Sitting of 30 October 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. David Rendel: How many job losses there have been at AWE Aldermaston since the new management consortium took over responsibility. [132985]
  The Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other Members of the House, for the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence. I know that he set off to get here, but he has not yet arrived.
  As at 16 October, a total of 197 jobs had been lost at the Atomic Weapons Establishment since 1 April under the voluntary redundancy scheme introduced by the new management contractor and approval has been given to a further 34 applications.
  Mr. Rendel: I am sure that the Secretary of State has seen the recent report by the Environment Agency, which raised the concern that the company could not maintain proper environmental and safety standards. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, should the redundancy programme go ahead, that he has taken measures to ensure that redundancies will not cause environmental or safety concerns?
  Mr. Hoon: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comment. During the past three months, positive reports were published by Her Majesty's inspector of nuclear installations and the Environment Agency for England and Wales. The Environment Agency said:
  Arrangements for the management control of radioactive wastes at AWE and also the training of employees are good.
  It also said that the initial impact of the new management systems, especially the environmental management systems, were
  promising, and could potentially fully meet overall requirements in the near future.
  The Environment Agency gave a positive report on the first three months of operation of the new management contractor.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that throughout the country there are fears—
  496
  BSE and the rail crisis, for example—about the possibility that information has been hidden and that staffing requirements may be cut? Will he give an assurance that no hidden secrets about Aldermaston will suddenly emerge, and that safety is absolutely paramount?
  Mr. Hoon: With regard to that operation, safety is absolutely paramount. I assure my hon. Friend that the contractor's obligations include the need to satisfy the Ministry of Defence and independent regulators about safety considerations arid that that will remain the case. I give him the assurance that he seeks.

  KFOR
  Mr. Julian Brazier: What plans he has to meet the Russian Defence Minister to discuss KFOR. [132986]
  The Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have invited the Russian Defence Minister to visit the United Kingdom in early December. I would expect discussions to address a range of issues, certainly including events in the Balkans.
  Mr. Brazier: Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the role of the Russians in securing the ceasing of hostilities in Kosovo? There is now a democratically elected Government in Yugoslavia, who are calling on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to accept their terms, which were that Kosovo should remain part of Serbia and that some of their troops should be allowed to return to the region. In that delicate, difficult and dangerous situation, the role and the good will of the Russians will be crucial in the attempt to find a peaceful way forward.
  Mr. Hoon: I agree—unusually, if I may say so—with the hon. Gentleman, who rightly praised the Russians for their contribution and emphasised the role that they can play in determining the necessary constitutional arrangements in Serbia.
  Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend share with the House information on some of the events that followed the sinking of the submarine Kursk? Many of us followed those tragic events during the summer with increasing horror. What part has the Royal Navy played, and what part will it play in the effort to recover bodies from the submarine?
  Mr. Hoon: I make it clear that we are not playing a part in the recovery of bodies. As soon as we became aware of the problem, we offered to help. Early preparations were undertaken in advance of a specific request from the Russian authorities for assistance so that we should be able to respond as quickly as possible. Having made those contingency arrangements, we were able to move as quickly as possible to the scene of the tragedy.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Kosovo is only one place in which our defence forces are committed.

  497
  Does the Secretary of State agree that they are being asked to do ever more but that they are being given fewer facilities and people with which to operate?
  Mr. Hoon: I recognise that the world is an increasingly dangerous place and that recently British forces have played a significant part around the world addressing those dangers. This time last year, at about the time that I assumed my present ministerial position, overstretch was a problem in the British armed forces. We immediately examined ways in which to reduce that and to significantly reduce the numbers on operation in the Balkans. That significantly reduced the level of activity. However, the hon. Gentleman is right—we continue to look carefully at the engagements in which we should become involved and ensure that overstretch is at the top of the list of considerations that we take into account.

  KFOR

    Deployment
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on the deployment of United Kingdom armed forces since 28 July. [132990]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Since 28 July, the United Kingdom armed forces have continued their operational deployments in support of international efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Gulf. On 10 October, the UK also announced an enhancement to our deployment in support of the Government of Sierra Leone.
    As well as a number of short-term deployments worldwide on exercises and other routine military activity, the UK continues to contribute military personnel to United Nations operations in Cyprus, Georgia, Sierra Leone, East Timor and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and on the Iraq-Kuwait border.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Many of those examples would have justified a statement in the House, but for the inordinately long recess.
    Will the Minister now make a definitive statement? We have a right to know, and a duty to ask, what were the circumstances relating to the taking of soldiers in the Royal Irish Regiment as hostages in Sierra Leone. It resulted in a skilful, professional and brave rescue attempt, which, tragically, involved the loss of British soldiers' lives.
    We note that Major Alan Marshall is not to be court-martialled. That may be correct, if he is innocent; if, on the other hand, he is guilty of mistakes, perhaps he should be court-martialled. It is certainly wrong for him to be produced if he was, in fact, following orders.
    I think it is time that the House of Commons was told, with clarity and precision, exactly what happened, and what Major Marshall's orders were.
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend will probably have observed that Major Marshall had to have a meeting with the Commander-in-Chief, Land, General Jackson—
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: That would not have been a pleasant occasion.
    Mr. Spellar: As usual, the right hon. and learned Gentleman treats the matter lightly. I do not think that Major Marshall treated it lightly.
    498
    There was no breach of military law, and therefore no requirement for a court martial. There was an error of judgment; on the other hand, following the capture Major Marshall behaved superbly, with great care and concern not only for his own men but for the other, Sierra Leonean hostages. I think that the balance was right, and that this is appropriately a judgment for the Army military authorities.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: How many British troops have been deployed on courses training them to drive fuel tankers since 28 July? Is this the best use of military personnel? Is it not the kind of sabre-rattling that is likely to inflame industrial relations, rather than calming them down?
    Mr. Spellar: I am interested to learn that a Conservative Member believes that a Government should not make appropriate contingency arrangements to secure and safeguard vital supplies to maintain the country.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Has my hon. Friend heard the statements from those on the Opposition Front Bench hinting that we should not be in Sierra Leone, but should leave the people there to their fate, and hinting that we should not have gone into Kosovo to get rid of Milosevic? Is it not a fact that, in regard to overseas deployment, the Conservative party is now the most isolationist party in Europe?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the business of the Minister to worry about the Conservative party.
    Mr. MacShane: Would the Minister agree—in condemning, in passing, the isolationism of the Conservative party—with the American Defence Secretary's statement fully supporting, ungrudgingly and wholeheartedly, the European defence initiative led by this country and opposed by the isolationists on the Opposition Benches?
    Mr. Spellar: Obviously, I find myself in some degree of agreement with my hon. Friend. He is right to draw attention to the current Conservative party's tendency—perhaps acquired from some of the ultra wings of opinion in the United States—towards isolationism rather than constructive engagement with the world. I am afraid that that tendency is symptomatic of a deeper development in the Conservative party, which will ensure that it stays on the Opposition Benches for a very long time.
    Mr. Robert Key: Can we get back to the facts? Will the Minister confirm whether 1,000 troops have been deployed for training to drive oil tankers and whether the Government have ordered the stockpiling of fuel in military depots? Are those men volunteers and on what legal basis has the action been carried out: is it under the Emergency Powers Acts, or under military aid to the civil community; and, if the latter, who made the request?
    Mr. Spellar: I should have thought—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is much easier to answer when Opposition Members are not shouting. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is absolutely prudent and right to make contingency plans for circumstances in which the civil authorities request the military forces to

    499
    train a number of personnel to undertake such tasks which are necessary to maintain the supply of essential services to the nation. We have prudently and contingently been training troops and, according to current progress, I estimate that, after the 60-day period, the number trained will approach 1,000. They will be trained to undertake necessary tasks in the event of a breakdown of order resulting in the ordinary civilian groups that would normally undertake those tasks being unable to do so, and the civil authorities requesting that we do so.

