the social exclusion often experienced by teenage parents and their children. We are issuing some guidance to help schools to support teenage parents in school. We are also funding reintegration work in selected LEAs to help girls back in to education after they have had their baby.

    Redeploying Redundancies
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review the procedures for redundancy and redeployment of teachers in schools with falling school rolls. [140604]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Adequate arrangements already exist to ensure that local education authorities can minimise the effect of redundancies by redeploying teaching staff subject to the consent of schools with vacancies.

    School Websites
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what help is available from his Department for those schools which wish to create their own website;[140300]

    (2) how many (a) primary and (b) secondary schools have a website. [140295]

    Mr. Wills
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: We are supporting £657 million of expenditure on ICT by schools between 1998 and 2002, with a further £710 million to follow between 2002 and 2004. This funding is intended to help schools to achieve the objectives agreed with their local education authority and set out in their ICT development plan. We would expect these plans to address measures for using ICT to improve home-school links, including the development of school websites. The Department recently revised and reissued the Superhighway Safety Guide which has a section entitled, "Setting up your own website" which not only deals with practical internet safety measures, but advises on other issues such as choosing domain names, obtaining web space and what a school may wish to include. This information is available on-line and in printed form. Illustrations of good practice are also available on the BECTa website.

    The percentage of schools with websites was published in the Statistics of Education—Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Schools 2000, the figures are: 34 per cent. of primary, 62 per cent. of secondary and 31 per cent. of special schools.

    Higher Education Funding
    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will break down the increase in publicly planned funding for higher education in each of the next three years by(a) fees from students, (b) fees from public funding, (c) earmarked capital funding, (d) funding for widening participation, (e) grants to the Teacher Training Agency and (f) grants to HEFCE. [140362]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: Analysis of the funding for the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Teacher Training Agency will be given in the annual grant letters which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment expects to issue shortly.

    Out-of-School Activities
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will exempt drama, dance and singing coaches employed by Stagecoach Theatre Arts 586W
    from the provisions of the Children Act 1989 requiring Nursery Care Certificate qualifications for those engaged with children aged between four and 16 in out-of-school activities. [140491]

    Ms Hodge
    The Government are presently reforming the system for regulating child care in England, bringing in new national standards to be regulated by a new Early Years Directorate in Ofsted. We recognise the potential impact of these changes on activity-based organisations such as Stagecoach whose primary purpose is not child care. The Government are therefore considering whether it is appropriate to bring such organisations under the new arrangements. We will take full account of all the concerns raised when we reach a decision.

    Teacher Assessment
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the duties of external assessors in dealing with teachers' threshold applications, indicating the statutory basis of his powers to lay down these duties. [140615]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    On 22 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid an Order (SI 2000/3106) under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 to give statutory force to the new pay arrangements entailing assessment at a performance threshold. The Order sets out the duties of external assessors for which my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) on 22 November 2000,Official Report, column 244W refers.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to deal with appeals from teachers who have been unsuccessful in making a threshold application for performance-related pay. [140616]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    On 22 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid an Order (SI 2000/3106) under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 to give statutory force to the new pay arrangements entailing assessment at a performance threshold. The Order contains provisions for teachers who continue to believe that they have been wrongly assessed as not meeting the threshold standards to apply to have the decision reviewed by a review officer. My right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) on 22 November 2000,Official Report, column 244W refers to this.

    Autism
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when he plans to hold centrally information on the number of children under the age of 10 years, by local authority area, who have been diagnosed with autism in each year since 1990; [140744]

    (2) what estimate he has made of the number of sufferers of autism (a) below and (b) over the age of 18 years in the years (i) 1990 and (ii) 1995; [140745]

    (3) what research his Department has carried out in the last 10 years into the principles, methods and effectiveness of the Higashi school for autistic children in Boston, USA. [140748]
    587W
    Jacqui Smith
    The diagnosis of autism and estimates of the prevalence of the condition are medical matters and questions on these issues should be directed to the Secretary of State for Health. Figures on the numbers of children identified as having special educational needs arising from autism are not held centrally.

    My Department has not funded any research into the Higashi school in Boston, USA in the last 10 years, but did publish a research literature review which recorded two studies completed at the Higashi school, Boston. "Educational Interventions for Children with Autism: A Literature Review of Recent and Current Research; Jordan, Jones and Murray, 1998." A copy is in the Library.

  TREASURY

    VAT (Places of Worship)
    Mr. David Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what comments he has received from individual churches about the proposals of the Chancellor to reduce VAT on certain works on church buildings. [139896]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Government have received comments indicating that a reduced rate for repairs to listed places of worship would be very welcome.

    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in efforts to reduce VAT on church repairs; and if he will make a statement. [139895]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 759W.

    Tax Revenues
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of tax revenues in the year 1999–2000 was tendered in(a) euros and (b) other foreign currencies. [134227]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The total tax receipt for Inland Revenue in the year 1999–2000 was £139 billion. Of this, £10.8 million was tendered in euro and £1.8 million in other foreign currencies. The total net tax receipt for HM Customs and Excise in the year 1999–2000 was £97 billion. Of this, £6.5 million was tendered in euro. A further £105,000 was tendered in the form of cheques denominated in other foreign currencies. HM Customs and Excise do not separately record electronic payments in other foreign currencies. By adding individual electronic payments made through CHAPS, HM Customs and Excise have estimated that £63 million was tendered in the form of electronic payments in other foreign currencies during March 2000.

    National Insurance Fund
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 575W, for how many years the National Insurance Fund will remain in surplus over and above the
    588W
    recommended surplus if contribution rates remain unchanged and contribution thresholds are uprated in line with average earnings. [137524]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 9 November 2000]: The number of years for which the National Insurance Fund would remain in surplus over and above the recommended surplus would be reduced by one year if contribution thresholds were increased by average earnings.

    Ultra-low Sulphur Petrol
    Mr. Jenkin
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to press release HMT/DETR1 of 8 November, when he expects the oil companies will provide nationwide availability of ultra-low sulphur petrol. [138228]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 13 November 2000]: As announced in the pre-Budget report, the Government will reduce duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol (ULSP) by 2 pence a litre subject to oil companies making this fuel available nationwide.

    ULSP is already on sale at some petrol stations and oil companies have indicated that they expect to make it available nationwide during next year.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost of lowering the national insurance lower earnings limit to £59.20 per week. [139304]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 20 November 2000]: Lowering the lower earnings limit to £59.20 per week in 2001–02 would lead to a full year reduction of £420 million in National Insurance contributions.

    This estimate was produced by the Government Actuary's Department and is in line with the pre-Budget report assumptions.

    IR35
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the median income for each quartile of taxpayers whose tax liability will change as a consequence of the introduction of IR35; and if he will make a statement; [139420]

    (2) what estimate he has made of the number of persons whose tax liability will change as a consequence of the introduction of IR35; and if he will make a statement; [139419]

    (3) what projections he has made of the change in tax liabilities of a person on the median income of each quartile of taxpayers whose liability will change as a consequence of IR35; and if he will make a statement. [139421]

    Dawn Primarolo
    It is estimated that 90,000 companies will be affected by the introduction of the new legislation to tackle avoidance of tax and National Insurance Contributions through the use of personal service companies. Information on the number of persons or taxpayers affected is not available.

    Stamp Duty
    Mr. Loughton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many residential property sales took place in each of the last three years which were not eligible for stamp duty. [139166]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 20 November 2000]: Estimates of the number of residential property sales in the United Kingdom which were not liable to stamp duty since the sale price did not exceed £60,000, are as follows:

    Number

    1997–98

    750,000

    1998–99

    660,000

    1999–2000

    660,000

    In each of these years the number of non-liable residential transactions were estimated to be over two fifths of the total residential transactions.

    Residential Conversions
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the document Cm 4917 paragraph 6.80, concerning residential conversions, how many staff will be employed to ensure enhanced relief does not subsidise high value properties; and what the cost of each of the three measures outlined is estimated to be. [139760]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Customs and Inland Revenue will not need extra staff to assure the package of measures for property conversions.

    Scottish Euro Notes
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards the retention of distinctive Scottish euro notes in the eventuality of the United Kingdom joining the euro. [139791]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I refer the hon. Member to Article 106(1) (ex Article 105a) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the annual savings in Working Families Tax Credit expenditure(a) with the minimum wage at £3.70 per hour and (b) if the minimum wage were £5.10 per hour; [140260]

    (2) if he will estimate the increase in tax and national insurance revenue to the Exchequer in the financial year 2001–02 as a result of (a) raising the rate of the national minimum wage for adults to £5.10 and (b) reducing the age for adult rates of the national minimum wage from 22 to 18 years, if the national minimum wage were (i) £3.70 and (ii) £5.10. [140215]

    Dawn Primarolo
    An estimate of the saving in Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) expenditure in the period October 1999 to March 2000 as a result of the National Minimum Wage (NMW), including the adult rate of £3.60 per hour, appears at Table 3.2 in the Second Report of the Low Pay Commission. A copy is in the Library.
    590W
    It is not possible to estimate accurately the potential impact on the labour market of raising the adult rate of the NMW to £5.10 per hour, or of reducing the minimum age for qualifying for the adult rate. No reliable estimates can therefore be provided of the effects of these changes on WFTC expenditure, or on tax and national insurance revenue.

    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide a breakdown of those who have benefited from the national minimum wage by(a) region, (b) gender, (c) occupation and (d) employment status; [140257]

    (2) if he will provide a breakdown of those employed in jobs with pay less than the national minimum wage by (a) gender, (b) region, (c) employment status and (d) occupation. [140258]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 28 November 2000 The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions on the national minimum wage (NMW) (140257/8). I am replying in his absence.
    ONS has estimates of employees with pay less than NMW rates for spring 1998, 1999 and 2000 (£3.00 per hour aged 18–21 and £3.60 per hour aged 22 or over) disaggregated by gender, full- and part-time, industry sector, occupation and Government Office Region. These estimates were released on 10th November 2000 and are posted on the National Statistics website, reference:

    http://www.statistics.gov.uldthemes/labour-market/nmw-lowpay-tables.asp
    They are based on an improved methodology which uses data from both the New Earnings Survey (NES) and the Labour Force Survey (LFS).
    The estimates cannot be used as a measure of non-compliance with NMW legislation because it is not possible from either the LFS or the NES to identify whether an individual is eligible for NMW rates. For example it is not possible to identify people such as apprentices and those undergoing accredited training who are exempt from the minimum wage or are entitled to lower rates.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the expenditure which took place under Private Finance Initiative schemes in 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000. [140241]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    Since FSBR 1998, the Treasury has published tables showing estimates of expenditure on PFI.

    Details of estimated capital spending by the private sector in signed PFI deals for the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 were set out in table B15 of FSBR 1998, table B16 of FSBR 1999 and tables C 14 and 16 of FSBR 2000 (HC 620, HC 298 and HC 346 respectively). Prior to FSBR 1998, this information was not published in this form. The Treasury's list of signed projects (produced on a comparable basis but by calendar year) shows a total of £1,766 million for 1996.

    Similarly, details of estimates of payments projected to be made by the public sector for services flowing from PFI deals (tables B16 (98), B17 (99) and C15). There is no information held centrally about these commitments for 1996.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer in the financial year 2001–02 of(a) introducing a 50 per cent. rate of income tax for taxable income over £100,000 per year, (b) extending the 10 per cent. income tax band to (i) £7,272 and (ii) £10,025 per year of gross income, (c) fully covering the cost of child care for those in receipt of working families tax credit and (d) paid parental leave for all in receipt of working families tax credit, assuming full income replacement. [140209]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The full-year effects in 2001–02 of making the changes are set out in the table.

    Costs(—): Yields (†)—£ billion

    2001–02

    (a)

    50 per cent. rate for income tax for income over £100,0001

    †3.2

    (bi)

    Increase starting rate limit to £2,7371.2

    —3.3

    Increase starting rate limit to £5,4901.3

    —10.3

    1Estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report

    2£2,737 is the difference between £7,272 and the non-aged personal allowance of £4,535

    3£5,490 is the difference between £10,025 and the non-aged personal allowance of £4,535

    Reliable estimates of the cost of fully covering the cost of child care for those in recept of the Working Families Tax Credit cannot be made because of the uncertain behavioural effects that would result from such a change.

    Without further details I am unable to provide an answer to the final part of my hon. Friend's question.

    Euro
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that a decision to join the euro should be made on economic grounds alone. [140152]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 81W.

    Mr. Robertson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the attitude of private business towards(a) entering and (b) staying out of the euro. [140218]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The determining factor underpinning any Government decision to join the single currency is whether the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous. Because of the magnitude of the decision, the Government believe that, whenever a decision to enter is taken by Government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people.

    European Movement
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the sum allocated in the Draft EC Budget and Adopted EC Budget for 2000 to the European Movement will be spent in the UK in the current financial year. [140008]
    592W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on 8 November 2000,Official Report, column 283W.

    Rail Disruptions
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost to the United Kingdom economy of the recent rail disruptions. [140079]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Reliable estimates cannot be made as much of the data necessary to make such estimates are not readily available.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the loss of VAT income due to the establishment by motor insurers of their own repair facilities which are not VAT-registered.[140458]

    Dawn Primarolo
    A review by Customs and Excise into the VAT treatment of vehicle repairs carried out by motor insurers was completed earlier this year. It estimated that the VAT yield from vehicle repairs carried out by insurer-owned repairers was around £3.5 million less than it would be if these repairs were carried out by repairers not owned by insurance companies.

    Landfill Tax
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by local authority area in Wales(a) the amount raised annually by the landfill tax since its introduction and (b) projects in Wales which have been funded under the landfill tax credit scheme, indicating how much each project has received. [140530]

    Mr. Timms
    It is not possible to provide the requested information for landfill tax revenue as figures are not collated or recorded on an individual site by site basis. Information about which environmental bodies have received contributions under the Landfill Tax Environmental Bodies Credit Scheme and how much they have received is a matter for the Regulator for the scheme, ENTRUST. I have therefore asked them to provide such data as they hold and will place a copy of their response in the Library of the House.

    Aggregates Tax
    Mr. Robertson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual revenue from the aggregates tax. [140021]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 24 November 2000]: Table A.13 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000 provides an estimate of aggregates levy revenues in 2002–03, its first year of operation.

    2000 Convergence Programme
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will submit the 2000 Convergence programme under the Growth and Stability Pact to the European Commission; and if he will make a statement. [140702]
    593W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Government intend to submit the 2000 Updated Convergence Programme by the end of the year in the usual way.

    Tax Legislation
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pages have been added to tax legislation as a result of the Finance Acts enacted since 1997; and what estimate he has made of the cost to business of implementing each amendment to tax law contained in those acts. [139821]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The respective lengths of Finance Acts enacted since 1997 are contained in the House of Commons Library.

    Some of the legislation has the effect of removing previous legislation, so the net length impact is significantly shorter than the combined face total of these Finance Acts.

    Regulatory Impact Assessments were introduced by this Government in August 1998 to replace Compliance Cost Assessments; these set out the costs and benefits of proposals that have a significant regulatory impact on business, are published for Finance Act measures and are published on departmental websites.

    Employment Rates
    Mr. Dobson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed in the United Kingdom, excluding agriculture, fishing and the public sector. [140382]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Frank Dobson, dated 28 November 2000 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people employed in the UK, excluding agriculture, fishing and the public sector. (140382)
    In June 1999, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of employee jobs in the sector specified was 18,968,000.

    Limb Reduction Deformities
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children were born with limb reduction deformities in each of the last 20 years. [140478]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 28 November 2000 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of babies born with limb reductions. (140478)
    594W
    The attached table shows the number of babies in England and Wales notified to the National Congenital Anomaly System and rates per 10,000 live and stillbirths for the years 1980 to 1999.