    Chinook Crash
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will hold a new inquiry into the circumstances leading to the crash of Chinook ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994. [132991]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government have always made it clear that if new evidence were to come to light, it would be examined with scrupulous care, thoroughness and compassion. To date, we have seen nothing that causes us to doubt the integrity of the verdict of the RAF board of inquiry, or that would prompt us to hold a new inquiry.
    Mr. Swayne: Given the volume of new evidence that has emerged, especially in connection with the software involved, and the number of eminent persons who have expressed disquiet about the verdict, is it not now time to reopen the matter? After all, would it not clear the air? What is the Ministry of Defence attempting to hide?
    Mr. Hoon: The MOD is not attempting to hide anything. I have examined every single submission made to the Ministry on the subject. There is certainly a mass of material, but none of it discloses any new evidence as such. I accept that many people who have looked at the evidence have said that they would have reached a different conclusion from the one reached by the board of inquiry, but that is not a sufficient reason to overturn a board of inquiry and order a new one. Only if there was real, relevant new evidence would that be the appropriate course of action.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the extreme disquiet felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the other place about whether we can really have a verdict based on blaming the dead? Will he come with an open mind to next month's meeting with the Mull of Kintyre group?
    Mr. Hoon: I do have an open mind on the subject. I have set out what I consider to be the proper course to adopt, which is that it is not right to disturb the finding of the original board of inquiry in the absence of any significant new evidence, or because it is possible for different people, perfectly properly and with an entirely open mind, to reach different conclusions. Only if it could be shown that there was new evidence would it be right to reopen the board of inquiry. I certainly have an open mind in respect of new evidence becoming available.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: How does my right hon. Friend square what he has just said—that different people can reasonably come to different
    500
    conclusions—with the Ministry of Defence's position that, if the pilots are dead, it is wrong to blame them unless there is absolutely no doubt that they are responsible? If it is open to honourable people to come to different conclusions in the case, it is entirely outwith the bounds of the Ministry's own provisions to have declared the pilots responsible.
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry, but that is absolutely not right. The board of inquiry was instructed properly, according to the rules governing such inquiries that prevailed at the time, and the board pursued the matter perfectly properly. My hon. Friend seems to imply that it should be possible to reopen any decision or judgment at which a board of inquiry has arrived simply because, later, others take a different view. That cannot be right and it cannot be the right way in which to deal with such matters.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: The Prime Minister finds time to see a very strange group of people, from Bernie Ecclestone to Liam Gallagher. How come he could not find time to receive an all-party delegation from both Houses, including several Privy Councillors, who were seriously concerned that there may have been a breach of natural justice in this case?
    Mr. Hoon: That is obviously a matter for the Prime Minister. However, if the hon. Gentleman had phrased his question in a slightly more sensible way, I might have been willing to give him a rather more serious response. Nevertheless, the reality is that the Prime Minister is engaged in this matter, and that he has answered a number of questions on this issue in the course of his responsibilities. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman seeks to catch the Speaker's eye on a future occasion when the Prime Minister is answering questions, he will be able to raise that issue with him.

    Iraq
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What discussions he has had with his Armenian counterparts as to developments in Iraq. [132992]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I remain in regular contact with the United States Government on a range of issues, including Iraq. I exchanged views most recently with Mr. Cohen, the Secretary for Defence, in the margins of NATO informal ministerials, in Birmingham, on 10 October.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: The question is on Armenian counterparts.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: That was a printers' error, Mr. Speaker.
    My right hon. Friend will know that the Iraqi sanctions are being flouted on a massive scale, particularly in the case of oil, and that that information is well known to the Americans. What action is being taken to enforce the sanctions?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend knows that determined efforts are made by the international community to enforce sanctions. Those efforts are not as effective as we

    501
    would like them to be. However, certainly, we continue to see real value in the enforcement of sanctions and we play our part in that process.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Given the differences between British policy and French policy on Iraq, how will the Government's objectives be helped by the new European Union military arrangements, particularly if, as reported in yesterday's The Sunday Telegraph, the director general of the military staff is to be French?
    Mr. Hoon: The military arrangements that are the headline goal are not anticipated to be used in the context of enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq, which is what British forces with their American counterparts are engaged in. I am, therefore, not sure that the premise of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is at all relevant. Nevertheless, it gives him an opportunity to air once again the anti-European phobia that too many Opposition Members seem to be suffering from.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: How many British troops are deployed in Sierra Leone. [132993]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our announcement on 10 October indicated a small increase in the total number of troops deployed in Sierra Leone. The number will vary depending on the training task under way, but it is likely to be slightly over 400.
    We also made it clear that, under our memorandum with the United Nations, we are ready to deploy a rapid reaction force in support of United Nations peacekeeping operations. As an early demonstration of the seriousness of that commitment, we are taking advantage of the completion of an exercise in the Mediterranean to divert an amphibious ready group comprising elements of our joint rapid reaction forces off Sierra Leone for a limited period during November. The group will include HMS Fearless, HMS Ocean, three Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and 42 Commando embarked. While in the area the group will be able to practise procedures and to conduct a detailed reconnaissance, both of which will significantly reduce the time needed to deploy should the rapid reaction force be required in future.
    Mr. Thomas: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Can he assure the House that, while clearly doing everything possible to support the United Nations peacekeeping force, we are not going to see mission creep or find ourselves in the situation of British forces taking the fight direct to the rebels?
    Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The primary purpose of British forces going to Sierra Leone is not only to train the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone, but to demonstrate that the current deployment is there for training purposes. The 400 whom I mentioned earlier are there to assist the Government of Sierra Leone in developing forces of their own that can be used to take on the rebels. The deployment there of the
    502
    amphibious ready group is part of a demonstration of our commitment to the United Nations, pursuant to a memorandum that we signed with the UN in 1999.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I support the training mission, which is essential for the long-term stability of Sierra Leone. It is also right that the United Kingdom should provide additional forces to assist the United Nations effort. Without them the success of the training mission cannot be guaranteed. However, instead of a separate command, would it not make much more sense to place the additional British forces under the United Nations command? The withdrawal of the Indian and the Jordanian troops is generally accepted as weakening the UN effort. How will we persuade other countries to contribute to the UN effort if we are not willing to contribute to it ourselves?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that analysis of the problem. The training that we are conducting is quite separate from the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone. We have offered extra headquarters staff to UNAMSIL to give it some assistance in deploying its forces as well as provided substantial assistance to the Government of Sierra Leone. We believe that the best way of assisting that Government is to make sure that they have forces on which they can call to resist the rebel forces in Sierra Leone.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: We clearly have obligations to a Commonwealth ally that is seeking to achieve democracy. We also have obligations to the United Nations which, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, is potentially facing a crisis of confidence with Jordanian and Indian forces leaving as the fighting season begins. Is it the Government's clear view that our reinforcements are in Sierra Leone only for confidence building and to tidy matters up in the short term and that there will be no move—substantial or otherwise—from a training to an active intervention role?
    Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. May I make it clear that we announced on 10 October that the training will continue certainly until April of next year? We recognise the importance of providing a substantial body of trained troops to the Government of Sierra Leone. The early training teams have been very successful and have provided soldiers whom the Government of Sierra Leone can use. We also wish to extend the training so that, as well as providing trained individuals, we ensure that the Government of Sierra Leone can call on trained groups. That means more than simply providing individual soldiers with weapons, uniforms and boots, but providing them with the equipment that will be needed if they are—as we hope they will—to take the fight to the rebels.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Earlier Government policy hinged on an effective UN force being in place with the right numbers to be able to keep the peace. However, that force has proved ineffective. As the Secretary of State knows, it will not take the action that is necessary. Now, with the departure of the Indians and the Jordanians, it is beginning to look even more ineffective than it was when British forces

    503
    were deployed earlier this year to support it. That leaves us with a vacuum that, as Labour Members have already said, may well suck us deeper into the conflict.
    Will the Secretary of State answer a question that will help to give us clarity? What conditions in Sierra Leone must prevail in the mind of the Government for British troops to be withdrawn?
    Mr. Hoon: May I deal with the premise behind the hon. Gentleman's question? There is no suggestion at the moment that the UN force is not effective. It has preserved peace in Sierra Leone and there is no sign that the rebels have taken any new ground. Indeed, it is clearly central to our policy that that force should be effective.
    We have been able to help—as I said, we have provided headquarters staff to guide the UN force—and we believe that that is an effective way forward. However, it is important that the Government of Sierra Leone should have effective forces on which they can call. The early training teams have done a tremendous job in making soldiers available to that Government. We believe that they need more soldiers, but those soldiers should be trained not only as individuals, but as formed fighting forces. That work is likely to start fairly shortly. Ultimately, we want the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone to control their own territory.