    Babies notified to the National Congenital Anomaly System with limb reduction anomalies1.2—England and Wales, 1980 to 1999

    per 10,000 live and stillbirths

    Year

    Number

    Rate

    1980

    303

    4.6

    1981

    256

    4.0

    1982

    265

    4.2

    1983

    297

    4.7

    1984

    314

    4.9

    1985

    326

    4.9

    1986

    276

    4.2

    1987

    293

    4.3

    1988

    285

    4.1

    1989

    232

    3.4

    1990

    198

    2.8

    1991

    241

    3.4

    1992

    187

    2.7

    1993

    214

    3.2

    1994

    196

    2.9

    1995

    191

    2.9

    1996

    201

    3.1

    1997

    137

    2.1

    1998

    199

    3.1

    1999

    204

    3.3

    11980–94: International Classification of Diseases 9th revision code 755.2 to 755.4

    2 1995–99: International Classification of Diseases 10th revision code Q71.0 to Q73.8

    Source:

    National Congenital Anomaly System—data at 23 November 2000

    Cancer
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the five year survival rates are for each main group of cancer, distinguishing between men and women,(a) nationally, (b) in each NHS region and (c) for each health authority in the (i) Northern and (ii) Yorkshire region. [140534]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 28 November 2000 As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the five year survival rates are for each main group of cancer, distinguishing between men and women, nationally, in each NHS region and for each health authority in the Northern and Yorkshire region. (140534).
    The latest available data on the survival of patients diagnosed with cancer by sex nationally were published in 'Cancer survival in England and Wales, 1991–98' published by the Office for National Statistics in the summer 2000 edition of Health Statistics Quarterly (HSQ no. 6) and contain figures for 20 common cancers. The most recent survival figures for each health regional office area and for each health authority for cancers of the female breast, lung, cervix and colon were published in 'Quality and Performance in the NHS: NHS Performance Indicators' which can be found at www.doh.gov.uk/nhsperformanceindicators. Comparable figures for cancers of the stomach, prostate and bladder are available and are presented in the attached tables for the areas requested.
    595W

    Table 1: Cancer survival by health regional office areas, 1991–98: five-year relative survival (%) to 31 December 1998 for cancers registered in 1991–93

    Stomach

    Prostate

    Bladder

    Health regional office area

    Men

    Women

    Men

    Men

    Women

    Northern and Yorkshire

    7.6

    9.5

    47.8

    57.3

    48.2

    Trent

    9.0

    8.6

    43.2

    62.0

    57.6

    Eastern

    6.8

    10.2

    50.5

    63.4

    50.6

    London

    13.3

    12.0

    50.5

    68.5

    61.8

    South East

    10.0

    11.2

    52.3

    70.4

    60.0

    South West

    10.8

    10.6

    50.1

    71.1

    63.8

    West Midlands

    10.4

    8.6

    48.8

    67.5

    58.1

    North West

    8.0

    7.8

    46.9

    61.0

    56.3

    Table 2: Cancer survival in the health authorities of Northern and Yorkshire health regional office, 1991–98: five-year relative survival (%) to 31 December 1998 for cancers registered in 1991–93

    Stomach

    Prostate

    Bladder

    Health authority

    Men

    Women

    Men

    Men

    Women

    Bradford

    8.8

    6.8

    47.8

    58.0

    43.2

    Calderdale and Kirklees

    6.0

    6.0

    57.2

    58.0

    39.8

    County Durham

    6.7

    7.7

    46.9

    55.9

    42.9

    East Riding

    12.1

    15.1

    47.1

    58.5

    41.4

    Gateshead and S. Tyneside

    8.8

    7.6

    36.9

    59.0

    54.3

    Leeds

    11.3

    14.2

    51.2

    49.9

    49.8

    Newcastle and N. Tyneside

    3.4

    8.7

    48.0

    69.3

    48.7

    North Cumbria

    4.2

    8.4

    51.4

    52.8

    58.3

    North Yorkshire

    7.7

    6.2

    48.2

    53.0

    59.5

    Northumberland

    7.4

    12.6

    47.8

    66.5

    61.9

    Sunderland

    6.6

    8.6

    51.9

    74.7

    52.7

    Tees

    5.6

    6.0

    25.7

    44.4

    32.9

    Wakefield

    6.7

    15.6

    48.4

    44.2

    39.2

    Note:

    International classification of disease ninth revision codes used are: stomach 15, prostate 185, and bladder 188

    Oil
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumption he used about assessments in the price of oil in preparing his pre-Budget report. [140608]

    Mr. Timms
    The National Audit Office audited oil price assumptions underlying the pre-Budget report forecasts were set out in Box B2 on page 179 of the pre-Budget report.

    Scottish Transport Group
    Mr. Maclennan
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with the First Minister of Scotland and the Finance Minister about the winding-up of the Scottish Transport Group's pension funds; and if he will make a statement. [140658]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    Discussions with the Scottish Executive are ongoing and any subsequent decisions will be made in due course.

    Computerised Printing Presses
    Mr. Pearson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the classification of computerised printing presses for capital allowance purposes. [140299]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The rate at which capital allowances are given on an item of machinery or plant depends on whether the equipment can reasonably be expected when new to have a working life of less than 25 years. This will turn on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.

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

Work Permits: Special Skills Applicants
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will publish details of requirements governing the admission to the United Kingdom of special skills applicants.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, details of a pilot scheme to attract people of outstanding ability from abroad to enter the country to seek work, rather than a prospective employer applying on their behalf, were published in the Pre-Budget Report. The criteria will enable people with PhD or equivalent level qualifications or not less than five years' experience at a senior level to apply for their own work permit to seek work.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Has the Minister yet tried to use the system, as I have? I put myself into the position of an applicant and checked the Overseas Labour Service website, for which the noble Baroness is responsible. Although it is updated and can provide some information, it fails because it refers the user to the Home Office website, which has not been updated for months, despite promises to the contrary. It holds no details as regards special skills. Furthermore, does the Minister realise that the respective telephone helplines for these services each refer the caller to the other line? Although I have 30 pages of printout from the website, I still have not been able to track down the necessary information. For years, countries such as Australia and Canada have operated good, coordinated systems of this kind. Given that, when can we expect to see a co-ordinated system put in place here?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has had so much trouble with this. I have to admit that I have not tried out our website, but I am a little puzzled because the pilot scheme is not due to be launched until the turn of the year. Given that, I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness has been looking for on the website. However, I agree that we need to co-ordinate the activities of the DfEE on work permits with what is being done by the Home Office in another pilot project, which is also about to be launched. I shall
1242
certainly look into the matter. Once the scheme has been established in the new year, there should be joined-up website provision.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government ensure that the criteria mentioned by the Minister will be made known to non-British citizens already staying in this country? I refer, for example, to asylum seekers. Furthermore, will the Government use this requirement for skilled workers as another means of facilitating the reunion of families, some of whose members are already living here?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is not the purpose of the scheme. It has nothing to do with asylum seekers and the requirements put in place for them. This scheme seeks to recruit a relatively small number of people with special skills. We are discussing hundreds of positions rather than thousands. Those positions need to be filled by extremely highly qualified people. They will work in areas where we are experiencing skills shortages. However, that is not the primary purpose of the scheme. Some of the suitable applicants will not want to work for one employer. It is for that reason that the normal route to acquire a work permit, namely, that of an employer securing a work permit for a new employee, is not appropriate. The scheme aims to attract people with very high levels of qualifications and skills who want to build up a portfolio of different jobs.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does this mean that the Minister does not hope for an influx into the teaching profession through this new skills initiative?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, the scheme is not designed primarily for those coming into the teaching profession. It may well be that some of those who come here through the scheme will work at senior levels in our universities. They may want to combine consultancy with research and possibly some higher education teaching. However, this scheme is not aimed at schoolteachers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that a good deal of direct recruitment from abroad is currently being carried out to secure teachers for our schools. Indeed, the newspapers have reported that at least one school has a predominance of teaching staff who have been directly recruited from abroad. What programmes are in place to ensure that such teachers are competent and fully conversant with the system of education in this country?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think that the question put by the noble Baroness moves rather wide of that which has been set down on the Order Paper, which concerns work permits for a quite different group of people. However, it is important to ensure that, when we employ teachers from abroad, they should be fully qualified to teach in our schools. Be fore recruiting, we take into account the present

1243
qualifications of potential staff, along with the requirement for fluent English. All this is done before any teacher is appointed.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at present there is a surplus of general practitioners in Australia, whereas in this country the National Health Service is desperately short of them? Is not this a typical example of the kind of person who should be encouraged to come over here?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. The noble Baroness has cited a good example. Highly qualified people in the medical professions, in particular those with postgraduate qualifications, may be able to establish themselves quickly over here. However, I should point out that we are training a substantial number of additional medical students to try to meet the shortfall in the number of doctors working in NHS hospitals and in general practice.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, will applicants be fast-tracked through the Home Office procedures? As someone who, in the past, has had to recruit people from abroad, I experienced considerable problems coping with Home Office procedures, particularly in regard to people from eastern Europe. Can the Minister assure us that in future highly-qualified PhDs will be processed quite quickly?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important question. Such a pilot scheme requires the DfEE to work closely with the Home Office to ensure that, when an overseas application is received, there are proper fast-track arrangements and that immigration procedures do not stand in the way.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister give full details of where such skill shortages in the UK are to be found?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I refer the noble Baroness to the reports of the National Skills Task Force. I shall be happy to ensure that she receives copies of them.

EU "Everything but Arms" Initiative
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have undertaken any assessment of the impact on ACP producers of rice, sugar, rum and bananas of the European Commission's "Everything but Arms" initiative, which seeks to extend duty and quota free access to the European Union market to 48 Least Developed Countries.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the proposal concerns the treatment of some 13,600 products from the 48 least developed countries in the world, 39 of which are also ACP countries. The European Commission's proposals should benefit these ACP countries and their exports, as well as the nine LDCs that are not ACP countries.
The Commission has recognised the sensitive nature of three products—rice, bananas and sugar—by proposing that duty-free access for them should be phased in progressively over three years. At the request of member states, including the UK, the Commission is currently looking at the various impacts that the proposals could have. Discussions are continuing in Brussels. The Government have launched their own written and electronic consultation and are producing their own analysis. The Government support the proposal. The ACP countries have also welcomed it, while calling for its impact to be studied.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I do not have the usual courtesy to thank him for that Answer. It is, if I may say so, very complacent about an extremely serious situation for the countries of the Caribbean. If those countries are unable to export their basic commodities, they will turn to drugs. The ACP countries signed the Cotonou agreement in July, under which the transitional period would extend until 2008. The new initiative overrides that, thus breaking a freely entered into negotiated agreement. Does the Minister think that this is the right way to proceed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think my Answer was at all complacent. We are well aware of the great importance of these proposals to all the people affected—not only Caribbean producers, but farmers and processors in this country and in the LDCs involved. It is important to realise that we are talking about countries with an average income per head of 200 dollars a year. That level of income makes even the Caribbean countries look very wealthy. I am not at all complacent. The Government will take account of all interests in their response. I do not agree that it is obvious what the impact will be. It depends critically on the supply response from the LDCs, which is not at all clear given that they are net importers of sugar. As to the final point raised by the noble Baroness in regard to the Cotonou agreement, I am sure she is well aware that in Article 37(9) it is anticipated that by 2000 the Community will start a process which, by 2005 at the latest, will allow duty-free access for essentially all products from all LDCs, building on the level of existing trade provisions of the fourth ACP-EC convention. That was anticipated in the agreement.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, what plans are there to encourage ACP farmers to diversify into non-drug-related crops?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government's position is clear. We shall await the

1245
outcome of the impact studies and the action taken as a result. We shall then look at the consequences which flow from that and decide what action should be taken.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the British-Caribbean Parliamentary Group. Perhaps I may refer the Minister to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the effect of the proposals on the Caribbean. Has he seen the comments of the Guyanan Foreign Minister, who says that the proposals are virtually a knock-out blow which Guyana cannot sustain? If the proposals go through, it will effectively become impossible for Guyana to export rice, sugar and rum. As those commodities account for 44 per cent of Guyana's total exports, this will force Guyana into becoming one of the poorest countries in the world. Can my noble friend give some assurance that the interests of the Caribbean will be properly looked after?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that consideration of the interests of the Caribbean islands is foremost in the Government's mind. May I also remind my noble friend of the point I made in my original Answer. The impact of this will critically depend on what the supply response is from these very poor countries, which, as I said, are themselves importers of sugar.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister surprised that I was surprised by his original Answer when he said that these new measures were welcomed by the Caribbean countries? That is not at all the situation. I back up entirely what his noble friend Lord Faulkner said. Is not the Minister aware of the very serious situation facing the Caribbean countries in regard to their primary products of bananas, sugar, rice and rum, which will be devastated by the "Everything but Arms" initiative? It will also have an effect on sugar beet producers in this country. Is he really not aware of the existing situation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that I referred to the ACP countries, which are spread far wider than the Caribbean islands and include many other countries. They welcomed the proposal but wanted to see its impact. We are conscious of the potential impact on the Caribbean islands. We all know that they have suffered serious consequences on crops such as bananas—which are crucial to their economies—and obviously any further blow would be very serious. But I should emphasise that that will depend on the response to opening up the EU market to the other countries.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a report from the European Union Select Committee of this House on the workings of the WTO was somewhat critical of the ACP agreement, which spoke about "essentially all goods" in the context of free trade, and advocated that it should refer to "all goods"? That is the broad position taken in this House.
1246
Does my noble friend agree that the Cotonou agreement requires extensive consultation with those countries that are adversely affected? Does he further agree that that should include the Caribbean; and that there should be a willingness to negotiate transitional times and arrangements—not necessarily of long duration but in order to mitigate the worst effects?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords. Clearly, consultation is extremely important. I remind my noble friend that it is part of the proposals that they should be progressively phased in over three years. That takes in the point that he raised.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I always buy Commonwealth bananas, particularly Caribbean bananas? I hope that all other noble Lords do the same.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have to admit that I was not aware of that fact, but I am now better informed! I join with the noble Baroness in her appeal to other noble Lords.

Flood Losses
2.52 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recompense they propose to offer to those in flooded areas who have lost homes or businesses in cases where warnings from the Environment Agency and other public bodies have not been heeded.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, under current guidance local planning authorities are advised to consult the Environment Agency on any proposed development in the flood plain. LPAs need to consider the agency's advice alongside other material considerations in deciding whether planning consent should be given. The LPAs' decisions will in most cases turn on the agency's advice. They may, for example, refuse permission, or allow it to go ahead provided that the developer undertakes measures to mitigate flood risk as advised by the agency. However, current case law indicates that neither the agency nor the local planning authority is liable for individual losses suffered as a result of such a decision to grant planning consent.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, following yesterday's announcement that she has become a Privy Counsellor.
I declare an interest in this Question as a resident in the new Sussex archipelago! Is the Minister aware that, three weeks ago, the Prime Minister visited the capital city of West Sussex, Chichester, and warned its residents that, thanks to climate change, they could

1247
expect storms more frequently in the future? What is the Minister persuading the Government to do in order to ensure that the Environment Agency has the resources to deal with this huge challenge? Does it have the money and the staff? What can be done to ensure that bureaucratic delays are broken? At present, a flood protection scheme that has been designed and improved is often delayed for years before being implemented.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations.
I recognise the deep distress that has been caused to a large number of people by the recent flooding and their concern for the future. We obviously need a coordinated response. We have already announced more immediate help for local authorities dealing with the aftermath of flooding and more resources to ensure that flood defences are strengthened where appropriate. We shall also have to examine the effects of recent flooding on existing local defences to see whether any work needs to be undertaken. Equally, looking ahead and recognising the possibility of climate change creating more of these situations, we need to strengthen guidance to local planning authorities on developments in the flood plain and make sure that improved information about flood risk is available. We are taking action on all those fronts.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support my noble friend in his concern. I declare an interest as I live in the flood plain. Is the Minister aware that everyone living in and around Lewes knew perfectly well that there could be flooding and were waiting for it to happen? I live between the Ouse and the Winterbourne, both of which flood regularly. Is the Minister further aware that planning permission was given to build 20 houses on the flood plain in what was the old cattle market? Is the Minister further aware that the lock gates on the Ouse were opened to save Uckfield with the result that Lewes was absolutely inundated? Does the Minister agree that there must be some form of government control?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware of a great deal of what the noble Lord suggests. I understand that most of the development in Lewes that was flooded pre-dates the existing planning system, although two recent developments were involved. In both cases they were brownfield sites developed in accordance with current planning guidance. The Environment Agency's agreement to the development was subject to strict conditions being imposed, including the raising of floor levels. The Environment Agency believes that, even though there has been experience of serious flooding, where the agency's advice was taken flood damage was greatly reduced.
The town of Lewes has not expanded outwards for 20 to 30 years because of the constraints imposed by the flood plain along the River Ouse and the South Downs area of outstanding national beauty—now a prospective national park. That presents real
1248
difficulties. I agree that it is important that we take into account the best possible advice on the risk of flooding and that we ensure that prospective buyers, for example, receive that advice. There are ways of achieving that.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister mentioned extra money for local authorities to help with the clearing up operations around the country. She will no doubt be aware that her noble friend Lord Whitty told the House some three or four weeks ago that the Bellwin formula will operate in such a situation. Has any of that money been applied for by local authorities; and what is the contingency for money that may need to spent?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we said that assistance under the Bellwin rules will now be automatic for authorities dealing with the current flooding; that the rate of government support will increase from 85 per cent to 100 per cent; that valid claims will be settled within 15 working days; and that claims for advance payment can be made. From that, I deduce that if claims were made more than 15 days ago they will have been settled. If I am incorrect, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, returning to the Question posed by my noble friend, have the Government considered ways in which they will help compensate those who have lost their homes and businesses? Are they thinking of, for example, X amount of money for a house, Y amount of money for a business or a percentage of any successful insurance claim? What is the position? Secondly, in referring to the Bellwin agreement the Minister said that valid claims would be settled within 15 days. How quickly shall we know what is happening on the insurance side and what progress has been made some 22 days on from the consultation that the Government were to have with insurance companies?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I can guarantee to answer that question within 15 days! As regards insurability, Treasury Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretary at MAFF, my honourable friend Elliot Morley, have met insurance industry representatives. They received reassurance that the industry will deal with claims as quickly as possible; that it intends to continue providing flood insurance—which is extremely important; and that recent flooding should have little or no impact on premiums. It is also taking action in particular areas—for example, I believe, by pro-actively contacting potential claimants.
As far as concerns the original Question, I believe that I have made clear in my responses that flooding has always been seen as an insurable risk; indeed, that has been the view of successive governments. Although the Government have put more money into both the compensation available to local authorities for the work that they have undertaken and into more

1249
flood defence work, we have not said that we shall compensate individuals for the damage they have suffered.