    Army Operations
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What is the current percentage of the Army (a) committed to, (b) preparing for and (c) recovering from operations. [132995]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Some 22 per cent. of the trained Army is committed to operations. This figure includes units preparing for, deployed on and recovering from operations. Of these, 15 per cent. of the trained Army is currently deployed on operations.
    There has been a significant reduction in commitment levels over the past year, particularly since the height of the Kosovo campaign in July 1999, when the commitment level reached a peak of 44 per cent. The current level of commitment is below that inherited from the previous Administration.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am pleased to hear it. However, what would the impact be if the United States were to withdraw its forces from Kosovo and Bosnia, as George Bush junior has threatened to do in the unhappy event that he becomes President?
    Mr. Spellar: Certainly, any new Administration—whichever candidate wins in that election—will obviously wish to review their foreign and defence policy and have discussions with their allies in that regard. NATO has been ensuring that there are adequate forces in both Bosnia and Kosovo so that we can maintain a stable situation in those societies, as demonstrated by the very welcome elections in Kosovo over the weekend.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given the high strike rate of operations at the present time, which I regard as unavoidable, will the Minister assure the House that, even though the Ministry of Defence cut back on the
    504
    training programme last year, there will be no such cutback in the high-intensity battle training for the year coming and the year after that?
    Mr. Spellar: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the level of operations and his understanding of the requirement for those. He will also understand that we try, wherever possible, to avoid any cuts in significant training. Last year, on balance, although there were one or two highly publicised events, very little training suffered cutbacks.
    Of course, we will be acquiring greater flexibility with the increase announced in the comprehensive spending review—the first planned increase, I remind the House, since the cold war.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: In the context of single people, in particular, who are preparing for and recovering from operations, what progress has been made in improving accommodation for them in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Spellar: The answer is, significant but not yet sufficient. The Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary, who is responsible for the accommodation programme, and I are working with the Ministry to improve that programme. We take the point that, over a number of years, housing has been used as the balancing item, which has had a significant effect on deteriorating conditions. Public focus has often been on married quarters, but having visited a number of those quarters, we are very aware of the inadequate provision for single living accommodation and we intend to do something about it.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Government have to deal with those who are preparing for operations. Will the Minister accept that 1,000 drivers being trained to help bust any sort of strike may well be included among those, as they are being prepared and are ready to be deployed on an operation? As and when they are deployed on that operation, will those military drivers be under the command of the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Spellar: First, let me be quite clear. I am not aware of a proposal for a strike anywhere in terms of national supplies. I am aware of threats to blockade, disrupt, barricade—in other words, of threats potentially to conduct illegal action. In the event that such action took place—I stress that it would not be a strike-and that the civil authorities and the civilian organisations were unable to undertake action to provide those supplies, there could be a request to the military to provide that equipment and also, therefore, that service.
    In answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), there is no requirement for any legal authority to undertake training. The legal authority comes on deployment of forces. Therefore, the forces would be under the command of the armed forces. The request would come from the civil authorities and—to clear up any misapprehension that there may have been in the press—the maintenance of law and order is the responsibility of the civil authorities.

    505
    I find it quite extraordinary that there is no Conservative comment deploring proposals to disrupt national supplies as a way of changing public policy. Other Members of the House and the public will have noted that.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Now that the Minister has had his rant, perhaps he would answer the question exactly and specifically. Why would the Government, in the form of the Ministry of Defence, be training 1,000 drivers? Who requested that that be done? If those drivers are deployed, will they be under the command of the Home Office and, thus, will there be a state of emergency? Who asked for it?
    Mr. Spellar: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand how government works. There is collective responsibility, with a lead from the Home Departments. In the event of a breakdown in vital supplies to the nation, the Home Departments could make a request to the military authorities to provide military aid. Therefore, we have to make contingency arrangements so that we could respond to such a request if it were made. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the rules, regulations and laws relating to military aid for civil authorities, but that is probably because Conservative Members have been busy supporting those who were barricading the refineries rather than defending law and order.

    Rogue Governments
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What recent assessment he has made of the military threat to the United Kingdom from states with rogue Governments. [132996]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our assessment is that there is no significant immediate military threat to the United Kingdom. We continue, however, to monitor the development of military threats very closely.
    Mr. Flynn: That is a great relief. If there is no threat to us, what will be our attitude to the phantom threat that is encouraging the United States to introduce a national missile defence system that will entail the upgrading of the radar station at Fylingdales in this country, which we are told is in conflict with the anti-ballistic missile treaty? If George Bush wins the election in America, is not it true that there will be an attempt to introduce that very dangerous national missile system not to secure world peace, but to secure fat contracts for the American arms industry?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has asked that sort of question before, but I should have thought that he would have taken account of the measured approach adopted by President Clinton in stating that he would defer any decision on the deployment of national missile defence. In those circumstances, no request has been made of the United Kingdom and, therefore, much of what he asks me to comment on is mere speculation. However, I can tell him that President Clinton took careful account of the views of the United States allies, including the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Foreign Office is opposed to ballistic missile defence,
    506
    what pressure has the Secretary of State received from his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to curtail his Department's involvement in the United Kingdom readiness and risk assessment programme?
    Mr. Hoon: Again, Opposition Members need to understand the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility, because the Government speak with a single voice on those matters. I have set out the Government's view precisely. We have had discussions with our US allies. We were delighted that, in announcing his decision to defer any decision in the United States, President Clinton said that he had taken account of those views. We are most grateful.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), the Defence Secretary said that President Clinton had taken account of the views put forward by allied Governments, including the United Kingdom. Can he tell us exactly what those views were? Will he place those opinions in the Library so that they can be made public? Will he say that, in the event that either future President Gore or future President Bush requests us to endorse national missile defence, with all its dangers and illegalities, the British Government will simply say no?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend asks me to speculate on a decision that has not even been taken in the United States and which the US President has recently said does not need to be taken. In those circumstances, he is simply making a request for speculation. A number of issues have to be taken into account. I am delighted that the US President was prepared to take into account the views of allies and said as much.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Given that rogue Governments may well use information warfare techniques to pose a military threat to the United Kingdom, and that our information warfare defences will almost certainly include commercially available software, what action does the Secretary of State plan to take following the recent hacking into Microsoft's most secure systems?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Lady is right to point out that there are, in the modern world, ways in which Governments can be attacked other than by conventional military means. We are aware, across Government, of such threats, and we take every step to develop defences against such potential attacks. As the Microsoft incident shows, there are some ingenious and clever people who are prepared to put their talents at the disposal of the unscrupulous, and we must guard against them, too.

    Bosnia
    Mrs. Betty Williams: How many British troops are deployed in Bosnia. [132997]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Currently, we have about 2,300 troops deployed in Bosnia, serving with SFOR. We are on target for a commitment of about 2,000 troops by the end of the year. About 4,000 troops are deployed in Kosovo, 500 of whom were deployed for the election period. My right

    507
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence plans to visit the Balkans region before the end of this year and intends to call on troops serving in KFOR and SFOR.
    Mrs. Williams: How long does my hon. Friend believe that British troops will remain in Bosnia?
    Mr. Spellar: Quite simply, that will depend on developments in Bosnia. To some extent, that will be influenced by the favourable developments in Serbia and the departure of Milosevic—a departure hastened by the strong action of allied forces last year and our strong commitment against him since then.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is the Minister studying the recent election results in both Serbia and Kosovo? What change have they made to the Government's thinking about the troops being kept there? Will he reassure the House that the commitment is not unlimited? The troops have been in Bosnia for about eight years and it looks as though they could remain for a very long time to come.
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman would agree that the overthrow of Milosevic changes the situation. It is a favourable development on which we must build, but it would be premature to contemplate timetables. No one should underestimate the change in the region, which has been matched or even precipitated by the change in Croatia, where again a hard-line regime was defeated by a more progressive one that clearly wants to be part of Europe. We intend to build on those very favourable developments. It might be premature to set a timetable, but the changes begin to offer us some light.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the House's appreciation for the work of our forces in Bosnia is communicated to them? What message does he have for the new Government in Belgrade concerning the restoration of normal relations with Bosnia, to allow a de-escalation of the military presence in the Balkans?
    Mr. Spellar: We intend to reopen the embassy there and to appoint a defence attaché. Discussions are taking place with ourselves and other European countries. We should recognise, however, that the first priority of the new regime in Belgrade will be the reconstruction of the country. The new Government will have to focus on that, but we aim to work with them and help them in that process.