Electrical Appliances: Consumer Protection
3 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking, through the European Union, to prevent faulty domestic electrical appliances manufactured outside the European Union and carrying forged trade marks from entering the United Kingdom by means of the Single European Market.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, legislation is already in place which gives local authority trading standards departments adequate powers to remove unsafe products from the market, thus protecting UK consumers.
As regards products carrying forged trade marks, there is an EC regulation applying in all countries of the European Union that allows trade mark owners to ask Customs authorities to seize counterfeit goods being imported from outside the Union. Customs authorities may also seize such goods on their own initiative. Where goods carrying a forged trade mark have entered the single European market, the criminal sanctions applying to counterfeiting activities within each member state are helpful. In the United Kingdom, the offences of distributing or selling counterfeit goods are relevant, and effective enforcement action is possible by trading standards departments, as well as by the police.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of the particular case of a leading kettle manufacture, Strix Limited of Chester, whose position is being undermined by imports of faulty kettles from the People's Republic of China? Does my noble friend understand that this represents both a threat and a danger to consumers in Britain and in the European Union? Finally, what more can the Government do to remedy the situation; for example, what pressure can my noble friend bring to bear on the European Commission to ensure the safety of consumers throughout the European Union?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the DTI is most conscious of the particular problems faced by Strix Limited, which has a lion's share of the world market for safety cut-off dry boil controls for kettles. That is why the department has taken a good deal of action, both to help that company and to protect consumers in this country. We have made all the trading standards departments in the UK aware of the problem. The DTI's consumer safety newsletter has also featured this particular problem.
1250
Moreover, during an official visit to Beijing, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was able to arrange a meeting between executives of Strix Limited and a Chinese Government Minister. As a result of the action that we have taken, the Chinese authorities have now added electric kettles to the control list for commodity inspection, which makes kettles that are to be exported subject to official inspections. We have also made representations to the Chinese Government, both at an EU and at a UK level. However, we are not in a position to do one thing that the company has requested; namely, to ask the Chinese Government to shut down the Yong Heng thermostat factory in GuangDong, which is almost certainly the producer of many of these copy controls.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of these goods are freely available from street vendors and, indeed, from markets? Therefore, is he satisfied that trading standards departments throughout the country have sufficient force, funding and staff to deal with this kind of malpractice?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that I made it very clear that we have given a great deal of information on the matter to trading standards officers. In fact, it is only within the past four weeks that the first example has been found by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service in two kettles which fall within this category. Therefore, it is probably not true to say that these products are generally available. Indeed, I believe that there are sufficient resources available, given that trading standards departments have been alerted a number of times by the DTI.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the sooner the People's Republic of China becomes a full member of the World. Trade Organisation the sooner we shall have a dispute settlement procedure through which it can be held to account if it breaks the necessary standards for proper trading in the international community?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it would be an advantage if the People's Republic of China were to become a member of the WTO. That would facilitate the enforcement of some of these agreements.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, contrary to what one might read endlessly in the Tory press and contrary to what one might hear occasionally from the Tory Benches, does the Minister agree that this is a classic example of a matter that would be best dealt with on a pan-European basis?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we should bear in mind two facts as regards this matter. First, the main cases in this respect have been found outside the UK; and, secondly, we have more power on a European basis to deal with the situation. Therefore, it is true that the matter is best dealt with on a European

1251
basis. However, as the DTI is responsible for British industry and its interests, we are taking the matter most seriously.
Lord Elton: My Lords contrary to the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, the burden of this battle actually rests with very hard-pressed local trading standards authorities and their officers, who are constantly at risk in the boot sales and open markets where they have to enforce the law. Therefore, should not the emphasis be on exerting pressure on the country of origin, when it is known? Indeed, it is not only China that supplies such products. Can the Minister tell us how we can pursue the matter with suppliers of counterfeit patent documents when the country of origin is known?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the trading standards authorities are, of course, the first point of call in terms of alerting people to these problems. However, as to the question of actually taking action, which, I believe, was the point behind the previous question, that is best pursued on a European level, especially in circumstances where the main offenders have been found to be in other European countries.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Whitty will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Rural White Paper.

Disqualifications Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Disqualification for certain offices which may be held by members of the Northern Ireland Assembly]:
Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert (", or
(e) be nominated as a chairman or deputy chairman of an ad hoc committee.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset, I freely admit that this amendment would have no effect on the Bill in its current form. Indeed, if the Minister were now to give a clear assurance to the House that the Government have no intention of reintroducing Report stage Clause 1 in another place, I would gladly withdraw my amendment and sit down. However, if the Government are minded to reintroduce what was Clause 1, then this amendment would have an effect, a very important effect.
My amendment would prevent persons holding a "disqualifying office" from being nominated as a chairman or deputy chairman of an ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Therefore, it would
1252
prohibit a Minister of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, or a committee chairman or deputy chairman of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland, being nominated as a chairman or deputy chairman of an ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Both in Committee and on Report the Government have shown that they can be persuaded. They were persuaded on points regarding the policing board, committees of the Republic of Ireland legislature and the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission. I am optimistic that the Government will be persuaded again. An amendment was offered in Committee to add the presiding officer and the deputy presiding officer to the list of positions to which a holder of "disqualifying office" could not be appointed. The Government rejected the amendment on the grounds that the presiding officer and deputy presiding officer have no role in relation to the initiation of policy or policy development.
Again on Report the Government rejected an amendment to add the presiding officer to the list of positions to which a holder of a disqualifying office could not be appointed. Will the Minister confirm that by virtue of Section 40(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 the presiding officer must be a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission? Will the Minister also confirm that the holder of a disqualifying office is barred from being the presiding officer because the presiding officer must be in the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission?
Of course, we must consider this amendment on the assumption that the Report stage Clause 1 will be reintroduced in another place. As the Bill stands, no holder of a disqualifying office can even sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
At Committee stage of this Bill and again on Report, ad hoc committees were rejected on the basis that they have no statutory role in the development of policy. But is it necessary to have a statutory role in the development of policy in order to have a role in the development of policy? I think not. It is quite possible to have a role in policy development without that role being statutory. Thus, ad hoc committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly have a role in the development of policy.
The Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 came before this House on Thursday, the second of this month. The issue of flags was discussed in a committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly before the regulations were brought forward. It was an ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly in which the issue of flags was discussed. Does the Minister believe that it would have been prudent for a Minister in the Government of the Republic of Ireland or a holder of any other disqualifying office to have been a chair or deputy chair of that committee? Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable to have a Minister of the Government of the Republic of Ireland involved in deciding where the national flag should, or should not, be flown in any part of the United Kingdom?
The Government have conceded that a chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee would have potential conflict of interests with the holder of a disqualifying office. They should also concede that the same potential conflict of interests would arise with a chair or deputy chair in an ad hoc committee.
In urging the Government to accept this amendment I also urge them not to reintroduce the clause removed on Report. I would be more than happy for the Government to refuse to accept this amendment if they give an undertaking that they will not reintroduce the removed clause in another place. Something that was not part of the Belfast agreement and demanded in the agreement should never have been introduced by the Government at the request of Sinn Fein. When I refer to the "request of Sinn Fein" I do so in the same vein as Sinn Fein refers to "discouraging" young Catholics from becoming members of the police service in Northern Ireland and that is, let it be noted, post the police Bill.
Sinn Fein/IRA has for many years discouraged—and still does—young Catholics from participating in policing through murder, violence and intimidation. Now Sinn Fein requests a measure and the Government either place a Sinn Fein clause in the Bill as with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, or, as in the case of this Bill, the Government produce an entire Bill. Just as "discouragement" means intimidation for Sinn Fein/IRA, the Government appear to read a Sinn Fein request as an order.
Surely this Government must learn, and must learn quickly, that the insatiable appetite of republicanism can never be satisfied. If the Government produce a piece of legislation which contains a specific Northern Ireland issue, or they produce a Bill with particular Northern Ireland aspects, they must not continue to consider only the views and wishes of Sinn Fein/IRA. Carrots alone do not maintain motivation unless interspersed with the occasional stick. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I raise what appears to me rather a substantial point. It seems that we are now discussing an amendment proposed to a clause which is not there or is part of a Bill which has been declared dead. Without Clause 1 the Bill no longer has any life or meaning. According to my understanding, Clause 1 was taken out on 20th November by your Lordships' House. Now the noble Lord, Lord Rogan—no blame attaches to him—has somehow, with considerable ingenuity, managed to persuade the Table Office to accept an amendment to a clause which has gone. He has properly expressed a wish that the Government in another place will not seek to replace Clause 1 in a Bill which is now effectively dead. He rightly fears—I certainly share his anxiety—that if the Government were to be so insensitive (that is the politest word I can think of) as to reintroduce the now dead Clause 1, they would revive the whole Bill and give it a fresh life in a quite indecent fashion which I do not think anyone could possibly welcome.
1254
I do not wish to speak about the merits of the amendment at this stage. The noble and learned Lord has a disagreeable responsibility in regard to the Bill. He has a rather difficult time of it these days and I have the utmost sympathy for him. I say sincerely that I always respect the patience, intelligence and courtesy with which he handles tricky and difficult situations. However, on this particular occasion he will have a lot of explaining to do with regard to what in this thoroughly undesirable Bill is now living and capable of meaning anything and whether he and his colleagues in another place intend to do the dreadful thing of reviving the corpse by giving the Bill its Clause 1, or its head, back again so that once again the wretched creature will be capable of breathing and of living.
Before the merits of the noble Lord's reasonable and sensible amendment are gone into further, I do not think that it is too much to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will be kind enough to comment on the degree of animation which this ghastly corpse can expect to receive from his colleagues in the near future. I earnestly hope that the noble and learned Lord will say that the Government have no such sinister intentions of restoring to life a Bill which never deserved anything other than total condemnation.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I had better intervene at this stage as the Minister did riot intervene while my noble friend was speaking; otherwise he might bring the debate to a conclusion.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am advised that I am allowed to speak only once in this debate. Intervening in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I should make it clear that it is the Government's intention if the Bill do now pass to argue in another place that the former Clause 1 of the Bill should be reinstated. We stand by this Bill and intend to pursue this Bill. I speak by way of intervention rather than losing my right to speak.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I paid my very sincere tribute to him in the hope that he would be able to influence his honourable and right honourable friends elsewhere to emulate the virtues for which I have given him credit.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with temerity, I remind noble Lords that it is Third Reading. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord. Lord Peyton, that speaking once and intervening in the intervention of another speaker is stretching the point.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may resume my remarks. First, I deeply deplore the announcement that the noble and learned Lord made, although it came as no surprise. However, I shall return to that a little later.
I hope that the Bill will remain dead and will not be revived. But if it were to be revived, then this amendment would be a valuable small addition to the

1255
Bill. Without the amendment, the incredible difficulties of dual loyalties—they are the reasons that the Bill is so potentially damaging—could be much worse. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I deal with the first point of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, I have indicated the Government's intentions with regard to the former Clause 1 of the Bill.
On the proposed amendment, I confirm that the presiding officer is a member of the Assembly Commission by virtue of Section 40(2)(a) of the 1998 Act. Clause 2(2) of this Bill prevents persons appointed as members of the commission from also holding the offices listed in that clause. This clause does not cover the presiding officer since he is not appointed but is a member of the commission by virtue of the 1998 Act.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to answer my question, which concerns me greatly. How is it possible for us now to debate an amendment to a clause which is no longer in the Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the clause which is being amended is new Clause 1 of the present Bill. Therefore, there is a clause which can be amended. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, comes to my aid by nodding vigorously. Procedurally, there is no question but that the debate on the amendment can go forward. I believe that that view is confirmed by the Table Office and the learned Clerk. In terms of procedure it is perfectly possible to debate the amendment. As a matter of substance, it is right that the issue should be debated, it having been made clear by me on behalf of the Government that we shall argue in another place for the reintroduction of Clause 1.
The amendment of the noble Lord seeks to prevent holders of disqualifying offices—those are the various offices mentioned in the present Clause 1—from being able to take up positions as chairmen or deputy chairmen of the Assembly ad hoc committee, as he said, to avoid conflicts of interest. We do not believe that those safeguards will be necessary in the selection of those offices. First, unlike statutory committees, ad hoc committees do not have the same role in the development of policy and legislation. Secondly, and more importantly, unlike the restricted offices included in the present Clause 1 of the Bill, ad hoc committee chairmen and deputy chairmen are not selected by the d'Hondt procedure and so are not automatically appointed. There is, therefore, room for discretion in making appointments. Candidates with existing offices in the Irish Parliament could be passed over if it were thought that they were unsuitable to be a chairperson or a deputy chairperson of the ad hoc
1256
committee. Consequently, the Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and await the Government's more considered response at a later date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, typically for this Bill, this is the last Third Reading of this Session. The Bill has been at the bottom of the legislative pile throughout its passage in this place. It was introduced into another place just before Christmas last year. Its Second Reading here was as late in July as it was possible to be. Committee and Report stages were both delayed; and Third Reading now comes at the end of the Session. That is amazing for a Bill which was presented to the Commons as so urgent that it had to be passed in two days—and that was in January.
The Bill as it stands is meaningless. I doubt whether this House has ever sent such complete rubbish to another place. It is the sweepings of a Bill. It contains only consequential clauses but no operative clause. As it stands, its only effect would be to prevent Irish senators from sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which no one wishes to do.
The Government's cover story about bringing Ireland into line with the Commonwealth, which it left voluntarily 50 years ago, was completely blown away in the course of our debates, revealing in stark clarity the central proposal of the Bill. That was itself demolished in this House, leaving these sweepings.
No Member of Parliament from a Commonwealth country has ever sat in Westminster at the same time and no one is going to do so. No Member of Parliament from any other European Union country can sit in Westminster at the same time as being a member of his own parliament; and no one proposes that he should be able to do so. Sinn Fein/IRA want this Bill. It is not that they want to sit in two parliaments at once. We know that they do not accept the validity of the Westminster Parliament with respect to Northern Ireland. It is expressed sometimes as not wishing to take the Oath but it goes much deeper. It is a hostility to all our proceedings here. They do not want to sit in the Westminster Parliament and the Dail at the same time. They want to be able to claim to represent Northern Ireland constituencies in the Dail. That reason for wanting this Bill is not simply a contention from this side of the House. It is fully stated and documented Sinn Fein policy, as has been made clear in our debates.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said on Report that such a claim to represent part of the United Kingdom in the Dail would be constitutionally

1257
wrong. I agree. That is what makes it extraordinary that the Government should want to make that possible. The noble and learned Lord speaks as though it were all a gesture of good will with no effective consequences. But, if passed in its original form, the Bill would provide heavy and sustained propaganda opportunities for Sinn Fein/IRA for the foreseeable future. It is not part of the Good Friday agreement. It has nothing to do with the new joint institutions for British-Irish co-operation which we have always supported and which followed on from that agreement. Worse than that, it is a one-way concession: it applies only to Irish citizens but not to British citizens.
On Report, the noble and learned Lord gave us at some length details of the changes to the Irish constitution about which we all know. But he could not tell us that the Irish constitution would be changed to allow British citizens to sit in the Dail.
In any event, the Bill as it originally stood was wrong in principle. No one can legally represent two United Kingdom constituencies at the same time in the House of Commons and, more to the point, they should not be able to represent two constituencies in different sovereign Parliaments at the same time.
There have been suggestions that the Bill is part of a secret deal between the Government and Sinn Fein. Perhaps that is what the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms meant when he referred to it as part of the "choreography" of Northern Ireland. Further, it has been suggested that it resulted from the deal when the Prime Minister wrote his hand-written appeal to Northern Ireland electors to support the agreement at the time of the referendum. If that was so, in my view the Government need feel no compunction about it. The promises made at that time have been dishonoured root and branch by Sinn Fein, particularly in respect of decommissioning.
In the course of our debates in this House we have shown the true nature of this Bill and its consequences. The House decided clearly that the Bill's central proposition was highly objectionable. Therefore, we are sending a husk of the original Bill to another place. They must confront the issues, which they were not able to do in January.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have consistently maintained that this Bill is worth while, that it is positive and that it is symbolic of a new era in the history of the United Kingdom and Ireland. We are seeking to allow Members of the Irish Parliament the opportunity to campaign and to take up seats in the United Kingdom legislatures in recognition of the extremely close and positive ties which exist between Britain and Ireland. Nevertheless, as the vote to drop the former Clause 1 demonstrated, it appears that many here do not agree that this new relationship is sufficiently important to warrant this Bill.
The simple rationale for introducing the Bill nearly a year ago was, and still is, to recognise the advances made since the advent of the Good Friday agreement
1258
in the constitutional and political future of Northern Ireland and, in particular, the effect that that has had on our relationship with one other nation—Ireland.
That relationship was proved in the negotiations which resulted in the Belfast agreement. It was the British and Irish Governments working together with the parties that made it possible to reach agreement. Throughout the crucial and difficult process which led to the Belfast agreement, and again subsequently when we experienced setbacks in the full implementation of the agreement, the Irish Government were key players in bringing the political process back on track, sometimes at potential cost and in the face of personal tragedy.
The historic agreement is a pact not only between the Northern Ireland parties and the British Government, but also between the Irish and British Governments and with the people of Northern Ireland. Quite simply, it would not have been possible to get this far without the contribution of the Irish Government or, indeed, the support of the Irish people, as shown in the referendum on the Belfast agreement.
Our relationship with Ireland has been strengthened not only by the Good Friday agreement, but by the British-Irish agreement, which replaced the Anglo-Irish agreement. Under this new agreement, the Irish Government fulfilled their commitment to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. With the endorsement of over 94 per cent of the Irish voting public, the Irish Government removed the territorial claim over Northern Ireland which had existed as a central principle of the Irish constitution for 80 years.
The Irish Government and the Irish people showed that they accepted and supported the principle of consent that Northern Ireland would remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as the majority within Northern Ireland wished it to be so; and, crucially, they recognised the separateness of Northern Ireland from Ireland.
We must not forget that these developments have accompanied huge progress in Northern Ireland. For the first time in 30 years the main paramilitary groups are on ceasefire. Violence, death and destruction are no longer a part of everyday life for the majority of people living in Northern Ireland. The strong economic growth there is higher than in most other regions of the United Kingdom, and there is rising employment, inward investment and an increase in living standards across the community.
We have returned power to a devolved Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland, placing responsibility back where it belongs, in the hands of local representatives. They are rising to the challenge with enthusiasm, imagination and energy.
All that has happened and is happening. The achievements are a matter of fact, not of interpretation. They came about only because the United Kingdom and Ireland were prepared to work together to bring peace and to lay a solid foundation for Northern Ireland's future. Of course, I am not saying that the current situation is perfect; we still have

1259
a long way to go. But we have travelled a long way already and at every step we have been supported by the Irish Government. I believe that this Bill gives modest recognition of that fact.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. In the middle of his rather misplaced triumphal song, I ask him what evidence or expectation he has that any Irish citizen other than a member of Sinn Fein will make use of the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have no idea who will use the Bill. By way of argument, I am saying that the Bill recognises the strengthening relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Government. It does not give automatic rights to representation to Members; it simply makes it possible for the electorate to have a wider choice of candidates. In doing so, it extends the democratic principle.
I finish by answering a question which has been asked throughout the debates in this House: who wants this Bill? The Government want it because they recognise all that the partnership with Ireland has brought in recent years. By the same token, the Irish Government support and welcome the Bill. For the reason that I gave earlier—the extension of the democratic principle—it is also generally supported by the nationalist population. The Bill is also welcomed by a number of the political parties in Northern Ireland, such as the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition.
There is support for the Bill and there are good reasons to support it. I urge all those who want cooperation with the Irish Government and progress in Northern Ireland to support it.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is attending a family funeral in Northern Ireland, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Burlison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to HL Bill 134 as first printed for the Commons]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 4, page 6, line 25, leave out ("registered") and insert ("private").
  Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I wish to speak also to Commons
  1260
  Amendments Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The Care Standards Act amends the definitions of residential care homes, nursing homes and registered children's homes to care homes, independent hospitals and private children's homes. In restating Section 24 of the Children Act, the Children (Leaving Care) Bill deploys at Sections 24(2)(d) and 24(2)(c) the existing definitions of such homes. It was introduced ahead of the Care Standards Bill.
  Amendments updating those references were made to the Children Act in the Care Standards Act at its Committee stage in order to avoid having to table amendments to the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. Those amendments were drafted on the reasonable assumption that the amendments to the Children Act made by the Children (Leaving Care) Bill would have become law first. In the event, that did not happen. Therefore, the amendments refer to new sections of the Children Act which did not exist at the time that the Care Standards Act obtained Royal Assent.
  As a consequence, the amendments have no effect. Therefore, we need to amend the Bill in order to bring into line the references to such homes and to remove the now incorrect amendments to the Care Standards Act. These amendments are technical and have no new policy implications. I commend them to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Burlison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 4, page 6, line 31, leave out from ("any") to second ("or") in line 32 and insert ("care home or independent hospital").
  Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Burlison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Clause 4, page 8, line 11, after ("full-time") insert ("further or").
  Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3 and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 to 6. This Bill is all about improving life chances for young people who have been in care. Education is the best way to do that—helping them into jobs, careers and a fulfilling and productive role in society. That is why the Bill is assiduous in creating duties to help with education and training even beyond the point at which young people leave care.
  The new duties for qualifying care leavers aged 18 and over specifically include a duty on councils to assist with education and training to the end of the agreed course, even if that takes a young person past the age of 21. The Bill has always backed that up with a new duty to provide vacation accommodation for care

  1261
  leavers in higher education. This was introduced because we were aware of cases where a young person who had left care was unable to take up a university place simply because he would not be able to find somewhere to live during vacations. That is why it applies to all care leavers, not just to those to whom the rest of the Bill applies.
  Since the Bill has been making its passage through Parliament, we have been made aware of the fact that vacation accommodation can be an issue for some further education students as well. For the most part, students take FE courses near to home, at their local school or college, studying from home. Those students do not have special accommodation needs during vacations and the amendments do not affect them.
  However there are some courses—agricultural, horticultural and some arts courses—which are run at residential colleges and those students are in the same position as many university students during vacations in needing to find alternative accommodation. So we have decided explicitly to extend the duty to provide vacation accommodation to care leavers who require it to cover these FE students as well.
  Amendment No. 6 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations defining "further education" for the purposes of this Bill and the intention is to define it in terms of the kind of residential FE courses which I have described. Amendment No. 4 adds the qualifier,
  "because his term time accommodation is not available to him then"
  to establish the reason why a student would need to call on that duty. Most students have the option open to them to return to their family home during vacations—an option which is not available to care leavers. These amendments are intended to create a more level playing field by making sure that care leavers are not left with nowhere to go during vacations. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Burlison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  4 Clause 4, page 8, line 12, after ("vacation") insert ("because his term-time accommodation is not available to him then").
  5 Page 8, line 14, leave out ("then") and insert ("during the vacation").
  6 Page 8, line 18, leave out (""full-time higher education"") and insert (""full-time", "further education", "higher education"").
  Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.—(Lord Burlison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  7 Clause 4, page 8, line 31, leave out ("registered") and insert ("private").
  8 Page 8, line 35, leave out from ("any") to ("or") in line 36 and insert ("care home or independent hospital").
  9 Page 8, line 44, at end insert—
  ("() If subsection (1) comes into force before the commencement of section 11 of the Care Standards Act 2000—

  (a) until that commencement, the references to a "private children's home" in sections 24(2)(c) and 24C(2)(a) of the 1989 Act as substituted by subsection (1) are to be read as references to a registered children's home; and

  (b) until that commencement, the references to any "care home or independent hospital" in sections 24(2)(d)(ii) and 24C(2)(c), as so substituted, are to be read as references to any residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home,

  and paragraph 14(4) of Schedule 4 to the Care Standards Act 2000 (which amends section 24 of the 1989 Act) is repealed.").
  10 Clause 7, page 10, line 27, at end insert—
  ("(5) In the Care Standards Act 2000, in Schedule 4 (minor and consequential amendments)—

  (a) in paragraph 14(4), the words ", as it has effect before the commencement of section 4 of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000"; and

  (b) paragraph 14(5) and (6),

  are repealed.").
  11 Clause 8, page 10, line 29, after ("from") insert ("section 7(5) and").
  Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 11.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 7 to 11.—(Lord Burlison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  12 Clause 11, page 11, line 7, leave out subsection (10).
  Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. This amendment is simply the usual formality of removing the privilege amendment inserted as is customary into a Bill which starts its passage in your Lordships' House before being sent to another place. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Lord Burlison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
With the leave of the House, perhaps I may explain that due to unusual circumstances, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has only just received a copy of the Statement. Therefore, through the usual channels, we have agreed that my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton will first deal with the Commons amendments.

1263
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO
CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS
AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS
AMENDMENTS TO WHICH THE COMMONS
HAVE DISAGREED, COMMONS AMENDMENTS
TO THE WORDS RESTORED TO THE BILL BY
THE COMMONS' DISAGREEMENT TO CERTAIN
LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL
AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN
LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 83 as first printed for the Lords]

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  14 Clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out ("accommodation") and insert ("supervision")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  14A Because the Commons believe that it is necessary to make clear the circumstances in which accommodation may be provided in approved premises under the arrangements in question.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. I was slightly indisposed. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the said reasons.
  These amendments reverse the changes made on Report in your Lordships' House which called into question the ability to fund hostel accommodation and restricted the categories of those who could be accommodated in hostels
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be helpful to all of us if the noble Lord would tell us to which amendment he is speaking.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should have said that I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 14A.
  This is a small but important group of amendments that seeks to undo changes made in this House on Report that, perhaps inadvertently, did serious damage to local boards' ability to use hostels properly. I say that it was inadvertent because I do not think there is much, if anything, between us in terms of the policy. In moving Amendment No. 14 on Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, emphasised the importance of supervision in hostels. I agree absolutely with that.
  Clause 9(1) of the Bill, as amended in the Committee of this House, defines the provision of accommodation as being for persons granted bail in criminal proceedings or—and this is the important bit—for, or in connection with the supervision or rehabilitation of persons convicted of offences. The whole purpose of
  1264
  hostels is that they offer supervised accommodation. Everyone who is resident in a hostel is required to abide by the hostel rules, including a curfew and a ban on alcohol and non-prescription drugs. A resident breaking those rules is likely to lose his place, which in some circumstances can result in a removal to prison.
  My right honourable friend the Home Secretary gave an assurance to the noble Baroness's right honourable friend in another place that all those in hostels are and would, under the Bill, be subject to supervision. I am happy to repeat that assurance now.
  I hope that I have explained clearly why the Government have brought forward these amendments and why those changes were made in another place. I trust that your Lordships will now be content with them.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 14A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I am grateful for the correspondence that we have received between the last stage of the Bill and today. I am grateful also to the Minister for putting on the record the effect which I wished to bring about with my amendments. It is not customary to criticise counsel in these matters. It is extraordinary that the reference to "approved premises" is not subsumed to mean "accommodation". I am not a lawyer so I am not competent to take issue on that point. We all agree that anyone who is referred to a bail hostel should be there under the supervision of the bail hostel staff.
  While we are putting matters on the record, it is important for the Minister to consider the following. I am particularly concerned about the staff of bail hostels and their legal position. From the debates that we have had on this Bill, my understanding is that the Home Secretary intends that accommodation will be made available for those who have spent convictions but who are, nevertheless, still deemed by the police, social services or the Home Secretary to be a risk to the community. They can be accommodated in bail hostels, and if they are so accommodated, they will be supervised.
  My understanding is that there will be no court authority for that. If someone like Robert Oliver, who has been referred to in much of the correspondence, were to go to a bail hostel when his period on licence is spent as well as his period in custody, he would have to go voluntarily. That would have to be on a voluntary basis because that is the only way in which such a person can take up accommodation in a bail hostel. However, if such a person were to go into a bail hostel voluntarily but then breached the rules of the hostel and breached the supervision, it would be almost impossible to do anything about it.
  It is important that we understand and protect the position of those who will supervise someone who is deemed to be dangerous. I specifically mention dangerous people because that is the example given to me by the Home Secretary in correspondence. He was particularly concerned about that category of person.

  1265
  As well as the issue of breaching the rules of the hostel, there is also the issue of something going wrong, of that person behaving in a manner that falls short of conditions for arrest but nevertheless presents a serious problem to the staff working in the hostel. As the Bill is in its final stages, it is important that we understand that their concerns are properly met by the arrangements made by the Home Secretary.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is possible that the noble Baroness is intertwining two issues. I shall try to deal with the point. In breaching the conditions of supervision the person may commit another offence and could be picked up by the police if the whereabouts of that individual are known. The noble Baroness will recall from earlier debates that the reason why we were concerned about the effect of her amendment was that we felt that it undermined the ability within the service to find this type of accommodation. It was for that reason that we took the opportunity in another place to reverse the effect of her amendment.
  We have had extensive correspondence about that and I believe we now have a common understanding of the position. I believe that the noble Baroness is absolutely right. We require this type of accommodation and we must ensure that we can properly supervise people like Robert Oliver; otherwise it would be difficult to find the kind of accommodation where people like him could be properly and effectively supervised either because they are on licence or for their own protection. We are trying to ensure that such accommodation which will protect them, and more importantly the public, is in place.
  The amendments that we have put in place ensure that. In those circumstances they will be properly supervised. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness. I shall be happy to elucidate further and to provide further clarification. We accept that this is a serious matter.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has not answered any part of my point. For all intents and purposes, the individual is an innocent person. I notice that the Home Secretary has re-submitted the words "at any time", so it is a person who at any time in his life has been charged with and/or convicted of an offence. The offence may have been spent a long time ago; it may have been spent weeks, months or years ago, so the person, of their own volition or with some persuasion presumably from those who believe that he is a risk to the public—the social services, the Home Secretary or the police—may go into a bail hostel.
  It is important to know precisely what protection there is for the supervisors—the bail hostel staff—who have no legal locus whatever over such people. The Minister has said, as the measures of the Bill set out, that the staff will supervise them. If those people breach the rules of the hostel—for example, if they do not come in by 11 o'clock at night and the staff do not know where they are—what can the staff do? Such a matter is not a punishable offence. Those people are
  1266
  free people; they are deemed to be innocent people. They just happen to be people who once, some time ago, were charged with or were convicted of an offence which is long since spent. If they are dangerous, what protection is there for the bail hostel staff? They will have no protection because they will have no legal locus over such people in a hostel.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness to consider that she is extending the range of consideration and debate on this point. We cannot afford for these individuals to be at large within the community. Of course, we are bringing forward other proposals precisely to deal with the kind of problem to which the noble Baroness refers. This amendment seeks to ensure that dangerous offenders who are at liberty are protected and that the public are protected as well. Providing accommodation for them in a hostel is designed to do that. I hope that that answers the point. Clearly it is important that they are in supervised accommodation. I believe that the original amendment tabled by the noble Baroness arose from her misunderstanding these matters. We have clarified that and we need to focus on the amendment rather than the other issues that the noble Baroness has brought in, understandable though those concerns are.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order, but with the leave of the House perhaps I can say that that does not answer my point. The hostel staff have listened to the debates. So far they have been dismayed and they will be dismayed further. I hope that the Minister will write to the staff and give them an assurance.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  15 Clause 5, page 3, line 25, leave out ("at any time")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  15A Because the Commons believe that it is appropriate to restrict in the manner proposed the category of person for whom the service in question may be provided under arrangements made by local probation boards.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 15A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 15A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  25 Clause 7, page 4, line 30, at end insert (", provided that no such direction shall merge the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  25A Because the Commons believe that it is unnecessary to impose the proposed restriction on the power to give directions.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 25A.
  The amendment made by your Lordships is unnecessary because in the light of the result of consultation the Government do not intend to appoint a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation. It is not envisaged that any such appointment would be made without seeking the approval of the House in some form.
  I fully understand the concerns that have been expressed in this House and elsewhere about the possibility that the posts of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation might be combined. We said that we would consider carefully the results of the consultation exercise, which we announced on 27th July and which concluded on 31st October, before reaching any decision about making a combined appointment. On 14th November I announced in a Written Answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Orme, what the findings of the consultation exercise had been. It may be helpful to this House if I summarise them again. Full copies of all responses received have been laid in the Library.
  The consultation exercise ended on 31st October. A majority of those consulted favoured some change, establishing terms of reference for the inspection of joint working between the criminal justice agencies and the sharing of inspectors between the inspectorates. In contrast, only small minorities were in favour of the status quo or of the appointment of a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation.
  During the consultation exercise a helpful scheme was put forward by HM Chief Inspectors of Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates' courts, and the Probation and Prison Services to inspect practice across their boundaries systematically. That scheme has much to recommend it and the consultation exercise also suggests that it will command broad support. It is therefore the option that we propose to pursue along with the arrangements canvassed in the consultation exercise for bringing the work of the inspectorates closer together.
  That is a brief explanation of our position. But I hope the House will agree, following our full and open consultation exercise, and the fact that we listened carefully to the views put forward both in response to consultation and in your Lordships' House, that we have fairly moved forward.
  1268
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 25A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  4 p.m.
  Lord Windlesham: My Lords, as I was the mover of the amendment which was carried on Report in this House, perhaps I may comment on the decision in another place.
  It comes as a great relief. The Home Secretary has given two reasons for his change of heart. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, explained that the consultation process, which was due to end on 31st October, showed overwhelmingly that there was little support for the idea of a joint inspectorate of prisons and probation. It is good to know that the results of the consultation paper, which were not expected anything like so early, have been brought forward and that the views of those who were consulted were broadly in line with those expressed in your Lordships' House.
  The second reason given by the Home Secretary, who spoke when this matter was debated on 14th November in the House of Commons, was that during the consultation exercise a helpful scheme was suggested by Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates' courts, and the Probation and Prison Services, to inspect the practice across their boundaries systematically. Again, that reflects current practice. It is highly desirable that there should be joint inspectorates. Sir David Ramsbotham has said that repeatedly and there have been a number of joint inspections within the Prison Service in recent years. That was mentioned in our own debates.
  Therefore, welcome though that response is, it is no change whatever. It was good to hear it repeated by the Home Secretary as the second reason he gave. He had the generosity to say that strong opinions had been expressed in this House. But naturally, in the more adversarial setting of the House of Commons, he did not want there to be any hint of a climbdown so those were the reasons given. Nevertheless, this is a substantial improvement. It is fair to say that there are still concerns in the Probation Service—my noble friend Lady Blatch may have something to say about that—so it is by no means a perfect outcome. However, it is a great relief compared with what might have been and what was in the Bill as it stood before the action taken by your Lordships' House.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, as a Minister formerly responsible at one stage both for the Prison Service Inspectorate and for the Probation Inspectorate, I echo what my noble friend Lord Windlesham said about the great relief felt in both services and by those who had knowledge of them at the decision the Government have taken, whatever reasons they give for it.