    Far East Prisoners of War
    Mr. David Heath: When he will announce the outcome of his review of the case for ex gratia payments to former far east prisoners of war. [133002]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last Wednesday, the Government's review of the case for awarding additional, ex gratia, compensation
    508
    to former UK service personnel who were prisoners of war in the far east is still in progress, but we expect a decision to be announced very shortly.
    Mr. Heath: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the strong support throughout the House for a group of people who have experienced privations that are unimaginable to most of us? It is much to be regretted that the Government have been sending mixed signals on the issue over the past few months. Can he assure us now that the question will be resolved, not within months or even weeks, but within days?
    Mr. Hoon: I do understand the issue. My father served in India and in Burma during the second world war. I grew up in no doubt of the conditions in which many of our armed forces were held, of the appalling circumstances and, moreover, of the fact that many of those people carried that legacy throughout their lives; some continue to do so. Therefore, I am aware of the circumstances. I assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that the matter will be resolved as quickly as possible.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since the Prime Minister replied to my question last Wednesday, there has been greater optimism among the people affected that a settlement will very soon be reached? I hope that it will be reached very shortly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Japanese who should pay compensation, and that their refusal to do so has led to the position where the British Government are likely to do so? Should we not remember that some 25 per cent. of prisoners never returned because of the horrifying conditions that they had to endure, dying as prisoners of the Japanese?
    Mr. Hoon: Some compensation was paid under the 1951 peace treaty. I accept that, understandably, those affected regard that compensation as inadequate, which is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged the other day that this nation, the United Kingdom, owes those people a particular debt of honour. It is that debt of honour that we are reviewing. I hope that the optimism that my hon. Friend mentions is vindicated.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State accept that the far east prisoners of war were, as I have pointed out to the House previously, victims of war crimes? Will he give a commitment that any payments to them will be not means-related, but absolute ex gratia payments either to the far east prisoners of war themselves, or to their widows if they have since died?
    Mr. Hoon: I am well aware of the implications of any decision that the Government take. All I can do is assure the hon. Gentleman that those factors are taken into account as part of the review that is yet to conclude.
    Mr. John Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are only 7,500 former far east POWs left and that, in the next few years, that figure is likely to

    509
    drop substantially? Can we do quickly what the Tories failed to do for 18 years: get an announcement out of the way and get the money to those men before it is too late?
    Mr. Hoon: I have indicated my appreciation and understanding of the problem. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that we are proceeding with the review as quickly as we possibly can.

    European Security and Defence Initiative
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What contribution the United Kingdom is making towards meeting the headline goals of the European security and defence initiative. [133004]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts about the European security and defence initiative; and if he will make a statement. [133005]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I discussed European security and defence issues with my EU counterparts at the EU Defence Ministers informal meeting on 22 September in Paris, and with all NATO allies at the informal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Birmingham on 10 October.
    We discussed progress on elaborating the requirements of the Helsinki headline goal and member states' possible contributions to a pool of capabilities that could be drawn on in the event of a crisis. Contributions from member states, including the UK, will be formally identified at a capability commitment conference to be held on 20–21 November.
    Mr. Wilkinson: As the capability conference is imminent, can the Secretary of State not come to the House later this week and say clearly which units will be earmarked from the British armed forces to fulfil the role under the ESDI? Is it not a very large role to deploy an Army corps for up to a year, sustained by 350 combat aircraft and no less than 80 naval vessels? Where are the extra resources coming from? Is there not a risk that it will damage NATO without any corresponding increase in capability, unless the money and resources are forthcoming?
    Mr. Hoon: There is—the hon. Gentleman was no doubt alluding to it—a defence debate on Wednesday and Thursday this week. Clearly, it will be possible during that debate to discuss those matters in more detail, but I doubt that we would be in a position by Wednesday or Thursday to indicate to the House precisely what initial contribution we are offering as part of the capability conference. However, I make it clear to him and, indeed, to other hon. Members that what is proposed in relation to the headline goal is not a standing force. It is not a force that will permanently be waiting for some Petersberg crisis to be called into action. They are commitments of capability in exactly the same way as NATO allies contribute to NATO and to the United Nations where appropriate. We are seeking to persuade other European Union member states to have available the
    510
    kind of rapid reaction forces that, as a result of the strategic defence review in particular, we can make available for international operations.
    Miss McIntosh: May I congratulate the Defence Secretary on answering more questions than usual in his own right? Will he give the House an assurance this afternoon that the Americans will not see the ESDI as a threat to European defence and that our European partners will meet the commitments that we are expecting of them in this regard?
    Mr. Hoon: I was assuming that the hon. Lady would disagree with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on this subject. Nevertheless, I can give her a clear assurance, as was given by Bill Cohen, the United States Defence Secretary, most recently at Birmingham that the United States Administration strongly support the development of European capabilities and want to see them improved. Indeed, had the hon. Lady studied the history of the US and NATO, she would know full well that for a long time the US has called for a more effective European contribution to NATO because, in strengthening Europe's contribution to NATO, we will be strengthening NATO itself.
    Mr. Syd Rapson: This is my first public opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on assuming the Chair. I am very pleased.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increasingly fanatical Euro-sceptic statements from the Opposition are seriously undermining confidence in, and support for, the A400M and Eurofighter, and that a proper criticism should be made of the equipment's capability and not of the fact that it is built by a European consortium?
    Mr. Hoon: I am always lost in admiration for my hon. Friend's ability to draw in subjects that are not obvious from the Order Paper, but I certainly have some sympathy with his views. I wonder, in the unlikely event of the Opposition ever returning to government, which particular partners they would associate with in future. Clearly, they want to leave the European Union. They criticise every aspect of any decision taken in the context of the European Union and they reject the views and advice of the current United States Administration because they do not want the US to be content with a European development, so I wonder where their isolationist tendency is leading.
    Sir Peter Emery: Perhaps the Secretary of State will get away from polemics and revert to the facts. Does he accept that any European defence initiative for a rapid response force must have the lift potential to be got to wherever the problems are as quickly as possible? That lift potential does not exist in Europe at the moment. Is it to be expected that we will rely entirely on the Americans to provide that lift potential, or how quickly does he envisage France, Germany and ourselves will be able to provide it?
    Mr. Hoon: Perhaps I would not be tempted to polemics if the right hon. Gentleman, in asking such questions, were more likely to say how much he approved of the Government's position on airlifts. Had he started by asking how it is that, over many years, the Government

    511
    whom he supported failed to invest in the airlift that is required to carry out international missions and said how well the present Government had done in making the necessary investment, I might have had a bit more sympathy with him. Nevertheless, I can assure him that by agreeing to lease four C 17s, which will be in service next year with the RAF, and by committing to buy 25 A400Ms—a new European transport aircraft—we will put in the necessary investment for our armed forces to have the heavy lift required to get them rapidly into theatres where they are needed. I think that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, although I would be greatly appreciative if he were a little less grudging in his comments.

    Cotswold Families Centre
    Mr. James Gray: If he will visit the Cotswold families centre in Corsham to discuss its future. [133006]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I should like to take this opportunity to commend the service provided by the services Cotswold centre on behalf of service families. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the future of the centre is under review and we hope to make a decision about its future in the first half of next year.
    Mr. Gray: Is there not a curious irony that the outstanding service provided at the centre for the victims of family breakdown—as well as education services for the local battered wives refuge and other services entirely for less-privileged people—which was preserved by the Conservative Government for 18 years, should now be under review by the Labour Government, who claim to be committed to persons of that kind? The Minister has been reviewing the centre for some three and a half years already. Will he at the very least agree to complete the review as soon as he can? Will he come and visit the centre with me—I shall welcome him there any day he cares to come—so that I can show him personally the excellent work that is carried out there?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before, and I understand his concern. However, I receive a considerable number of requests to visit establishments around the country. This is one that we are considering, but I cannot give him a guarantee.
    One of the reasons why the review is taking a while is the excellent work undertaken at the centre, which no one wants to underestimate. However, the centre is underused.
    512
    Its average monthly occupation rate is between 60 and 65 per cent. Some 93 per cent. of the families staying at the centre are either in transit between family quarters or are on a break. Only 5 per cent. of families staying at the centre are experiencing welfare problems. There is a need to evaluate—as we must do right across defence activities—whether such a service can be provided more cost-effectively elsewhere. Those considerations are being weighed up. Once a conclusion has been arrived at, we shall give it the fullest publicity.

    Nuclear Defence Industry (Scotland)
    Mr. Bill Tynan: If he will make a statement on the numbers employed in the nuclear defence industry in Scotland. [133012]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The total number of personnel employed directly by the Ministry of Defence in establishments in Scotland that undertake nuclear-related activity is 3,974. In addition, we employ private contractors. Also, the figure does not include service personnel ported at the Clyde naval base.
    Mr. Tynan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in Scotland, where the policies of the Scottish National party as regards the nuclear industry are causing tremendous concern to the work force? Will he ensure that he publicises the threat to the nuclear defence industry in Scotland? Will he seek to reassure the people working in the industry?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend and I have met members of the work force, who are enormously professional and have an enormous pride in the skills that they employ, as well as in the contribution that they make to Britain's defences. The House will not be surprised that Scottish National party Members have chosen not to turn up today; there is nothing unusual in that. However, their views on this subject are at direct variance with the views of the great majority of people in this country and are very much at variance with the interests of the work force on the Clyde at Coulport and Faslane, the many other workers who depend on those establishments for their employment and the suppliers to the defence industry. I need no incitement from my hon. Friend to undertake to give the widest possible publicity to the difficulties that Scottish National party policy would cause not only for the people at Faslane and Coulport, but for the people of Scotland and the industry generally. [Interruption.] I cannot quite hear what the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is saying with regard to this matter; I am sure that it is instructive.