  1269
  I pay tribute to the initiative of my noble friend Lord Windlesham for resisting the provision and thank him for his contribution in persuading the Government of what is a far better policy than that on which they originally embarked.
  The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, from these Benches I repeat our relief at the outcome. The original suggestion was widely resisted by probation officers, which is why the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, who is bishop to prisons, has been involved in the progress of this Bill.
  We certainly need to tackle crime. But we believe that is best clone by working with young people to give them a sense of belonging to society and by strengthening their values and moral sense. That is best clone, wherever possible, outside prisons. Therefore I speak on behalf of the integrity of the Probation Service in its own right and without seeing it as part of the prison establishment.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate. The integrity of each service is important, and the Government have gone a long way to see that that will be established from the top.
  Nevertheless, no doubt we shall all reserve judgment until we have seen the final document which will set out the practical details of how the inspection service will work, co-operatively where it makes sense, but distinctly where it is important that they are, although within the criminal justice system, distinct services pursuing different practices. We shall therefore wait for the final document. However, on behalf of the services, and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Windlesham who has worked so hard on this, I accept the improvements made so far.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  39 Clause 18, page 8, line 28, leave out ("(other than a chief probation officer)")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  39A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to he made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton:: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 39A.
  In moving this amendment, it may be helpful to the House if I begin with a brief word about the procedure to be followed. Grouped with this amendment is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, which
  1270
  asks the House to reject the Commons reason and to insist on the original amendment which was carried on Report in this House.
  When I have finished speaking, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will speak to his amendment. The debate will then take place on that amendment and, at the end of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will decide whether or not to press his amendment. I hope that, by then, I will have convinced him to withdraw it and that the Commons reason will be accepted. However, I should make clear what will happen if the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, decides to press his amendment.
  If the noble Lord's amendment is carried, the Commons reason will fall and the House will have decided to insist on the original Amendment. No. 39 made on Report. If, on the other hand, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is defeated, the implication is that the House will then agree to the Commons reason. Thus, I expect there to be only one Division; and on that vote, in simple terms, a vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is a vote for insistence; and a vote against his amendment is a vote for the Commons reasons for non-insistence. I hope that explanation has been helpful to your Lordships' House.
  This group of amendments deals with the appointment of chief officers. At Report stage, your Lordships changed the arrangements so as to make chief officers appointable by local boards with the approval of the Secretary of State rather than by the Secretary of State. The other place restored the original provisions of the Bill, subject to amendments to tidy up the drafting and to reflect the change of description from "local board" to "local probation board", which was made by your Lordships and accepted by the other place. The government amendments invite your Lordships now to agree with the Commons, subject to the significant protection of local interests inserted by government Amendment No. 121B, which I shall describe in detail in a few moments. Amendment No. 121C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would maintain the disagreement.
  At earlier stages of the Bill, your Lordships clearly made your views known on the appointment of chief officers. You invited the other place to reconsider the matter. They have done so and have returned the measures for further consideration by your Lordships. While your Lordships may not be persuaded by all the arguments from the other place, I urge you to bear in mind that the measure was re-inserted in the Bill by a substantial majority. I hope that that, together with the additional safeguard provided by Amendment No. 121B, will enable me to convince your Lordships that you should not stand in the way of this important Bill.
  These amendments are fundamental to the Bill. Lengthy discussions took place during the passage of the Bill, both here and in another place, on the position

  1271
  of chief officers. The Government have listened carefully to the arguments and—
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We do not have Amendment No. 121B in our papers. I have now been handed the amendment on a separate piece of paper.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. I had a feeling of dread and horror as she said that. I shall continue with the thread of my argument. The Government have listened very carefully to the arguments and have concluded that our original proposal, that chief officers should be statutory office holders appointed by the Secretary of State, remains the best option. The proposal that chief officers should be employees of boards and appointed by them, despite being members of those same boards, all of whose other members have been appointed by the Secretary of State, would in our view seriously undermine the establishment of a national service and confuse national accountability. We wish to see chief officers fulfilling the role of effective chief executives of local services, directly accountable to the Secretary of State through the national director.
  I shall attempt to summarise the arguments against appointment by the Secretary of State and in favour of the amendments agreed by your Lordships on Report. They fall into two categories. The first contends that local is best and that it is an essential function of local probation boards to appoint their own chief officers, albeit subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. I understand that argument. However, I believe that it is misguided. Crime does not recognise local authority or national boundaries. If we are to receive an effective response, we need to take a wider view of these matters, in a national context and not in terms of traditional, local boxes.
  This Bill seeks to create a national probation service, organised into 42 local areas, to match those of the other criminal justice agencies. A national service would offer several advantages: greater consistency in dealing with offenders, so providing more effective and rigorous enforcement of community sentences; centrally-led offending behaviour programmes, based on real evidence that they work, and implemented in accordance with carefully designed procedures; a national risk management strategy, under which all services operate in accordance with the same procedures and use the same commonly understood terminology. But, of course, national services have always to be delivered locally. Therefore, it is inevitable that there should be both a national and a local focus for the service. Achieving a balance between the two is a matter of judgment. In our view, the principal focus must be national, in order to achieve the ambitious but realistic national targets for reducing re-offending that the Government have set for the service, and to give the service the best chance of protecting the public.
  1272
  The existing system, under which individual areas appoint their own chief officers, has failed. While there are many excellent chief probation officers, there are also some who are far from effective. One needs only to consider the variation in performance and the excessive variation in standards. For example, only 8 per cent of offenders who should have been breached were returned to court in one area, against 89 per cent in another. We need greater consistency. One way of achieving that is through the close control of the appointment of senior managers. The Government believe that the key executive in each area—the chief probation officer—should be appointed centrally. Consistency on appointments will lead to greater consistency in management, which will in turn lead to greater consistency in standards of performance.
  However, we agree that it is important that the local probation board should be involved in the selection of its chief officer. For that reason, during the current round of recruitment we have included the chairman designate, or other appropriate representatives from the local probation board, on the selection panel for every chief officer post to be filled. In that way, we can ensure a powerful local input to the process. That is the principle enshrined in our new Amendment No. 121B, which inserts a new sub-paragraph into paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. It requires that there should be a proper selection panel for all the Home Secretary's appointments occurring after the national probation service comes into being. It further requires that, in the case of chief officers, the local probation board should be represented on the panel. We believe that that is an important safeguard for local interests. I hope that the whole House will welcome it.
  The second category of arguments against the Government's position is what I shall refer to as the managerial argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and others have argued that the Government's proposals would create confused accountability. We do not agree. In our view, the lines are clear. The chief officer will be a member of the board and will be expected to assist in creating and implementing the board's policy. His executive membership of the board makes him clearly responsible for the deployment of the board's staff. But his own line management accountability will be to the National Director of the Probation Service and, ultimately, to the Secretary of State. Any conflict between the Board and the Secretary of State will be resolved by means of a direction to the board from the Secretary of State, under the terms of paragraph 12 of Schedule 1.
  The amendments carried in this House on Report would create more confusion. They would provide for the boards to appoint one of their own number. That would result in a very peculiar relationship. I am disappointed that the arguments in favour of the status quo have been sustained as long as they have, with little evidence to support them.
  It has been pointed out, unfavourably, that there is no direct precedent for the appointment procedure favoured by the Government. That is true. However, there is no other structure quite like this one. It is a specific solution designed for a specific service. It

  1273
  combines the consistency of a national service with the local responsiveness of area organisation. An essential part of that system is that chief officers should be appointed by the Secretary of State. To achieve that effect, I urge your Lordships to accept the amendments made in the other place, along with the new government Amendment No. 121B.
  Of this group, Amendments Nos. 39A, 45A, 46A, 48A, 49A, 121A, 122A, 123A and 124A, taken together, would restore the Bill to its original position on this subject before the amendments were carried on Report. Without the amendments, it will not be possible to establish a national probation service from next April. Much needed reforms will be delayed and the establishment of CAFCASS will be at risk. The proposed fundamental change to the new structure could not be achieved in the time available, and transitional arrangements would be required until boards could appoint chief officers. It seems inevitable that committees would need to remain in place for some time. In our view, that would hamper the transfer of staff and other assets involved in family court welfare to CAFCASS. From a practical point of view, the amendments simply do not work.
  Amendments Nos. 44A, 50A and 50D are technical, tidy up the drafting and ensure consistency of phraseology throughout the Bill. Amendments Nos. 44B, 50B, 50C, 50E and 130A make changes to ensure that, wherever the words "local board" appear in the Bill they are changed to "local probation board". This reflects further amendments passed by your Lordships which the Government have accepted.
  I commend all these amendments to the House and hope that your Lordships will now agree to the text determined in another place subject only to the Government's new amendments. There is no doubt that the arrangements for the national probation service have been enhanced by the debates in your Lordships' House but in our view the time has come when we must draw a line. We have made changes to try to meet the understandable concerns of noble Lords. While some will no doubt see that as the Government's hand being forced, I should prefer to take the line advanced earlier in our proceedings by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that this is an example of the revising Chamber doing its work well. But there is only so much revision that can be done without seriously undermining the new national structure we wish to see established and I believe that we have reached that point.
  The appointment of chief officers is a fundamental issue and the Government cannot move beyond the very real changes that we have accepted to the Bill and now propose through Amendment No. 121B. I commend to the House this and all the other government amendments. I hope that he noble Lord, Lord Dholakia will not press his amendment but, as I have already mentioned, if there is a Division and his amendment is carried, the Government's amendments will fall and the House will have decided to insist on its original amendments.
  I urge your Lordships to accept the Government's amendment in lieu and let the Bill pass.
  1274
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 39 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 39A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, this appears to be the appropriate time for me to speak to my Amendment No. 121C. Let me first concede that the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill is an important piece of legislation. We should never lose sight of the various provisions in the Bill which are designed to take into account issues of concern highlighted in recent times. The Bill is more effective now than when it was first introduced in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her colleagues on the Conservative Benches and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches must share a great deal of credit.
  Equally, I believe that after losing successive votes during the passage of the Bill the Government have looked at our concerns and offered solutions. For that, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
  There is no fundamental disagreement on three of the four issues which need resolution. That has already been identified. We are content with the assurances on the matter relating to hostels. However, I hope that the noble Lord will take into account some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Match. We have no concerns about the chief inspectors of prisons and probation. We are pleased that there is no intention to combine the two posts and I thank the Minister for his assurance. But it would have saved so much time if that ill-conceived idea had not been floated in the first place. Let us hope that it is buried for good.
  Then there is the matter of who owns and manages land used by the national probation service. Again, if the Minister were to clarify the Government's position as indicated to me in his letter of 27th November there is no dispute that local probation boards will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the buildings they occupy. I look forward to having that assurance.
  There now remains one matter which needs to be resolved. It relates to the procedures for appointing chief probation officers. There is a fundamental disagreement between the Government and ourselves on this matter. The Government's key objective is the successful creation and management of a national service. We subscribe to that aim. They see the appointment of the chief probation officer by the Secretary of State as crucial to that aim. We disagree with them. We believe in local accountability. The system has worked well and has delivered what was asked of it. To take its chief officers under central control and allowing the boards to appoint other staff is a recipe for disaster. I cannot see any precedent and the Minister has agreed that there is no precedent for such action with any other bodies.
  The Government's solution as reflected in the Minister's amendment simply tinkers with the procedure without due regard to the principles of local

  1275
  accountability and management of its affairs. We may ask why the Government want to establish a system which is so oppressive. They have enough powers to deliver a centralised service without recourse to central employment. Perhaps I may spell that out and examine the controls which the Government already have.
  The controls available to the Secretary of State include the appointment of chair members of the local probation boards under the Bill before us; default powers under the Probation Service Act 1993; and the removal of board and activation of a management order under this Bill. The latter allows the removal by the Secretary of State of any or all of the members of the board, including the chief officer who will be a member of the board. The Secretary of State has available 100 per cent funding, again under the present Bill; control of the allocation of funding between boards under the Probation Service Act 1993; ring-fenced funding for specific Home Office priorities under probation rules; the control and allocation of capital budgets under the probation rules; and the approval of chief probation officers for selection and appointment by probation committees under the Probation Service Act 1993 and under the probation rules. Your Lordships can see that the Secretary of State already has wide powers. Why does he need any more powers?
  Let us look at the accountability of boards through the Secretary of State for expenditure and service delivery. The list includes annual audit by the Audit Commission; inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation; national standards; annual reports—
  Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He appears to be making a Second Reading speech on Commons amendments. I believe that the House would prefer him to make a speech about the amendments in front of us.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, what I am saying directly relates to the powers of the Home Secretary so what I am saying is necessary. The noble Lord might like to refer to my speech in Hansard. I shall continue with it. The list includes an annual report and regular returns of specified statistics. That information is available to the Home Secretary. A number of possible alternatives could be put in place regarding chief probation officers.
  I accept that a good start has already been made by the Home Office in relation to the assessment of candidates for chief officer posts. With the exception of the inevitable teething troubles, the new assessment centre process looks promising and rigorous. Not only will it provide a pool of candidates assessed as suitable but it will also identify training and development needs for those who do not pass first time. Again, we welcome that. Candidates will be approved for particular posts or a range of posts. Those powers are already available to the Home Secretary.
  The process is, in effect, a licence to practice as a chief officer in the Probation Service. That is good enough. If that licence is available, employment by the
  1276
  local probation board should pose no problem whatever. Arrangements could be made for the secondment of chief officers. Least satisfactory but worth considering is the appointment of a chief officer to a local probation board by the Secretary of State. That is possible, so why do we need a centralised appointments service?
  I am well aware of the disputes which are pending on the basis of the selection procedures adopted. The Minister's formula means that the buck stops with the Secretary of State. What a sorry state of affairs if in future the Home Secretary has to appear in industrial tribunal on employment disputes with chief probation officers.
  Let me spell out two other concerns. The obsession with central control creates a system which will be seen as oppressive and remote. The only element in the criminal justice system which offers some support to those appearing in court is the Probation Service. The criminal justice process is valid as long as we all have a stake in it and we share its ownership. If that is lacking the system will lose its credibility. There is also the frightening thought that some Home Secretaries could use the system for political expediency from which we are immune at present. I trust that the Minister will think again.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister who both defended the position of the Government today and kindly wrote to us in the period between the Bill leaving this House and returning to it has totally missed the fundamental point made by all noble Lords in previous debates. Although this is a narrow technical and legal issue it is a matter of extreme significance. One is considering here the ownership, culpability, responsibility and accountability of the chief officer to the service of which he is head. Who is to be the employer, not when things go right but when they go wrong?
  At the outset, I must pose some very important questions. Are these bodies corporate bodies? What operational autonomy will be enjoyed by the chief officers as they execute their responsibilities? Under the terms of the Bill is the chief officer a public office holder or civil servant? It is no secret that as to those questions the Home Office is in great disarray. It is essential that we receive unequivocal answers to those questions today.
  The chief officers of the probation service will be absolutely dismayed by what the Minister's said today about their performance. We are all aware of inconsistencies. Both the present and previous governments have gone a long way to try to improve consistency across the board. The previous government introduced What Works policies. Those policies have been continued by this Government and much progress has been made. However, the Home Secretary approves the appointment of every single chief probation officer. It is not good enough that the Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box today and

  1277
  denigrate the performance of chief officers of probation when he is at least partly culpable in that he approved their appointment in the first place.
  The noble Lord said that there were only two strands to the argument: first, that local was best. Local is best because that is where the service is delivered. If it is not effective at local level it is not effective at all. The second strand relates to management. Linear management is absolutely crucial. I note that when speaking to these amendments in another place the Home Secretary likened the service to a company in private business. The analogy in private business is for W H Smith to have its head person appointed by Waterstones. Further, W H Smith is one single national company. That is not a good analogy at all. The noble Lord has been at pains to tell us that the boards are corporate bodies. We know that those boards are not NDPBs, but we should like to know their precise status.
  Just as there were a number of questions left unanswered on the issue of bail hostels, a number of matters remain unresolved in this context. The Minister said that through its chairmen the service itself would be involved in the appointment of chief officers. I would have hoped that that would happen without the need to place it on the face of the Bill. It is important that the service has such a role. Therefore, although I welcome that concession it is not one that displaces much that has been said about the amendments.
  I do not repeat the enormous number of powers that the Home Secretary has at the moment and will have under the Bill which give him 99.9 per cent control of the service. With almost complete control, one wonders just how personally culpable the Home Secretary will he if something goes wrong. One wonders just how culpable will be the Home Secretary, who wants to be the ultimate line manager in the technical and legal sense, if he merely comes to the Dispatch Box to announce that the chief officer of Whatshire has done something wrong.
  The document emanating from the Home Office makes it explicit that in the event of a conflict between the chief officer and the chairman of the board the employees of the board shall follow the instructions of the chief officer. But the chief officer may be at odds because he follows the instructions of the Home Secretary. Some learned minds believe that that will create problems which may need to be settled in court in the likely event of a conflict. Is that really what the Government want? The proposed legal structure gives the probation staff two masters, with the obvious additional complexity that the chief officer is a member of the board. The chief officer is also a direct Home Office agent. It is legitimate to ask whether that arrangement is coherent in employment and public law as both frameworks are relevant.
  Tensions are inherent in the architecture of the service and can be expressed in employment law before employment tribunals, particularly in cases of actual and constructive dismissal or judicial review of the acts or decisions of employers. There may be
  1278
  disagreements between boards and chief officers about the distribution of resources and consequent priorities. For example, the chief officer may wish to make enforcement the chief priority, whereas the board, with a clear duty to the local community, may opt to prioritise spending on crime and disorder matters.
  The model set out in the Bill does not have the ability to resolve potential problems where the chief officer belongs to the board but reports elsewhere. At present, conflicts will normally be resolved by a decision of the committee. The dynamic created by the proposal is highly problematic. For example, there could be structures to resolve disputes but the Government do not appear to believe that they are necessary. The links between the Minister, chairman, board, chief officer and staff are complex but remain unresolved in this Bill. There could be policy and operational distinctions, such as occur with Next Step agencies. Occasionally, when a problem presents itself resort has been had to such a distinction to decide who should have done what.
  Home Office documents refer to resolutions of conflict between the chief officer and the board. They suggest that the incidence of conflict may be too rare to worry about it. Importantly, employment law suggests that what matters is the pathology rather than the healthy state of an organisation. One cannot assume that there is no need to worry about conflict: that is just what one must worry about. We are all aware that goodwill can make most things work where the organisation is in a healthy state. Serious tension will need to be resolved in a much more formal way.
  I should like to record another tension. I refer to judgments about the performance of chief officers which I believe will be a real issue. One would have to be aware of the distinction between a failure in performance and failure to follow a particular political line. The specification of the position of the chief officer in following the wishes and instructions of the local board is vital. Clear and simple management structures are of the highest importance. If there was a linear structure of accountability with boards having clear accountability to the national director and the political centre, chief officers employed by board would be stronger and clearer in their role and it would provide the Minister with a more direct cogent route.
  I spoke to officials yesterday on the telephone. The Secretary of State could withdraw his approval of an appointment, which would probably mean dismissal of the individual if the Minister believed that in some way the performance of the chief officer was such that it gave rise to concern. Clearly, before a tribunal he would have to give reasons.
  I return to the questions that I posed earlier. What is to be the status of the chief officer? Will he or she be a civil servant or public office holder? What is the status of the board? Is it a corporate body? What degree of operational autonomy is to be enjoyed by a chief officer who serves his local community? The nature of a public office holder implies autonomy as with the charity commissioner and the data protection registrar. But in the probation proposal the status of

  1279
  the public office holder is being compromised by the level of direction. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, there is a preliminary point that needs to be cleared up. The Motion before the House refers to Amendment No. 39 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that the House does not insist on its amendment for the reasons that he gave. The Motion to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, spoke applies very much later on in the Marshalled List. I believe that it is Amendment No. 121C, if I remember correctly. Therefore, if the House divides at the end of this debate, it will not be on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton.
  The noble Lord may wish to take advice or think about that for a moment. I entirely endorse what both the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend have said and in the interests of expedition I shall not say it again. The chief probation officer needs to be the servant and colleague of his board and not the servant of the Secretary of State and a colleague of his board.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, wishes me to clarify a procedural issue. I am happy to do that at this stage. My understanding is that any Division as regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will have to wait until we deal with Amendment No. 121. We are now debating Amendment No. 39.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, since the Government are attempting to overturn an amendment which was put forward at the last stage in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and myself, I hope that the House will allow me to make a few points on this important matter. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, readily accepted, the matter is fundamental to this part of the Bill.
  It is not an argument as to whether we have a national service, but about how to make it most effective. It was striking that in the justification put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in seeking to overturn the amendment that this House passed on the last occasion, the word "consistency" rang like a dirge through his speech. The key word here is "effectiveness". After all, consistency can be second or third rate. We on this side of the House feel very strongly indeed that effectiveness is infinitely more important than consistency, particularly where a lack of it may be a very proper reflection of the different experiences in many parts of the country where different criminal regimes have to be contended with. There may be different social circumstances.
  If the Government want to neutralise the local probation boards and diminish them and ensure that no one of real power and consequence wants to serve on them, then they have only to continue treading this path. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, have said, the powers retained
  1280
  by the Home Secretary under this Bill are total. Here we have the responsibility of the boards without power.
  It is a question of the maintenance of experience. As the noble Lord has frankly admitted, there is no precedent for this measure. The characteristics of effectiveness, the morale, drive, pride, commitment and energy so desperately needed in the local boards if they are to do a good job—and how much we hope they do—are simply not consistent with the balance of powers constructed by Schedule 1 to the Bill and in particular if the chief officer is appointed or imposed by the Home Secretary of the day.
  Perhaps I may add to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If this were a company the Home Secretary's position would be that of a shadow director. If it were a trust, the Home Secretary's position would be that of a de facto trustee. There is no question about that. That alone should give pause in consideration of the arrangements being put forward.
  It is not unfair to suggest that perhaps the most unsatisfactory aspect of the 18 years of Conservative rule, as I hear it from their lips, is the way in which they chipped away at local powers and centralised. I thought that this Government understood the dangers of the tendency which every government suffer to centralise power in the wholly fallacious belief that if it is in Whitehall it will be better and more sensitively and economically exercised. I do not know of anyone beyond the Government Benches who believes that. If I wanted to score a cheap point—and I shall—one might cite the Dome where many hundreds of millions of pounds have been expended on precisely the principles that the noble Lord has advanced today for his Schedule 1 structure..
  Surely, the most important thing here is to have an effective partnership between the Home Secretary and the local boards. It must be a partnership that can work and of broadly equal powers. Here it is a partnership—if one can use that term at all—of subservience on the part of the local boards.
  I remind your Lordships that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, at previous stages of the Bill if he would explain how the matter would develop. Let us suppose that the chief officer of, let us say, the Suffolk probation board travels to London for a meeting with other chief probation officers under the guidance of the national chief probation officer, and he is told about the Government's line to be followed on particular aspects of the delivery of justice in the regions regarding punishment and policy towards the wide discretion which magistrates are given under our complicated criminal law. Let us assume that that line is not liked by the Suffolk chief probation officer. He returns to Suffolk with the order ringing in his ears to deliver that line of policy in the Suffolk probation board.
  Let us suppose that at the board meeting where this important matter of policy is discussed the remainder of the board believe as the chief officer does and persuade him that his views are the right ones for Suffolk. They may not be suitable for Newcastle or Liverpool. What is that probation officer to do?

  1281
  No answer has been forthcoming from the Government Benches. The reason is that there is no answer. The system proposed is of a chief probation officer with the person to whom he is responsible further along the line and who is not present at the board table and not even in Suffolk, but far away in London. In those circumstances unanimity among the members of his board can have no influence on what he can do and does. That is unworkable. If the Government do not know that then they should. That is why we on these Benches are persevering and why we shall not be content with anything short of the minimum requirement that a board must appoint its own chief officer. We must bear in mind and never forget that if he or she does not do well, he or she can be removed by the Home Secretary of the day at the flick of his or her pen. I speak for the Members of this House on these Benches and I know I also speak for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Government's proposal is a serious error and I hope very much that even at this stage they will have the courage to withdraw their amendment.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, strong and powerful views have been expressed on a familiar argument which we have gone around on several occasions. At the outset I said that there was a fundamental disagreement between us. There remains a fundamental disagreement between us on these matters.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, thinks that the current system works well. Our view is that the current system, for all its strength—the strength is there in the staff, in the time given freely and honourably by members of local probation committees and in many of the chief officers—is far from perfect. For that reason we have set ourselves on this course of reforms.
  I made the point during my opening comments and observations about the disparity in enforcement and the wide variation in the way various orders are acted upon and interpreted; and it has to be remembered that there is considerable variation in the quality and integrity of many of the local programmes.
  The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made much of the other powers which the Secretary of State will have. I do not dispute that those powers are there. They are clearly set out as part of a new national scheme to create a new national service. We do not want to create a service where there is a built-in collision course. We believe it is better to have a system of appointments which will work from the beginning, and let the service get off to a good and sound start.
  We have set out in the Bill a system of practical management of services. It is not an argument about constitutional niceties. Much as I respect the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, for his view, we shall continue to differ. We see the central appointment of the chief probation officer—the chief executive of the locally delivered service—as fundamental to our belief and commitment in our reforms to create and sustain a new national Probation Service.
  1282
  The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked a number of questions. She started by saying that it was an important technical and legal argument. She asked three questions. First, she asked whether local boards are bodies corporate? The answer is, yes, and the Bill makes that clear. Secondly, she asked whether chief officers are civil servants? The answer to that is, no, they are statutory office holders. Thirdly, she asked whether chief officers are autonomous? They are members of the board in the structure and must act for the board, but subject to the Secretary of State's direction. Certain functions within that can he delegated to them directly by regulation.
  We have had a strange debate. It has not borne directly on what we are trying to achieve. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised an extraordinary red herring. She sought to compare this issue with the relationship between W H Smith and Waterstones. They are two separate commercial organisations. The situation that we are trying to create is where the Essex Probation Service is part of the same national organisation as the Gloucester Probation Service, rather than having two rival organisations. We are trying to create one organisation nationally. If the amendment is insisted upon by your Lordships' House, it will strike fundamentally at the heart of our powerful reforms.
  The question of conflict was part of the argument used against the Government's position. I thought that I had described accurately the line of accountability and the chain of management. There is no doubt that if there is a conflict there will be efforts undertaken to resolve any such conflict locally. But ultimately the chief probation officer is accountable to the Secretary of State through the national director of the Probation Service. Ultimately, if conflicts cannot be resolved through agreement, the Secretary of State will have to issue directions to resolve that conflict. From time to time all organisations have conflicts within them. That is inevitable in any organisation, whether it be national or local. We must have effective lines of management and effective lines of accountability to ensure that those conflicts can at least be handled; rather than what we have in many situations where local boards disagree with their local chief officer, who has a poor relationship with the local board, and there is no one in the current system able and capable to seek a resolution to the problems. We seek to put in place something which will address precisely that issue.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I gave the example of a chief probation officer being unhappy about a line of policy agreed in Whitehall, going to his board and finding that his or her board is of the same mind by dint of local circumstances. Does the Minister say that in that case the Home Secretary would issue a direction requiring unanimity of view on that board to be reversed? If that is so, what effect does he think that would have on that board?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that important point. There

  1283
  will not be a problem. The chief officer will advise the Secretary of State of the conflict. The Secretary of State will then issue a direction to the whole board, ensuring that the line of accountability is maintained, that the chief officer can act from a position of strength and that the chief officer can act with the full knowledge that he or she is acting in accordance with nationally directed policy. That is what we seek to achieve in this exercise. That makes the position plain and clear.
  That brings me to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She said that there should be a clear duty to the local community. There will be duties to the local community. But in putting the point in that way the noble Baroness is confusing the nature of a local service. It is not like a local authority where there are clear duties through the locally-elected councillors. Probation boards are not of that ilk. They are not that kind of local organisation. With the creation of a new national probation service they will be part of a national service. Their duty to a local community must surely be to ensure that there is effective public protection. That is the primary purpose in this exercise.
  I have described a clear, no nonsense, under-standable transparent system of linear accountability to a national organisation. If noble Lords opposite insist on their approach, they will be driving a wedge into the general thrust of the reforms that we propose. I believe that noble Lords fully understand that. The matter has been debated in your Lordships' House. More importantly, it has been determined in another place, not once but twice, and with very clear majorities. Another place is very clear about the Government's policy; and the Government are very clear about their policy objectives. It would be wrong. It would undermine the general direction of our policy towards the creation of a new Probation Service if your Lordships' House were to insist on amendments which were carried on Report. I urge your Lordships' House to think long and hard before disagreeing with the general thrust of the Government's reforms and with another place. That is the Government's position.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. The noble Lord said that the boards will be bodies corporate; that chief officers will be public office holders and that they will not have operational autonomy in the way that a chief police officer has. In the light of those answers and in the light of what I said earlier, a public office holder implies autonomy—for example, the charity commissioner or the data protection registrar. Neither of those public office holders are subject to the direction of any Secretary of State. Therefore, how can these be bodies corporate and public office holders and be different from public office holders and public bodies as we know them?
  5 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the short answer is that we have decided how we wish to have the
  1284
  system and line of accountability in creating an entirely different and specific national service. The members will have a degree of autonomy as they will be members of a board. But they will ultimately be subject to the constraints of a national service. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but that is how we see the new service developing. That is exactly what we wish to see develop. The noble Baroness clearly takes a different view. I am very surprised by the view that she takes, because when she was a Minister and held responsibilities not completely dissimilar to the ones that I hold, on a number of occasions she expressed frustration at the way in which the Probation Service was developing.
  We believe that the reforms are very important. The amendment would strike not just at the heart of what we are trying to achieve but at the certainty we need to achieve that objective.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it is not me who has a different view and has changed my mind; it is the Minister. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, he said that in the event of any tension the Home Secretary would override not just the chief officer but the whole board. Yet he has just said in answer to my question that the chief officer would have autonomy. He cannot have both.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I made it clear that there is a degree of autonomy. But I made an important point to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, when describing the relationship that ultimately would have to pertain and ultimately would have to reside; a situation where, yes, when push comes to shove, the Secretary of State will be able to issue directions to the local board.
  Lord Warner: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may help him to clarify the position for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If we go along the route that she suggests, national standards might not be enforced in particular parts of the country and local boards might choose to ignore a national direction on the national standards regarding, for example, breaches of orders made by the courts.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is precisely the point. We are seeking for those very reasons to create a national service. We do not want widespread regional variations. We want national consistency with national standards. Noble Lords opposite are seeking to undermine that important principle.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, there is confusion here. Does the noble Lord agree that under the Bill the Secretary of State will have power to get rid of the board if it does not follow a direction from the national service? The answer is "yes".
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the answer is yes, but that is not the point. The chief officer has day-to-day organisational responsibility for that part of the Probation Service. The chief officer

  1285
  is in an important position of responsibility in managing the day-to-day affairs of the local probation service.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, we may have reached the point where it would be helpful if I gave the House some procedural advice. I am not entering into the debate on the merits of the various amendments. The only way in which the House can have a vote, which is what I think it wants to do, is to vote on Amendment No. 121C. No Motions have been tabled to any of the other amendments before the House. There is always confusion over Commons amendments. There is only one way in which the House can have a vote—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is nodding. Notice has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to insist on Amendment No. 121. The House can do that by voting for Amendment No. 121C, although I hope that the majority of the House will vote against it. No notice has been given of opposition to Amendment No. 39. Therefore, the decision on Amendment No. 39 is not procedurally binding on Amendment No. 121. Therefore, the only amendment on which there can be a vote is Amendment No. 121C.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  41 Clause 18, page 8, line 37, leave out paragraph (b)
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  41A Because the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No, 41 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 41A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  42 Clause 19, page 9, line 3, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  42A Because the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  43 Clause 19, page 9, line 7, leave out ("Service") and insert ("new employer")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  43A Because the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation hoards to hold land.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 42A and 43A.
  1286
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 42A and 43A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  44 Clause 20, page 9, line 20, leave out subsection (2)
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  44A Clause 20, page 9, line 22, leave out ("for") and insert ("of")
  44B Clause 20, page 9, line 23, after ("local") insert ("probation")
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 44 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44A and 44B to the words so restored to the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 44 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44A and 44B to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  45 Clause 20, page 9, line 25, leave out ("or persons so employed")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  45A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation hoard are not appropriate.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  46 Clause 20, page 9, line 27, leave out ("or person so employed")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  46A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  48 Clause 20, page 9, line 30, leave out ("and chief probation officers")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  48A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  49 Clause 20, page 9, line 30, leave out ("or appointed")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  49A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation hoard are not appropriate.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments

  1287
  Nos. 45, 46, 48 and 49 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 45A, 46A, 48A and 49A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 48 and 49 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 45A, 46A, 48A and 49A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  50 Leave out Clause 22
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  50A Clause 22, page 10, line 35, leave out ("for") and insert ("of')
  50B Clause 22, page 10, line 35, after ("local") insert ("probation")
  50C Clause 22, page 10, line 45, after ("local") insert ("probation")
  50D Clause 22, page 11, line 6, leave out ("for") and insert ("of")
  50E Clause 22, page 11, line 6, after ("local") insert ("probation")
  50F Clause 22, page 11. line 12, after ("local") insert ("probation")
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 50 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50A to 50F to the words so restored to the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 50 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50A to 50F to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  76 Clause 41, page 24, leave out lines 31 to line 38
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
  76A Clause 41, page 22, line 39, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years")
  76B Page 23, line 5, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years")
  76C Page 81, line 17, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years")
  The Commons further proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  76D Clause 41, page 24, line 31, leave out from ("direct") to ("shall") in line 36 and insert ("that section 40A(5) above")
  76E Page 24, line 37, leave out ("so specified") and insert ("specified in the order")
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76A to 76C in lieu thereof and Amendments Nos. 76D and 76E to the words so restored to the Bill.
  1288
  The amendments restore to the Bill the power for the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew conditions. They also increase the maximum length of exclusion order requirements to two years rather than 12 months. Other amendments are consequential on the removal from the Bill of the delegated power to alter the maximum length of an exclusion order, an exclusion or curfew condition or another community order, or a drug abstinence order. They simply ensure that the delegated powers which remain are correctly referred to in the right places—that is, the right powers are shown to be subject to negative and affirmative resolution procedures—and those powers which no longer exist are no longer referred to. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76A to 76C in lieu thereof and Amendment Nos. 76D and 76E to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting on the face of the Bill the two years' maximum. We fought hard in this House for that provision and so we are grateful for the concession made in another place. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to clarify what he has just said. Did he say that he was reinstating the Secretary of State's power to increase maximum sentences? My understanding was that they were to be removed and that the provision to increase the maximum sentence would be on the face of the Bill. That was the argument we put to the noble Lord for deleting the power and taking the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I said that the amendments restore to the Bill the power for the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew conditions. I think that the noble Baroness now follows what we are trying to achieve. It certainly reflects the understanding that we thought we had reached.
  The amendments accepted in your Lordships' House earlier in the passage of the Bill were moved on the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. They deleted from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to alter the maximum period of exclusion orders or exclusion curfew requirements of other community orders and of drug abstinence orders. However, those same amendments inadvertently deleted non-contentious powers that allowed the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion curfew conditions. Notice was therefore given that it would be necessary to restore these non-contentious powers.
  The changes made in another place are designed to meet the wishes of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, while at the same time

  1289
  ensuring that the powers that ought to remain do remain. I hope that this explanation will be sufficient to satisfy the noble Baroness.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 76 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 76A to 76C in lieu thereof and Amendments Nos. 76D and 76E to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I had misheard the Minister. I am delighted with what he has just said. It represents a sizeable concession. I thank the noble Lord.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  78 Clause 42, page 26, leave out lines 12 to 15
  The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendments to the Bill—
  78A Clause 42, page 78, line 23, leave out ("58B(4)")
  78B Clause 42, page 78, line 30, leave out ("40C(2) or 58B(4)") and insert ("or 40C(2)")
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B, consequential on Lords Amendment No. 78, to which the Commons have agreed.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B, consequential on Lords Amendment No. 78, to which the Commons have agreed.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.).
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  79 Clause 45. page 29, leave out lines 14 to 19
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  79A Clause 45, page 29, leave out lines 15 to 17
  79B Clause 45, page 29, line 19, leave out ("so specified") and insert ("specified in the order")
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 79, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79A and 79B to the words so restored to the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 79, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79A and 79B to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  80 Clause 46, page 30, leave out lines 15 to 20
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
  80A Clause 46, page 29. line 27, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years")
  80B Clause 46, page 81, line 10, leave out ("one year') and insert ("two years")
  The Commons further proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
  80C Clause 46, page 30, leave out lines 16 to 18
  80D Clause 46, page 30, line 20, leave out ("so specified") and insert ("specified in the order")
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 80, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80A and 80B in lieu thereof, and Amendments Nos. 80C and 80D to the words so restored to the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 80, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 80A and 80B in lieu thereof, and Amendments Nos. 80C and 80D to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 106
  Clause 63, page 43, line 2, at end insert—
  ("() This section shall apply only in cases where the failure to attend school is with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
  106A Clause 63, page 42. line 35, leave out from beginning to ("of") and insert ("In section 444")
  106B Clause 63, page 42. line 36, leave out from ("school)") to ("is") in line 37 and insert—
  ("(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
  "(1A) If in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) the parent knows that his child is failing to attend regularly at the school and fails without reasonable justification to cause him to do so, he is guilty of an offence.",.
  (b) in subsection (8), for "this section" there is substituted "subsection (1)",
  (c) after that subsection there is inserted—
  "(8A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1A)").
  106C Clause 63, page 42, line 41, at end insert—
  ("(8B) If, on the trial of an offence under subsection (1A), the court finds the defendant not guilty of that offence but is satisfied that he is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may find him guilty of that offence").
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 106, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106A to 106C in lieu thereof.
  Briefly, these provisions will create a new and additional aggravated offence with a maximum penalty at level 4 and/or three months' imprisonment. The current offence under Section 444 would remain unchanged. However, the new and additional aggravated offence would require proof of parental knowledge of truancy and failure without "reasonable justification" to,
  "cause the child to fail to attend regularly at school".