Speaker's Statement
3.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make. During the debate on defence procurement last Thursday, several points of order were raised with the Chair. Two issues in particular arose. The first issue was whether it was acceptable for a Minister to make policy announcements during a debate rather than through a statement to the House. That is a long-established practice, and announcements of the sort that were made last Thursday have been made in this way by previous Governments on a regular basis. I quite understand the anxieties that were expressed on Thursday about the practice, but it may equally be convenient for the House for announcements to be made during a debate. What is certain is that no rule or convention of the House has been broken, though I would expect Ministers to give careful thought to the matter when considering making announcements in this way.
The second issue is potentially more serious. An allegation was made that the substance of the Minister's announcement had appeared in the media before the House was informed. I must make it clear that if Ministers were to release information to the press before the House was informed of major policy developments I would regard that as an unacceptable discourtesy to the House. If that occurred, I would expect the Minister concerned to apologise to the House. With regard to last Thursday's announcement, it appears that some broadly accurate advance information reached the media. The Secretary of State for Defence has assured me that he is confident that the information did not come from his Department. I accept that assurance. Nevertheless, I expect Ministers to take measures to ensure that other authorities, who are privy to confidential information, protect it until the House has been informed. I hope that the Secretary of State will pursue the matter.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wholeheartedly welcome the points that you made, especially the second part of the statement, which dealt with information. In answer to Question 9, the Secretary of State appeared to make a statement about new policy on the deployment of troops to Sierra Leone. I wonder whether it would have been more appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to have taken Question 9 at 3.30 pm.
Mr. Speaker: That is up to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Paul Keetch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. During last Thursday's debate, at column 448 of Hansard, I said that, if the Secretary of State had made the information available to the BBC website, as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) suggested, he should apologise to the House. Even if not he, but someone from his office, were responsible for providing that information, would it be your ruling that he should apologise to the House?
Mr. Speaker: I have made a clear statement to the House. The hon. Gentleman should read it in Hansard.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I welcome the
514
guidance that you have given the House, could you provide further clarification? You will understand that the difference between a statement and incorporating information in a debate is that, when a specific statement is announced in advance, hon. Members have an opportunity to come to the House and question the Minister appropriately. Under the overall umbrella of a debate, hon. Members may not be aware that such information will be made available.
At column 414 of the record of last Thursday's proceedings, the Secretary of State said:
Let me complete the statement, and I shall certainly give way in due course. —[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 414.]
It would appear that the Secretary of State came to the House, and gave what amounted to a statement in a debate. However, hon. Members had not been apprised of that, and therefore had no opportunity to decide whether they should be present to take part. You will understand that distinction, Mr. Speaker. May I invite you to go further than you have already gone in making the distinction?
Mr. Speaker: I have made a statement, and I believe that the Secretary of State has got the message.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members are not seeking an expansion on my statement.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having taken part in the proceedings last Thursday, and welcoming your ruling today, I accept. of course, that the regulations of the House were not breached. However, although the letter of our regulations may not have been breached, the spirit most certainly was. If there is a statement, right hon. and hon. Members have an opportunity to prepare and you, Mr. Speaker, in presiding over our proceedings, can ensure that there is sufficient time for questioning and that there is a proper balance of participation by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. If the Secretary of State is incorporating what is, in effect, a statement into his speech in a debate, the intervention of hon. Members is purely at the Secretary of State's discretion. That is not appropriate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will note that my statement referred to the Minister giving careful consideration to these matters.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to the second part of your statement, Mr. Speaker, which you said was the more important one in that it covered the more important issue, does not an unsatisfactory situation arise in the House? It appears that there was a leak on Thursday to the media of material that was clearly conceived and drafted in the Ministry of Defence. The Secretary of State says that he personally was not responsible, but presumably that means that either one of his officials was or there was a leak from the Ministry of Defence, which in the nature of things would be a matter of considerable concern, to some other organisation, which then itself passed the information on to the media.

515
If we do not have the apology which you said would be required had the Minister been directly responsible, Mr. Speaker, do we not need at least an inquiry to ascertain how it was that information came from the Minister or from his office into the media? Without such an inquiry, surely the public will never be aware of what exactly occurred on Thursday. As you have said, we face a bad situation.
Mr. Speaker: I said in my statement that I hoped that the Minister would pursue the matter, and I am sure that he will.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to the points of order with increasing incredulity. Having been in this place during the 18 years when the Tories were in government, I had the impression about three times a week that policy was being announced when I listened to it on "Today" and it was repeated on "Newsnight". If we were lucky a statement would be made on the following day, or no statement would be made.
There is another area that should be examined. We live in a time when the Liberals are consulted about many things. How do we know that it is not that lot on the Liberal Benches who are doing these things?
Mr. John Bercow rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is there to be a point of order every day, Mr. Bercow?
Mr. Bercow: I assure you that it is intended to be a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to you for your clarification in response to my point of order last Thursday about the conduct of the Secretary of State for Defence. He said on that occasion that no words—this is important, and I refer to column 424—for which he was responsible appeared upon the BBC website. It is only right to point out that the right hon. Gentleman sidled up to me earlier this afternoon to vouchsafe to me his innocence.
Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it is not good enough for a Minister to go to the Member who has complained to protest his innocence? It is necessary for him openly to apologise to the House for the leak on behalf of one of his officials, which has obviously taken place.
Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State will have heard the hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day
  Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 3

      ASSISTING CASES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 INVOLVING COMPLAINT OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
      'After section 66(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 (Assistance by Commission) there is inserted—
      "(1A) Subsection (1) shall also apply to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998 in which the complaint or claim includes or is proposed to include discrimination on racial grounds by a public authority.
      (1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A) a public authority shall have the same meaning as in section 19B of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.38 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) apologises for not being present, Mr. Speaker. All roads from Taunton are cut off.
      In the Race Relations Act 1976, a power is granted for the Commission for Racial Equality to provide assistance through advice and support during legal proceedings. It is set out clearly. The provisions relate to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Act. An individual who is a claimant or might be a claimant, or complainant, can apply to the commission for help. The commission then considers the matter—I have had constituency experience of such cases—and if it thinks that there is an issue of principle or if it thinks that it would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to deal with the case unaided because it is difficult or because of the relationship between the applicant and the body complained against, or for other special reasons, it, the commission, can give help. The new clause represents an attempt to extend that power in light of the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force at the beginning of this month.
      I want to say again publicly what Ministers have heard me say elsewhere. I and the Liberal Democrats greatly welcome the Human Rights Act, and we welcome its passage into law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland where it was passed last year. I and my colleagues join the Minister and the Secretary of State in welcoming that.
      As a result of that Act coming into law, someone may want to bring an action under the Human Rights Act only or under a combination of the Human Rights Act and the Race Relations Act 1976—or the Act as amended if the Bill becomes law, which we very much hope it will. Under the new clause, we propose that the commission's power to give help should be extended
      to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998
      when there is a claim or prospective claim that includes
      discrimination on racial grounds by a public authority.

      517
      It is not a matter central to the Bill, which deals with discrimination and positive duties in law. It is an ancillary proposal, and would bring the Bill into line with existing legislation.
      There are obvious reasons why we want to put this proposal to the House now, and I hope that the Minister will give a positive response. I am mindful of the fact that we debated these matters in Committee. That seems a long time ago—it was the other side of a long recess for the Commons—when the Human Rights Act had not yet come into law, so things have now moved on.
      The first reason is that, as the Minister will understand—it does not need anyone to persuade him—a person might bring an action that at one and the same time could be an action under the Race Relations Act and the Human Rights Act. It would be nonsense if two separate actions in law were started: indeed, the courts would be unhappy about that if they were on the same issues. It would be logical to join the complaints together.
      Ministers may give the technical answer that advice to people would be covered under the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill or the original 1976 Act, but the stronger case may be on discrimination under the Human Rights Act and the straightforward implementation of the convention through English law. The Commission for Racial Equality or others may say that that is the best way to proceed. A case may proceed on the basis of racial discrimination, but it would be better, and a person would be more likely to succeed, if the applicant took action under the Human Rights Act.
      That is the first reason why we believe that the commission's power should be extended. It uses that power carefully and considerately. I have had experience of the commission helping people to take cases to court, and of it turning down people who have asked for help when it has considered that their case was not justified.
      Secondly, our case may be stronger now than it was before the summer because the Minister said before the recess that the Government were moving towards the creation of the Human Rights Committee of Parliament. That commitment for a Committee of both Houses was welcomed. There are one or two other such Committees. It would be the new body to consider human rights matters in the light of the implementation of the 1998 Act. I am aware—I do not think that it is confidential information—that some progress has been made in the House of Lords on agreement on the structure of the Committee, but the proposal has not yet come before the Commons. I am also aware that there have been discussions on that matter between Whips Offices and party managers. The proposal has not been lost, but it has not happened. Even if it did, things would take a while to get going—as they always do—so there is a benefit in acting now that the Bill has been introduced, to give the Committee power, even if Ministers did not think that necessary before the summer.
      3.45 pm
      I wish to put on the record one further important thing so that I do not take up the time of the House when we return to the matter later. My colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler),
      518
      who is Liberal Democrat Chief Whip and our shadow Leader of the House, have made representations to Ministers and their colleagues, and their view is generally supported by members of the Conservative Front Bench, although Conservative Members must clarify that themselves. It is an important principle that, once the Committee is set up, its Chairman, like that of the Public Accounts Committee, should, for the time being, be an Opposition Member of the House of Commons. The reasons for that are pretty obvious. It is a long-standing practice that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is a senior Opposition Member of Parliament, as it is thought important that it is not a Government Member who looks after public accounts and that scrutiny should come from elsewhere. The PAC is an all-party Committee that is representative of the balance of the House, but the Chair is taken by an Opposition Member who, at the moment, is the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis).
      The same should apply to the Human Rights Committee, which will be a Committee of both Houses. Quite properly, the Government have the power both to introduce legislation and certify whether legislation complies with the Human Rights Act. The Secretary of State certifies on the front of the Bill that it is compliant with that Act. Therefore, the scrutiny of such matters in both the Commons and the Lords should be undertaken by a senior Opposition Member, whether a member of the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrat party or, indeed, any other Opposition party. I also state publicly our belief that, for obvious democratic reasons, that role should be undertaken by a Member of the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. Of course, there are eminent people in the House of Lords, and I pay tribute to those who have made the Bill much better during its passage through the House. Ministers have been equally courteous, but it would be invidious to list everyone who has contributed. However, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has pre-eminent national expertise in such matters, has contributed greatly and has worked hard, both publicly and privately, to get the Bill into the best possible shape.
      Although negotiations on the Human Rights Committee are being pursued, the Committee is not in existence, so the power to set it up should be introduced now. I suspect that the Minister will respond to our debate in a second, and I hope that he will tell us that the Government will act urgently to introduce a motion to set up the Committee, which was supposed to have been established by 2 October. That meant that it should have been set up before we broke up for the summer, given that we were did not return until after that date. It is now after 2 October, Parliament is back and the Human Rights Act is in force, so there is no excuse. I therefore hope that, before this week ends, a motion to set up the Committee will be laid before the House and that, thereafter, a motion for the membership of the Committee, including its chairmanship, will be tabled.
      Lastly, when the Human Rights Committee is up and running and sets up a human rights commission which, it is envisaged, will look after these matters—although that may not necessarily be the case—will the House consider whether that commission should be different from the Commission for Racial Equality? I accept that that new commission will not have the experience of the CRE. People have different views about the CRE's individual acts and expressions, but no one doubts its authoritative

      519
      and greatly experienced position in giving advice in such cases. It helps meritorious cases and puts off cases without merit. People with the CRE's experience who can give such advice are to be valued.
      I hope that Ministers can be positive about the new clause. I am conscious that the Bill began in the Lords and that its Report stage may be the last occasion on which we may deal with these matters. That is unusual, as most Bills start in the Commons and therefore come back to us. If Ministers do not concede the new clause, the power of the Lords to do anything about it is limited, given that they can amend only what we amend here. I therefore expect more than warm words if I am to be persuaded not to press the new clause to a Division. I hope that the Minister can be helpful.
      Mr. David Lidington: I shall speak briefly to new clause 3. As I understand the proposal tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his party, it would allow the Commission for Racial Equality to intervene and to advise in cases arising under the Human Rights Act 1998, where the complaint involved some discrimination on racial grounds by a public authority.
      The illustration that the hon. Gentleman gave the House to demonstrate the need for such a measure involved a complaint that might arise both under the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended by the Bill, and on human rights grounds. In such a case, it would be stupid for two parallel law suits to proceed.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. I am no lawyer, but I should have thought that in such a case, where the courts joined the two complaints together, and the case involved an allegation that the 1976 Act had been breached, there would indeed be a role for the commission under existing legislation, which would make the new clause unnecessary.
      I went on to consider what sort of case might involve an allegation of racial discrimination by a public authority, but would not come within the remit of either the 1976 Act or the Bill. I could envisage a situation in which a citizen chose to use the Human Rights Act 1998 to try to overturn one of the specific exemptions included in the Bill or in the 1976 Act. The hon. Gentleman's new clause, if agreed to, would give the CRE the right to spend time and money on seeking, via the Human Rights Act, to overturn those aspects of race relations legislation that had been agreed by Parliament.
      For that reason, I am somewhat sceptical about the proposal, although the Minister or the hon. Gentleman may be able to reassure me. I take the view that if Parliament has chosen to include in legislation specific exemptions from general statutory obligations, changes to such arrangements should be sought through Parliament via the full legislative process, not through the back-door route of a challenge under the Human Rights Act.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): May I take this opportunity to warmly welcome you to your present seat, Mr. Speaker, and express the hope that you will long be warming it?
      Members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill are aware of the Government's thinking on the issue. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and
      520
      Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) set out our broad view. We welcome the support given by the Liberal Democrats and all other parties to the Human Rights Act 1998 when it was passed.
      The new clause, like one tabled in Committee, would enable the CRE to provide assistance in relation to alleged breaches of the 1998 Act that include allegations of racial discrimination—not just claims where the principal issue was racial discrimination, but any claim that included any aspect of racial discrimination in the context of the Human Rights Act.
      The Government explained in Committee that we had given a commitment to consider a request from the Disability Rights Commission for it to have the power to assist individuals in proceedings under the Human Rights Act 1998, in light of the outcome of deliberations of the planned Human Rights Committee. Rather than considering those issues piecemeal, which would involve separately examining the Commission for Racial Equality, the DRC and the Equal Opportunities Commission, our view is that it would be better to consider in an holistic manner whether all the commissions should have the right to take such action. We feel that it is important to take such a broad-based approach—the situation should be examined in a wide context involving all three commissions, and we should give our view in due course. We also hope to take cognisance of the approach suggested by the Joint Committee, once it is established.
      A further difficulty is that the new clause is not clear on how it relates to the rest of section 66 of the Race Relations Act 1976, into which it would be inserted. For example, subsections (3) and (4) of that section describe how the commission should proceed on receipt of an application for assistance under the 1976 Act, but the new clause does not appear to make a similar provision in respect of claims for assistance under the Human Rights Act 1998. That technical deficiency would leave an unacceptable gap in that important area.
      However, I do not want to inform the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that we reject his suggestion. There are arguments for his position, and we want to examine them in a broader context.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the Human Rights Committee, whose draft standing orders are under active consideration. We hope that it will start its work in the near future, when its membership has been decided. He knows very well that the usual channels decide such matters. Decisions about the Chairperson of the Committee and other matters will no doubt be made in the usual way, and I do not intend to venture further into them. I gather that the hon. Gentleman has his own route in that regard, and he doubtless knows how to make use of it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Although I note his comments on the envisaged time scale, I want to press the Minister not on that last matter, but on the first point that he made. What time scale do the Government envisage for the completion of their review about whether the power could be granted to all commissions, irrespective of the new Committee's timetable?
      Mr. O'Brien: To some extent, we are dependent on the new Committee, whose views we want to hear and which must have an opportunity to discuss the matter.