  1291
  The failure to appear in court to answer the summons in respect of the aggravated offence would allow the issuing of a warrant to secure attendance.
  We have debated these matters at considerable length on earlier occasions. What we have put before noble Lords today are, I believe, the fruits of a common agreement and understanding of the very necessary changes that we seek to make.
  I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his kind words of commendation for the approach adopted by the Government and I congratulate him on securing what I believe is now a position of common consent between us.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 106, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106A to 106C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister and, through him, his officials for the care that they have put into this matter. Perhaps I may also congratulate parliamentary counsel on the exactitude with which the agreement reached between us has been embodied. I am fully satisfied and I thank all those involved.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  121 Schedule 1, page 46, line 10, at end insert?
  ("() The chief officer is to be appointed by the Board with the approval of the Secretary of State.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  121A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation hoard are not appropriate.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 121 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121A, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  121B Schedule 1, page 46, line 15, at end insert—
  ("() Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) and coming into force on or after the coming into force of section 4 must make provision—

  (a) for the selection procedure for the chairman, the chief officer and the other members of the board who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State to include selection panels,

  (b) in the case of the chief officer, for the board to be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation to the Secretary of State.")

  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 121, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121A, but propose Amendment No. 121B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their
  1292
  Amendment No. 121, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121A, and do agree to Amendment No. 121B in lieu thereof—
  121C Leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 121".
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 121C.
  5.15 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 121C) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 139.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Addington, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Arran, E.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  McNally, L.

  Barker, B.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Blatch, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Byford, B.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Monson, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Newby, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Cox, B.

  Northesk, E.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Northover, B.

  Cuckney, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Onslow, E.

  Dholakia, L. [Teller]

  Parkinson, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Prior, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Elton, L. [Teller]

  Redesdale, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Rennard, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Roper, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Russell, E.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Sandberg, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Greaves, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Sharman, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Holderness. L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Laird, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Trefgarne, L.

  1293

  Vivian, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Waddington, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Walker of Worcester, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Alli, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Amos. B.

  Judd, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Layard, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Bach, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Longford, E.

  Billingham, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Blease, L.

  Borrie, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Brennan, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Brett, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Briggs, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Mitchell, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Molloy, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Paul, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Peston, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Powell of Bayswater, L.

  David, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Desai, L,

  Richard, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Richardson of Calow, B.

  Donoughue, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Elder, L

  Sawyer, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Simon, V.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Gale. B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Strange, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Varley, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Warner, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Wilkins, B.

  1294

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Winston, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.26 p.m.
  On Question, Motion No. 121B agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  122 Schedule 1, page 46, line 11, leave out (", the chief officer")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  122A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation hoard are not appropriate.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  123 Schedule 1, page 46, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (5)
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  123A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation board are not appropriate.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  124 Schedule I, page 46, line 33, leave out ("sub-paragraph (5) and")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  124A Because the Commons believe that the changes proposed to be made in connection with a chief officer of a local probation hoard are not appropriate.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 122 to 124 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 122A to 124A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 122 to 124 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 122A to 124A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  130 Schedule 1, page 47, line 37. leave out paragraph 10
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
  130A Schedule 1, page 47, line 37, after ("local") insert ("probation")
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 130A to the words so restored to the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 130A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  135 Schedule 1, page 48, line 12, after ("holding") insert ("or managing land and other")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  135A Because the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land and it is not necessary to confer on them the proposed power to manage.

  MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON NO. 135A
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 135 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 135A but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  135B Schedule 1, page 48, line 18, at end insert ("(though they may manage it)?)
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 135 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 135A and do agree to Amendment No. 135B in lieu thereof.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 135 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 135A and do agree to Amendment No. 13513 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  137 Schedule 1, page 48, line 18, after ("hold") insert ("or manage")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  137A Because the Commons believe that it is not necessary to confer on local probation boards the proposed power to manage.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  138 Schedule 1, page 48, line 18, at end insert ("without the approval of the Secretary of State")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  138A Because the Commons believe that it is not appropriate for local probation boards to hold land and it is not necessary to confer on them the proposed power to manage.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 137A and 138A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 137A and 138A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  245 Schedule 6, page 78, line 20, leave out ("40(2), 40C(2), 58B(4),") and insert ("40(2)(b), 40C(2)(b),")
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
  245A Schedule 6, line 2, leave out ("40C(2)(b)") and insert ("40C(2)")
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 245A to Lords Amendment No. 245.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 245A to Lords Amendment No. 245.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  246 Schedule 6, page 78, line 21, leave out ("7(9) or 8(8)") and insert ("7(9)(b) or 8(8)(b)")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  246A Because the Commons believe that the amendment is not necessary in consequence of the amendments made by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill by the disagreement of the Commons with Lords Amendments Nos. 79 and 80.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 246 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 246A.
  Moved, that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 246 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 246A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  247 Schedule 6, page 78, line 22, at end insert—
  ("() after "15(1)" there is inserted "40(2)(a), 40C(2)(a)",")
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
  247A Schedule 6, line 3, leave out ("40C(2)(a)")
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 247A to Lords Amendment No. 247.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 247A to Lords Amendment No. 247.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  248 Schedule 6, page 78, line 24, after second ("or") insert ("paragraph 7(9)(a) or 8(8)(a) of Schedule 2 or")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  248A Because the Commons believe that the amendment is not necessary in consequence of the amendments made by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill by the disagreement of the Commons with Lords Amendments Nos. 79 and 80.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 248 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 248A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 248 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 248A.—-(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the rural White Paper, I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords. There is a maximum of 20 minutes for contributions from the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Minister's reply, followed by 20 minutes for Back-Bench Peers to speak and ask questions.

Rural White Paper
5.30 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 should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the rural policy White Paper. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have today published a White Paper on the future of rural England, produced jointly by my department and MAFF. I am also publishing the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on the rural White Paper. Copies have been placed in the Library.
"A common message runs through both this White Paper and the urban White Paper. They are about tackling the real issues that matter to people—jobs, housing, services, transport and having a real say in what happens locally. We want communities in which economic prosperity, social justice and a healthy environment go hand in hand.
"Much of rural Britain is thriving, but there are real problems and many of them have got worse over the last 20 years. For example, farm incomes have fallen by 60 per cent in five years; many families cannot afford to live in the place where they grew up; and seven out of 10 of our poorest counties are rural.
"Our consultation with rural communities showed that person after person in rural areas complained that their basic services had disappeared. Over the last two decades, thousands of rural bus services have shut down, leaving only one in four parishes with a daily service; 450 village schools were closed—that is more than one every
1298
two weeks; more than 100 rural post offices closed each year; and, while the last administration permitted an explosion of out-of-town superstores, more than 4,000 village shops went out of business.
"The countryside is no stranger to change and our task is to give people the tools to respond to that challenge. This White Paper represents a new commitment to rural communities and gives them the powers and resources to manage change. It brings together a new, comprehensive approach incorporating legislation we have already agreed. It provides a framework for our rural policies for the future. It presents a more comprehensive approach to the needs of the countryside. Increasingly, rural areas will benefit from our main programmes on health, education, housing and employment. In addition, we have doubled specific rural spending from £600 million in 1997–98 to £1.2 billion this year; and we are committing an extra £1 billion to farming and rural programmes over the next three years.
"There are five main elements to our White Paper: improving services; tackling poverty; the rural economy; protecting the countryside and wildlife; and giving more choice to local people. Access to basic services for people in rural areas is what they really want and is the most important element of the White Paper.
"People in rural areas should know what services they are entitled to. So, for the first time, we are publishing a Rural Service Standard. It will set out minimum service standards and targets for the full range of public services, from education to health and childcare to emergency services.
"To improve healthcare in rural areas we are providing £100 million for one-stop primary healthcare centres or mobile units in 100 rural communities. To reverse the decline of rural post offices we are investing £270 million to turn post offices into one-stop shops with access to banking, prescriptions, local authority and other services. I can announce that the pilot scheme will be in Leicestershire, involving 280 post offices and starting next spring. Thousands of villages have lost their local shops. We propose to offer mandatory rate relief to more village shops, pubs and garages. And we are launching a new £15 million rural community service fund to support local enterprise and help local groups re-establish lost services
"To improve education in rural areas we have introduced stronger safeguards to protect rural schools from closure. We are providing rural police forces with an extra £45 million over the next two years. And, as the Chancellor announced, we are helping local communities which use their local church to provide community services by reducing the rate of VAT on repairs and maintenance from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent.
"The House will be aware of the importance of transport to rural areas. The Chancellor in his Pre Budget Report froze fuel duty and reduced VED on smaller cars. But public transport is absolutely vital.

1299
We have already increased funding for rural buses by £170 million, with 1,800 new services. We are now investing another £192 million over the next three years in rural transport.
"People have told us that in some places they need much more flexible transport solutions. So we are setting up a new £15 million special transport fund. The fund will give to those parishes that want it up to £10,000 each to provide their own small-scale solutions to local transport problems such as support for car clubs, taxi services and community transport. As announced in our Ten-Year Plan, we will extend the existing fuel duty rebate for buses to community transport schemes. For a typical minibus this could be worth up to £3,000 a year.
"There is growing concern about controlling speeding traffic in villages and on country roads. We will allow local communities to make villages and rural roads safer by reducing speed limits and investing more in traffic calming. We will also invest more than £1 billion over 10 years in rural bypasses.
"Like rural areas, urban areas require affordable housing. We are doubling the Housing Corporation programme by 2003–04. This, together with local authority investment and planning reforms, will provide a total of 3,000 affordable homes a year in small rural settlements and a total of around 9,000 homes a year across all rural districts. In some areas better use of planning rules could provide one affordable home for every new home built. Our new starter home initiative will also help key workers on modest incomes to buy their homes in areas of high prices and high demand.
"There are strong feelings of resentment in some areas that second home owners benefit from a 50 per cent council tax discount while local people cannot find enough affordable housing. We propose to give local authorities in England the same discretion as in Wales to end the 50 per cent discount. As a new departure we propose to use the proceeds for extra affordable housing. This will be discretionary but it could be worth up to £150 million a year. We are required to consult on this and will do so as soon as possible.
"Like urban areas, rural areas benefit from a strong local economy. Market towns are the heart of economic growth in rural areas. We are investing an extra £37 million over the next three years to help create new opportunities, new work spaces, restored high streets, better amenities and good transport links to surrounding areas. With partnership funds this will create a £100 million package for 100 market towns. We are giving the regional development agencies greater flexibility and a more specific rural remit within the additional £500 million in their budgets. There will also be special business support and training tailored for small businesses in rural areas.
"The House has often expressed the view that agriculture plays a crucial role in the countryside and rural economy. The Action Plan for Farming
1300
sets out our policies for the future of farming. Farming will continue to produce the bulk of the nation's food and contribute to exports. It contributes to a good quality environment and the wider local economy; but many farmers need to diversify in order to stay in business.
"The House will recall that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently announced a £1.6 billion seven-year package for agriculture in the new England Rural Development Programme. This will increase environmental support for farmers and help them to start new business enterprises. And the Government are making available an additional £500 million to help the farming industry modernise and restructure, in addition to the £2.5 billion a year from the European Union. Recognising the real difficulties faced by agriculture, we will, in addition, reform our planning rules to help farmers diversify and we are today launching a consultation paper to give rate relief for rural diversification projects.
Our consultation has shown a great deal of concern for a small but important part of the rural economy—the maintenance of small rural abattoirs, which have faced increased inspection fees. We shall introduce additional targeted help to support local abattoirs without any detriment to food standards.
"Our beautiful countryside is valued by people who live in it and those who visit it. We all recognise the work that rural people have carried out over generations to protect the countryside. To relieve the pressure of development on the countryside, we shall be building on urban brownfields first and greenfields last. We shall build higher quality housing and make better use of land by building at more sustainable densities. Therefore, we now require local authorities to notify me of all major housing developments planned for greenfield sites.
"The House will be aware that we were reviewing our controls over roadside advertisements in the countryside. I can announce that we will not change our rules but will maintain our controls over advertisements in the countryside".
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but it seems to me that there is more to the Statement. I certainly have another two pages of it in front of me.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I knew that it was too good to be true! Some of my noble friends wish to be off early tonight, but, nevertheless, I apologise. I fear that the last two pages of the Statement were not before me. I must express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for making that observation. However, I shall return to the Statement:
"Following this debate, the House will move on to the final stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. This major Bill will give additional protection to our countryside, conserve its wildlife and make it accessible to all—something we have waited a long time for.

1301
"Our consultation showed that for too long local people have felt that they have not been able to take decisions for themselves. We want local communities to play a bigger part in shaping their own future because every community has its own priorities, strengths and distinctiveness.
"The performance of our parish councils varies. We shall promote new "quality" town or parish councils, which will be able to take on a bigger role in providing and managing local services in partnership with principal authorities. We shall provide £7 million to help parish and town councils to meet the quality standard and shape their own future and for the first time to help 1,000 communities develop town and village plans, which can then feed into the statutory planning process. In addition, the Countryside Agency will equip every town and parish with access to the Internet. Town and village plans will allow local people to set design standards and preserve the character of their villages.
"As our consultation revealed, all too often in the past, and at all levels of government, rural needs and priorities have been overlooked. We shall ensure that the commitments in this White Paper are followed through. To achieve that, the Countryside Agency will produce an annual report on how major policies have been assessed for their rural impact, we shall establish new rural advisory boards at national and regional level and a new rural advocate—Ewen Cameron, chairman of the Countryside Agency—will argue the case on countryside issues at the highest levels in government and outside.
"We are clear that it is impossible to tackle the problems of the countryside in isolation. We need to look at them as a whole across government. The White Paper will promote: a living countryside, with thriving rural communities and access to high quality services; a working countryside, with a strong economy giving high and stable levels of employment; a protected countryside, which we can all enjoy; and a vibrant countryside, which can shape its own future and have its voice heard by government at all levels.
"Some people want us to divide town and country. We are governing for the whole country. Our aim is a living, working countryside with better access for all people to enjoy. I commend the White Paper to the House".
My Lords, I believe that that concludes the Statement.
5.44 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier this afternoon. As noble Lords will have realised, it is a very full White Paper. The noble Lord's introduction took over 11 minutes to deliver. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I give a rather full response to a most important Statement.
We welcome much that is in the Statement. It is good to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is sitting next to the Minister. Obviously, the White
1302
Paper deals with both rural areas and farming matters. That is why the Statement is so welcome. We also welcome the greater flexibility that has been announced, especially the fact that this will bring greater responsibility to local parishes; in other words, it will bring such matters right down to the lowest level—something for which we have been pressing for some time.
The White Paper deals with the relationship between the working countryside—the farming side of it—and the rural aspects involved. We welcome, too, the money that the Minister said will he available to enforce some of the proposals in the White Paper. However, we are somewhat concerned that some of that money may be recycled money. We shall need several days to work out the total commitment in the Statement and the rural White Paper.
The White Paper also refers to the need for "multiple consultation". The Government came into office in 1997. Since that time, we seem to have consultation after consultation on rural matters. The one thing that we are looking forward to—and what we hope will come out of this process—is seeing some action. Just recently we had an extremely good report from the Better Regulation Task Force, Environmental Regulations and Farmers. This is an ideal consultation booklet. However, having consulted, we now need to move forward. With all the thrusts and the wide range of issues that are covered in the White Paper, I just hope that we shall quickly see some action and forward movement, rather than having to wait for it to take place in a little while.
I listened to the comments made this morning by the CBI and was slightly worried by the statements made about the responsibilities and extra burdens that small businesses in particular have to carry. I raise this issue because of taxation and regulation and because local small businesses are to be found predominantly in rural areas. I am very hopeful that the Government will take this matter on board and consider the issues raised by the CBI this morning. For example, do the Government intend to reduce the burdens on both large and small businesses, but especially on the smaller ones that were referred to this morning? Moreover, will the Government compensate the agricultural community for the extra costs that it has had to bear as a result of European directives, and the gold-plating that we have enforced on animal welfare rules? We are hopeful that this will be resolved by way of the White Paper's proposals.
Further, will the Government continue to follow our lead and not introduce EC directives in advance of the time set for them to be introduced? The noble Baroness and I have had discussions on that issue, which is a real worry to the farming community. Farmers are also concerned about the amount of regulations to which they have to adhere.
The Minister referred to the White Paper as "practical". Many of the examples given in the document are practical and most welcome. However, perhaps I may address one of the big issues therein; namely, the matter of housing. As has emerged from