      521
      I hope that it can do so quickly. The Government will examine the Committee's views and take a broad-based approach.
      To some extent, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is important to decide on our approach in the near future, rather than in the longer term. If we took a view on the Disability Rights Commission, for example, it would be possible to make progress fairly quickly because of the way in which the legislation is framed. However, it might take longer to do so in respect of the EOC and the CRE because we might have to frame a legislative opportunity in order to take such action.
      In response to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the cases that will be brought by the CRE will, primarily, involve the Race Relations Act 1976, but they may raise subsidiary points involving the Human Rights Act 1998. No doubt, such points will be raised during those proceedings. In that context, I should be very surprised if a lawyer said to a court, "I shall argue the case in relation to the Race Relations Act but not in relation to the Human Rights Act." The Government need to take a view on that matter sooner rather than later—I envisage the period involved to be months rather than years, but I do not want to be pressed further on that because it will be necessary to discuss with ministerial colleagues the appropriate speed at which we should make an announcement.
      4 pm
      Mr. Hughes: That was an entirely reasonable answer, for which I am grateful.
      May I ask one last question about the timetable? When the public records of the last few months and this month are released to the public—as no doubt they soon will be, under freedom of information legislation—can we take it that they will show the Home Office to be actively pressing Government colleagues to set up the Human Rights Committee this very month?
      Mr. O'Brien: No doubt the proceedings of the Joint Committee will be of great interest to all parliamentarians, and they will be able to find out about those proceedings in the way in which parliamentarians normally ascertain such matters. Certainly we want progress, and I am sure that the Liberal Democrats—in so far as they might be the source of any difficulties in the reaching of agreement between the usual channels—will seek not to be the source of such problems.
      As I have said, we intend to look at all the commissions in an holistic way. In view of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Hughes: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, those on the Conservative Front Bench and the Government will be delighted to hear that—so generous are we at the beginning of the new term, and so trusting of the Minister's good faith on the occasion of his and my first appearance since our return—I am happy to make a once-only offer. I am grateful for the Minister's assurances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      ANNUAL REPORT ON LEVEL OF DAMAGES AWARDED
      'The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament an annual report on the level of damages awarded in cases brought by virtue of the amendments made to the 1976 Act by this Act.'.—[Mr. Lidington.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Lidington: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      In Committee we had a thorough debate about compensation, in which I expressed fears that have been expressed in various quarters outside the House about the growth of a culture of litigation and compensation mirroring some of the worst examples that we have seen across the Atlantic. However, I welcome the opportunity to draw attention in this afternoon's short debate to the continuing view of Conservative Members that it is important for the Government, and all agencies that will be connected with the enforcement of the Bill once it is law, to have regard to the impact of compensation awards on the public authorities to which the Bill will apply.
      Under the Bill, public authorities could be at risk from two directions. First, there would be the risk of litigation in regard to alleged discrimination on grounds of race. Secondly, following the introduction of a positive duty for scheduled public authorities to promote good race relations, there would be the possibility of judicial review of the actions of those authorities, to challenge whether they had exercised their statutory duty in a correct manner.
      We should all be concerned about the risk of vexatious litigation, or of compensation awards—or, indeed, out-of-court settlements—to avoid oppressive legal costs that could lead to real difficulties for some public authorities. On 13 April, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, said in Committee—this can be found at column 48 of the report of the proceedings—that the current level of awards in non-employment cases was about £1,000, and that the level of out-of-court settlements in advance of proceedings was about £6,000 per case.
      Those figures sound relatively small, but, given that later this afternoon we are to debate the inclusion in schedule 2 of schools and their governing bodies, we must bear in mind that, to a small primary school and its governing body, a sum of £6,000, or even £1,000, is significant. We must carefully consider potential litigation and compensation awards that might face small public authorities, such as schools, which are governed by volunteers, not by professional executives. Even if the Ministers do not concede a formal annual report, I hope that they will agree to keep the matter under close scrutiny and be prepared to return to Parliament to amend the legislation, if the scale of compensation that is required to be paid out under the Bill proves to be oppressive on our public institutions.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I have only three brief points. First, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has made a perfectly reasonable point.
      Secondly, new clause 5, which was not selected for debate—I make no criticism of the selection—goes wider than new clause 4, by addressing a point that is often

      523
      made during the passage of new legislation, which is that there should be an opportunity for a report to be made to Parliament on the working of the legislation in general. I would welcome such a report as one way of ensuring parliamentary accountability.
      My third point relates broadly to damages and emerges from the argument made by the hon. Gentleman. The inconsistency of damages is a national issue: constituents have pointed out to me that if a relative or dependant dies as a result of criminal injury and if one chooses to make a claim under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, one is entitled to a sum of—if memory serves—no more than £10,000, and possibly as little as £5,000.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: It is £3,750.
      Mr. Hughes: It is certainly an extremely small sum. The problem is that, at the same time, we read in our newspapers about damages of hundreds of thousands of pounds that are awarded in the civil courts and elsewhere for comments that have caused offence or for constructive dismissal.
      The matter may be one for the Cabinet Office or the joined-up government people—whoever they are—because a cross-departmental approach is needed to ensure some degree of fairness in the award of damages. I know that the courts are given guidelines, but damages can be awarded by other agencies. I simply want to draw attention to public unhappiness about the increasing gap between awards made in compensation for serious matters and the huge damages awarded for matters that, in the scheme of things, are relatively minor.
      There is a general public policy interest to be addressed and I should be grateful if Ministers gave it their consideration. I hope that someone will write to me and the hon. Member for Aylesbury about how Government Departments intend to approach the matter.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have listened to the comments made about the need to reflect on the nature of payments made to victims of racial discrimination and others. I agree that we do not want to enter into a compensation culture, but missing from the arguments made so far—uncharacteristically so, in the case of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)—has been the expression of any concern about victims. Should victims not be compensated if they have been discriminated against? Of course they should; they should have the right to some type of remedy.
      It is quite right that we do not want to get into a situation in which vexatious litigants, who are a pest in the legal system, are able to bring frivolous cases before the courts. To some extent, we have to rely on our judges to be robust in dealing with vexatious litigants, and on the Legal Aid Board to ensure that people do not receive legal aid if they are seen to be merely vexatious. I think that most hon. Members are aware of people, in their constituencies or elsewhere, who have sought to abuse entry to the courts.
      We need, however, to get the balance right. There is every reason for Parliament to be concerned about getting the balance right between the victim's right to receive some form of compensation and the need to ensure that money from the public purse is spent properly.
      524
      Mechanisms already exist to provide annually the type of information dealt with in new clause 4. The new clause would lead to duplication, bureaucracy and costs, particularly if police had to provide extensive information on the reasons why particular types of damages were allocated by a court in a particular case, which may involve issues in addition to racial discrimination. I am reluctant unnecessarily to impose such a burden on police, who are already required to do much of that work under section 95 reports.
      Section 46 of the Race Relations Act 1976 already requires the Commission for Racial Equality to produce an annual report that includes a general survey of developments in the issues that fall within the scope of the commission's functions. The commission's reports usually contain details of awards of damages in cases that it represents. Additionally, those reports are laid before the House; indeed, I have just approved the laying of the most recent report.
      As explained in the Bill's explanatory notes, in cases represented by the commission in 1997–98, awards averaged approximately £1,000, settlements averaged approximately £2,000, and pre-litigation settlements settled by commission officials averaged approximately £6,000. We would expect the commission to continue to report on damages awarded in cases that it represents, including cases brought under new provisions outlawing race discrimination under the Bill.
      Although the Bill does not provide financial remedies in respect of the positive duty in clause 2 to promote race equality, again we would expect the commission's annual report to cover any enforcement action that it has taken in the year in question under the new provisions. The Government therefore feel that the current reporting requirements in section 46 of the 1976 Act already provide for what is necessary and appropriate.
      Mr. David Winnick: Is it not alarming—far more alarming than the issue of compensation payments to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred—that public bodies continue to be found to be discriminating, and, therefore, that there continue to be genuine cases of discrimination? Surely the whole emphasis of the Bill should be that, in this day and age, race discrimination and gender discrimination—which we are not debating today—simply should not occur in public bodies.
      Mr. O'Brien: Although, by and large, our public authorities do not discriminate, there have been cases in which they have been found to have done so. That is regrettable. The Bill's underlying basis, as my hon. Friend rightly said, is the attempt to end unacceptable discrimination in our public authorities, and to ensure that we have public authorities that treat people with the respect that they deserve and to which they are entitled.
      Mr. Hughes: The Minister mentioned the commission's annual report, which many hon. Members are familiar with and many of us receive. Will it list all the awards of damages or only a summary of those awards? If it contains only a summary, will information be provided to enable people to locate information on the full awards?
      4.15 pm
      Mr. O'Brien: As I understand it, there is a summary in the report. It does not list all the awards, because I suspect that some of them are the subject of legal confidentiality. Some may be out-of-court settlements that contain certain clauses in the contracts. I do not know the extent to which the Commission for Racial Equality provides information on the awards, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to find out, I can certainly do so. However, I have always found the CRE to be very open in providing information and background briefings on individual and general issues to Members of Parliament.
      Mr. Lidington: I was somewhat disappointed that the Minister underrated the deterrent impact on public authorities and private organisations of the costs of litigation. One of the most unsatisfactory aspects of several recent highly publicised cases has been that some public bodies have made public statements that they would agree to an out-of-court settlement involving the payments of many thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, not because they have conceded that they have discriminated—they continue to assert that they have not—but because they could not afford the time and the money that would have to be spent on contesting litigation if matters were to proceed to law. That is not satisfactory for anyone.
      I do not dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that public authorities in particular should set the lead and resist racial discrimination. As far as they can, they should ensure that all their conduct and practices are designed to prevent such discrimination taking place. However, it is also true that different judgments in the court cases involving the definition of indirect discrimination that have taken place since 1976 have determined the scope of such discrimination in different ways. Therefore, it is possible for an organisation—or an individual—to believe that it has acted in a way that complies with the law only to find that, after legal argument, the judgment is that certain practices are tantamount to indirect discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 and need to be changed. There is some uncertainty in the current statute.
      I was grateful to the Minister for reminding us that the Commission for Racial Equality has a duty to publish a report each year and that that report includes at least some information on the level of compensation awards. I hope that it is a matter to which the chairman of the commission and his team will continue to give their attention. As a result of this debate and those that took place in Committee, I hope that Ministers will also continue to keep the matter under review. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      DISCRIMINATION BY POLICE AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 9, leave out from "a" to end of line 17 on page 2 and insert—
      'public authority in carrying out any functions of the authority to do any act which constitutes discrimination.
      (2) In this section "public authority"—