1303
our many debates on the subject, housing in rural areas is crucially important. The White Paper proposes enforcing guidelines in respect of "affordable homes". Can the Minister give us a clearer classification on "affordable homes"? For example, how will those houses be protected if they are for local occupancy in the immediate future? How will they be protected in the future? Will people who are able to take advantage of affordable homes then become owners, or will they be only, say, life tenants? Will they stay in their local community for affordable homes within that area? I do not believe that the White Paper deals with that aspect of the matter.
We welcome the changes in some of the planning guidance indicated in the booklet, but I wonder whether some of the proposals are strong enough. For example, both the Statement and the booklet say that for every new house built, one affordable new home should be built. However, that may be impractical in many of our villages. Some villages may need only 10 or 12 new homes and other types of housing may be required. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify that.
We welcome the U-turn on the Government's proposed controls on advertising in rural areas. During debate on the countryside Bill we said that we did not wish to see the countryside covered in hoardings. With regard to housing, I understand that a reduced rate of VAT will be levied for the conversion of buildings to residential use. Does that apply just to the conversion of barns to houses or does it include the conversion of bigger houses into smaller units? The document does not make that clear. Will the VAT burden in this regard be removed altogether from houses built more than 10 years ago or will it be reduced only down to the 5 per cent which I believe is recommended in the case of the conversion of other buildings?
As regards grants for brownfield sites which we have discussed in this House on many occasions, I understand that the EC has to give approval for grants to develop brownfield sites. I understand that that approval has been challenged. What progress has been made on that front?
I turn to agri-environment schemes and rural development. The Government stated in their response on page 11:
"We urge the Treasury to explore the potential for greater use of pooled budgets. The comprehensive spending review provides a timely opportunity to improve the effectiveness of spending in rural areas".
Will the Government consider simplifying the multiplicity of agri-environment schemes and rural development initiatives that exist? At the moment there are so many that it is confusing for those who wish to apply. Again I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.
The document is full of useful points. We are particularly delighted with the implications of the proposals for strengthening parishes. With regard to the restrictions on speed and—this is not mentioned—the whole issue of parking in parish areas, will the
1304
parishes decide these matters for themselves or will local authorities at a more senior level decide which parishes will be able, and will be allowed, to develop in the way the document suggests? I should be grateful for clarification on that point.
I have just touched on a few of the many points in the document. However, I am aware of the time constraints that apply to the debate. I hope that we shall be able to debate the document at greater length in the New Year. The document deserves a full debate. I am concerned about whether the funding will be adequate for what the Government are trying to do. Will it improve the life of those who live and work in the countryside? The document seeks to allow greater diversity to farmers and others to adapt their businesses. However, I am concerned as to how we ensure that some of the new jobs that are to be created will be taken up by people who currently live and work in the countryside. Will they not result in many people who live in urban areas being attracted to rural areas and thus not solve the problems that the Government seek to solve?
There is much to recommend in the document. I am sorry that I have spoken for rather a long time. I have not addressed many of the areas which I hope others will cover. Again I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome the Statement and the publication of the rural White Paper. However, if it was in my fridge, I would suspect that it was rather past its sell by date. Having looking beyond the packaging, on the other hand, it seems to offer some good reading and some good thoughts.
The fact that the document is a joint publication of the DETR and MAFF suggests a new way of working between them. That is to be greatly welcomed. The document offers a new start in reversing the trends of decline of the past two decades when, as the Statement made clear, the countryside suffered badly from such developments as out of town shopping, the decline in services and, not least, the pressure on local authorities' budgets which forced them to cut back many of their important rural services.
However, the rural White Paper contains no definition of why we value the countryside and the unique qualities of its economy. That is regrettable if the document is to be a vision for the future. A little more attention could have been devoted to the land based nature of the economy and the extent to which people want to move away from that. However, we welcome the development of a rural services standard. We have pressed for such a standard on several occasions in this House and in the other place. We are absolutely delighted that the Government will introduce it.
We are concerned about the introduction of a strangely named "regional rural sounding board" and a "national rural sounding board". I say with all due respect to the chairman of the Countryside Agency,

1305
whom I admire and respect tremendously—I believe that he is a rural advocate or a czar for rural areas—that he is not really accountable to anyone. I believe that the Countryside Agency is accountable to the DETR. Therefore he is almost judge and jury in his own cause. Having said that, I hope that such an appointment will in the future prevent government departments from inflicting on rural areas disasters such as that which has occurred with post offices. The Government will have to have to try to rectify that situation. We welcome the pilot scheme that is mentioned in the White Paper with regard to post offices and hope that it will be successful.
The rural White Paper acknowledges the dramatic fall in farm incomes of 60 per cent in five years. When I said that the document was rather past its sell by date I had in mind, for example, the Government's lack of response to the Maclean report on small abattoirs. I hope that the fine words in the rural White Paper will produce some rapid action in that area and will not just be fine words.
There are some good points in the White Paper with regard to the "local food, local people" issue and developing local markets for farmers' produce. However, those points need to be followed up with firm action. The Government need to consider further their attitude to suppliers' relationships with supermarkets.
The White Paper mentions funding that can be bid for. The figures appear large, but if one divides them into the number of rural communities and small towns, many of them will gain nothing more than a new bus shelter and a notice board. I do not believe that that kind of funding should be the bottom line. We on these Benches believe that local authorities should be given a fair deal.
I draw the Minister's attention to the neighbourhood renewal fund. The DETR proposes to allocate less than 8 per cent of that renewal fund to address deprivation in communities served by two-tier local government structures; that is, rural communities. The inequity of that can be readily demonstrated as two-tier areas contain 46 per cent of the population and just under a third of the top 10 per cent of deprived wards. However, around half of the most deprived wards in two-tier areas will receive no funding because their needs are not apparent in data which are averaged out at council level. This is in stark contrast to modestly deprived wards falling within unitary authority areas. They will receive only 4 per cent; and then will not receive that funding. It may seem a complicated point but I hope that there is no disguise, with rural areas appearing to receive better funding which is, however, taken away in other ways. The Government need to bear in mind that rural areas are typified by pockets of localised deprivation.
While we welcome the strengthening of the role of parish councils, we are worried about the development of a two-tier system—quality parish councils, and the remainder. I hope that the Government will consider removing the Section 137 restriction upon what even
1306
small and excellent parish councils can do. There is no mention of creating parish councils throughout the country. That is surely something we should press for.
We welcome the doubling of the rural housing programme from almost nothing. As regards key workers, will the same criteria apply to them in rural and urban areas? Village halls are the key meeting point for rural communities. It is a shame that the Chancellor has reduced VAT only on church repairs but not village hall repairs. Perhaps the Government will reconsider the issue now that they concede that rural churches are important, as indeed are village halls.
Finally, the White Paper demonstrates what good practice can produce. The funding is still ring-fenced. The RDAs are being given more money. The money is being targeted through quangos but without a great deal of accountability. It is tiring for rural communities to have to bid again and again, without always receiving such funding.
Although we welcome much that is in the Statement and the good practice put forward, we believe that the services that local authorities can offer have been underplayed. I echo the wish for a fuller debate on the White Paper. However, I believe that we should have a debate on the urban and rural White Papers. There is a lack of reference between the two in the White Paper. The House would benefit from a further debate on the two issues together.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this will be a brief Minister's response in view of the time. I am grateful for the welcome given by both Front Benches to many aspects of the White Paper.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the burden on small businesses. The action plan for farming already has a number of commitments to review and remove regulatory burdens and planning requirements in relation to farming, all of which are being acted upon. We shall have further consultation with regard to the environmental burdens identified recently.
As regards affordable housing, the options in the White Paper are available to local authorities and existing planning powers can achieve quite a lot. Whether the one-for-one approach were adopted would be a matter for the local market and local authority. But it would be useful in certain circumstances depending on the local housing market. Substantial additional powers and additional resources for affordable housing run through the White Paper.
The noble Baroness asked whether one could convert a larger building into a smaller building with VAT benefit. The answer is yes. Brownfield sites, previously developed land, must be discussed with the planners. Applications will need to take account of a range of considerations. But the intention is that the sequence of the planning hierarchy would mean that

1307
brownfield sites as defined locally would be the first to be built upon. We would restrict greenfield development, therefore, in the countryside.
The noble Baroness also referred to the possible influx from urban areas. The answer is that we have to get the urban policy right at the same time as we are getting the rural policy right. Therefore, the urban and rural White Papers fit together. The House authorities may well deem it sensible for us to have a debate on those issues.
My allocated time is up. I shall write to the noble Baronesses on other points.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I welcome the White Paper and the commitment of the Labour Party to govern on behalf of rural and urban communities. For too long the Labour Party has been regarded as a representative party only of city and urban communities.
I welcome the commitment to a vibrant and working countryside. There is no point in talking about improving the post office facilities here and there unless one gives people the opportunity of employment in the countryside. I have a special interest in forestry matters. I contacted the Forestry Commission on the continuing decline in opportunities for workers in the forestry industry. In 1993–94 the Forestry Commission lost 1,100 employees in countryside towns. The figures for private estates dropped from 15,000 to 10,000, and so it goes on. One will not have continuing employment opportunities in the countryside unless one continues to plant trees. At present there is a dramatic drop in planting trees. In this country, we are now planting more hardwoods than softwoods. Hardwoods have a rotation of 100 years. Even on a diminished planting programme, one is providing employment for 100 years' time.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may beg my noble friend to be brief.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I would have welcomed some reference to the opportunities for a developing forestry policy and the sustaining of this natural resource.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the points my noble friend makes about forestry. Clearly, the decline in forestry employment has helped the shift away from primary production in rural areas. There are opportunities for planting new forests; and for reviving forestry. Under the REDP there are woodland grants; and we give support to both private and corporate forestry proposals.
When we refer to the decline in some of the traditional industries in rural areas, it is important that we also paint the other side of the picture. Many small businesses have been built up in rural areas over recent years. Until the relatively recent decline in agricultural
1308
incomes, there were booming parts of the rural area with new industries and new enterprises which employed many people. To gain a full picture of the rural economy we need also to take that into account, important though agriculture and forestry are.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. I appreciate that he had to encompass a great many facts in a short Statement. However, I wish to ask about two issues of importance to many people.
The Minister mentioned the one-stop shop for post offices, chemists and banks. I cannot imagine a man or a woman handing out stamps, aspirin, and cheques. I do not know whether the reference means a kind of lobby involving several businesses together. Will people be directed, or will they volunteer, to go there?
Finally, when the Minister mentioned that the special council tax arrangements for single dwellers would be withdrawn, was he referring to anyone who is a single dweller in the country or only to someone whose house is his second home?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the noble Baroness's second point, I believe that she is referring to second homes. In cases where a 50 per cent reduction in council tax applies to second homes, we are giving local authorities the opportunity to raise that tax to the full level. It is a discretionary opportunity and local authorities will have to judge their own housing situation. The money raised would also provide the resource for developing more affordable housing within mainly rural local authority areas.
With regard to the noble Baroness's first point about one-stop shops, it is a tragedy that in many of our villages there is no shop. What remains may be a garage, a pub or a post office. Our objective is for a wider range of services to be provided in that shop or for a new shop to be opened which will not depend simply on the delivery of groceries or post office services but which will have greater opportunities for delivering government services or providing inter-medical or other services.
Historically, post offices have often provided that range of services. Therefore, I do not believe that the situation is quite as difficult as the noble Baroness suggests. Nevertheless, not every such shop provides all the services, and we want to encourage them to deliver as wide a range as possible. The support for rural post offices, in particular, of £270 million should enable such shops to develop in order to do so. The experiment in Leicestershire will be directed at indicating how well that can be achieved.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer. I want to raise two points with the Minister, one of which is a question. In the Statement he said that much of rural Britain is thriving. With regard to economy, the White Paper states that farming is in crisis. How can he square that circle?

1309
My second point is that I do not believe that the Minister answered the important point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, with regard to the tenure of social housing in villages. For example, would the occupier of a social house built in these circumstances have the right to buy?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are talking about support for social housing principally through housing associations. Therefore, in those circumstances the housing association would have to be prepared to sell in order for a person to have the right to buy. We are discussing the provision of social housing and the encouragement that is required to build cheaper housing in order to keep younger people and key workers in particular in villages where the pressure on prices puts housing out of their reach. That is the case both in terms of rented accommodation, for which people would go through the social housing route, and in terms of smaller, more affordable owner-occupied housing.
With regard to the noble Earl's first point, the question of how far the decline in farming incomes affects the prosperity of a rural area as a whole obviously varies from one country area to another. Total incomes in rural areas have been more buoyant than has been the case in urban areas. The problem is that there is both a geographical difference between areas and, in some cases, a polarisation between people who have done well and are living in the country on relatively high incomes—possibly working in the town or running their own businesses—and those who in recent years have suffered a decline in their agriculture-based income.
It is also true that agriculture accounts for only approximately 4 per cent of GDP in rural areas. In some cases that figure is 16 per cent or so, but not higher. Therefore, 80 per cent or more of the population is employed in industries other than agriculture, even if some of those industries are partly dependent on the buoyancy or otherwise of agriculture. Therefore, the pattern is mixed. There is considerable prosperity and economic success in rural areas as well as a decline in many sectors of farming.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister would answer two questions in relation to market towns, which he rightly identified as crucial focal points for rural communities. First, does the White Paper mention (because the Minister did not) the importance to the pride and self-determination of market towns and their hinterlands of the maintenance of local courts—county courts and magistrates' courts—which are being closed in unprecedented numbers? If it does not, would the Minister none the less give consideration to and become involved in some joined-up policy on that matter?
My second point concerns local voluntary organisations. Self-help is the key to any long-term revival of market towns. I note the fact that there are over 100,000 amateur sports clubs in this country, the majority of which are in market towns and villages.
1310
None of them has charitable status, whereas other forms of local organisation, such as horticultural societies, archaeological societies, scouts, guides, choral societies and most others, have charitable status and the benefits that come from that. Does the White Paper mention the need for local amateur sports clubs, which are so important to the local social cement, to be given, if not charitable status, the benefits in tax terms of charitable status?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's last point, I do not believe that we deal with the charitable status of sports clubs. We refer specifically to the need for support and encouragement Col rural voluntary activity. The noble Lord is right that the self-image of many market towns and other rural communities depends on the level of commitment and activity in rural areas.
With regard to the specific point about magistrates' courts, I believe that the noble Lord will find in the White Paper a table—which at present I cannot locate—which indicates that one of the facilities in larger market towns should be a magistrates' court.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to give an unqualified welcome to the totality of the White Paper. There is no doubt that it seeks to put right the deprivation which exists. I was taken by the part of the report which refers to the fact that farm incomes have fallen by 60 per cent over five years. Many families cannot afford to live in the place where they grew up.
I should not like to accuse noble Lords of collective amnesia. However, when Members on the Opposition Front Bench rightly point out that there is a lack of affordable housing, do they not remember that years ago their government gave the residents of rural communities the right to buy their council houses? As a result, there is an absence of council housing and, thus, in many communities no affordable housing. I believe that Members opposite should reflect before they criticise this Government's policy.
The other part of the report puts that right. It talks in terms of doubling the grant to the Housing Corporation. For five years until 1997 the grant to the Housing Corporation progressively decreased. The report refers to 3,000 houses which are to be earmarked as starter homes. Therefore, the Government have nothing to be ashamed about in their attempt to put the situation right, especially with regard to rural transport. I have taken up enough of your Lordships' time. I believe that the White Paper is all good stuff.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that endorsement. He is certainly right that we are almost doubling the resources to the Housing Corporation. It is important that we learn from past problems of mismatch of supply and demand in the housing market, particularly in relation to affordable housing. The resources for the Housing Corporation and housing associations go some way to meet that.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that without a revival in the wealth-creating industries in rural areas—agriculture, forestry

1311
and so on—the rural population cannot possibly be sustained? Therefore, many of the schemes advanced in the White Paper will become peripheral, if not inoperable. I am thinking of the transport schemes. Bearing that in mind I have a key question. Does the Minister believe that the Government have right the balance of the distribution of resources? Would it not be better to concentrate on supporting and nourishing those wealth-creating industries in rural areas?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly the future of the countryside in part depends on the revival of agriculture and its ability to make the changes required of it. The very large sums of money which the Government and the EU have put into rural areas to support agriculture and the new provisions which were announced earlier this year and those in relation to support for diversification for farming incomes are an important part of that. Agriculture must change but, as the noble Lord said, it is absolutely key to the future.
The only point I make, which I made earlier, is that there are, and will increasingly be, many other entrepreneurial successes in the countryside which already provide positive prosperity and employment for our rural citizens. Therefore, while it is vital that we continue to support agriculture, forestry and so on, those other industries also require encouragement.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that as the policies are announced and the commitments realised, this White Paper will come to be seen as a historic landmark which is perhaps deserving of rather more time than is available today? In particular, I commend the environmental interest which was illustrated also by the announcement on field boundaries, which has not yet been appreciated by the House.
I welcome my noble friend's comment about brownfield sites as an alternative to greenfield sites. That is highly desirable. But would it not be possible for the department to ensure that where achievement is either under way or already attained in regard to brownfield development, more and more attention is given to the possibilities which such development can provide?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. The development of brownfield sites must be part of the diversification of the rural economy. We have a lot to learn from the successful innovations which have already taken place in many of our rural areas.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I wish to make two comments in relation to transport. Research by the University of East Anglia over 30 years ago showed that the motor car was the ideal method of transport
1312
for travelling around rural areas. But now, of course, there are far too many cars running round the roads in rural areas which are totally unable to stand that amount of traffic because they were never designed for it. Therefore, workers in rural areas take their cars to drive to work. Villages then become bereft of cars. People then find themselves stranded in villages and that is when car-sharing comes into the picture.
I wish that I had seen a copy of this White Paper a lot earlier. I am interested in trains and not only in ensuring that trains run. Obviously, they do not always compete directly with buses. I believe that in Norfolk, we should re-open some of those lines which Dr Beeching manged to close. If that is done, an enormous amount of transport is taken off the roads. I am involved with people who are doing that at the moment. Many heavy goods vehicles can be taken off the roads, especially those transporting sugar beet.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have no doubt that in some cases an extension of the rural train service would be possible and would meet some of those needs. But more important is the provision of rural bus services and what are regarded as more flexible, on-demand services, somewhere between a taxi and a bus, which will meet most of the demands of rural dwellers.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister admit that agriculture has a part to play in the countryside. I am sorry to hear him go on again about diversification because people must produce potatoes, milk and fruit. It is primarily the marketing with which the producers need help. I did not hear any word about that in the Statement. Marketing has broken down since the abolition of the Potato Marketing Board, and with the curtailment of the Milk Marque, prices have dropped by over 20 per cent. Is that not a cause for alarm?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Statement recognises the need for local markets to be revived and for there to be an increase in the number of local markets. Better distribution facilities need to be provided for farmers. It is certainly the case that agriculture requires a distribution network and a system which is more appropriate to the needs of agriculture.
But I fear that a revival of the old-style marketing boards is not on the agenda and would not be appropriate for the agricultural and food policies of today.

Freedom of Information Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past six o'clock.

  TA Units: Location
  TA Units: Location
  Street Numbering
  Street Numbering
  Lead Shot Regulations
  Lead Shot Regulations
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Stoppages in the Streets: Sessional Order
  Stoppages in the Streets: Sessional Order