      (a) includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature; but

      (b) does not include any person mentioned in subsection (3).

      (3) The persons mentioned in this subsection are—

      (a) either House of Parliament;

      (b) a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament;

      (c) the Security Service;

      (d) the Secret Intelligence Service;

      (e) the Government Communications Headquarters; and

      (f) any unit or part of a unit of any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown which is for the time being required by the Secretary of State to assist the Government Communications Headquarters in carrying out its functions.

      (4) In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (2)(a) if the nature of the act is private.
      (5) This section is subject to sections 19BA to 19E.
      (6) Nothing in this section makes unlawful any act of discrimination which—

      (a) is made unlawful by virtue of any other provision of this Act; or

      (b) would be so made but for any provision made by or under this Act.

      DISCRIMINATION BY POLICE AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

        Exceptions or further exceptions from section 19B for judicial and legislative acts etc
        19BA.—(1) Section 19B does not apply to—

        (a) any judicial act (whether done by a court, tribunal or other person); or

        (b) any act done on the instructions, or on behalf, of a person acting in a judicial capacity.

        (2) Section 19B does not apply to any act of, or relating to, making, confirming or approving any enactment or Order in Council or any instrument made by a Minister of the Crown under an enactment.
        (3) Section 19B does not apply to any act of, or relating to, making or approving arrangements, or imposing requirements or conditions, of a kind falling within section 41.
        (4) Section 19B does not apply to any act of, or relating to, imposing a requirement, or giving an express authorisation, of a kind mentioned in section 19C(3) in relation to the carrying out of immigration and nationality functions.
        (5) In this section—
        "immigration and nationality functions" has the meaning given in section 19C; and
        "Minister of the Crown" includes the National Assembly for Wales and a member of the Scottish Executive.'.
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4, 21, 22 and 38 to 40.
        Mr. O'Brien: There have been several discussions during the Bill's passage through this House and the other place about the approach that should be taken to the definition of public authorities for the purposes of section 19B of the Race Relations Act 1976. The choice is essentially between a listing approach and a generic definition as used in the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government have throughout listened to the arguments, both inside and outside the House, particularly those about the need to avoid small gaps arising in coverage, which was a perceived risk with the listing approach that was originally proposed.

        527
        In response to those concerns, we made a commitment in Committee to introduce amendments that would provide for the adoption of a generic definition for the purposes of defining public authorities. These amendments meet that commitment. They delete the provisions for a listing approach for the purposes of section 19B of the 1976 Act and provide instead for a definition based on section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. As flagged up in Committee, the generic definition has been adjusted to allow for a very limited number of specific exemptions—namely, for the Houses of Parliament, the legislative functions of the Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales and United Kingdom Ministers, the intelligence agencies and judicial acts.
        The Government stress that functions have not been exempted other than where there are good reasons for doing so. Our approach is governed by the principle that the Bill should not fetter the legislative functions of Westminster, the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales. Ministers will remain subject to parliamentary scrutiny but, like others involved in the legislative process, they must retain the ability to make legislation that discriminates, where that is justified—for example, to implement immigration legislation that requires discrimination on grounds of nationality, or social security or education legislation that discriminates on grounds of residence. That is consistent with the existing provisions of the 1976 Act, which provide that acts done with statutory authority are not unlawful.
        To include the intelligence and security agencies in the Bill would have required special clauses to safeguard against claimants misusing certain provisions to undermine the operational effectiveness of those agencies. The necessary safeguards would, in practice, have the same effect as excluding the agencies from the Bill. The Government therefore believe that it is better to continue to make the exemption clear, as we did with the listing approach, rather than having it obscured by special clauses which might be a matter of judicial interpretation. We want the position of the security and intelligence agencies to be very clear.
        Nor do the Government think it appropriate that decisions of courts and tribunals should be challenged by way of proceedings in the county or sheriff court under section 19B. Allowing civil action against judges would interfere with the concept of judicial immunity, and the Government would not wish the Bill to cut across that. Immunity is an aspect of the principle of an independent judiciary. The independence of the judiciary is a key feature of the British constitution and runs parallel with immunity.
        Mr. David Lammy: This debate about the nature of public authority is clearly more than simply a semantic debate about definition. Many private companies and organisations carry out their business under a clear public remit. Many of those profit-making companies have habitually neglected to promote, employ and support ethnic minority people in the workplace. My constituents will welcome the amendment, but I hope that we are moving towards a situation in which racial equality is
        528
        about the economic as well as the social context of Britain in the 21st century. The amendment, as it applies to private organisations, is very important in that regard.
        Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. We should ensure that private sector organisations which undertake public functions should know that they will have obligations under the race relations legislation, and that the Bill will cover them in so far as they undertake the public functions for which they are contracted. Indeed, Group 4 has today taken the trouble to say publicly that it is delighted that the Government have decided to use the Human Rights Act definition of a public authority in the Bill. Group 4 says that it firmly believes that there should be a level playing field between the public and private sectors in all social policy matters. I welcome Group 4's announcement; it is entirely along the lines that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he wants to go.
        Let me return to judicial immunity, which is an important part of our constitution. Judicial immunity does not mean that a person lacks a remedy against racial discrimination or any other form of bias, but the proper avenue for a challenge in the courts is by an appeal, not by making a fresh claim against a judge. The fair and efficient functioning of the justice system requires us to avoid satellite litigation and the reopening of cases.
        I must flag up another important issue. It will be for the courts to decide whether a public body is a public authority for the purposes of the legislation and whether a particular function is a public function. That bears on the point that I made earlier about Group 4 and private companies and other private bodies that undertake public functions. The Government are grateful to those who have contributed to the way in which the legislation will be interpreted, especially to private companies such as Group 4, which have said that they will be happy to be brought within the legislation.
        Having listened to all the contributions, the Government are also grateful to Members of both Houses of Parliament who have given their views on how we should take forward that definition and on whether we should use either the list or the generic approach. We have shown that we have listened with great care to the debate. There was a genuine argument about the various public functions that might have slipped through the net if we had used the listing approach and, therefore, we think that an approach based on the Human Rights Act 1998 is the best that can be delivered. In due course, the courts will make judgments on cases under the 1998 Act. That will define matters of public function and public authority. I hope that that will soon clarify the matters covered by the 1998 Act and the Bill, and that hon. Members will agree to the amendment.
        Mr. Lidington: I welcome the Government's decision to move from a listing approach to a generic approach. As the Minister said in his opening speech, both sides of the House were involved in a constructive debate on the issue. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his noble Friends can take pride in the way they helped to promote the idea. As a result, we shall have a better approach than that under the Bill as originally drafted.
        I want to ask the Minister some questions to tease out in more detail exactly which persons and what activities will be exempt under amendment No. 2. First, I shall deal

        529
        with Parliament. I accept completely the Minister's argument that the legislative function of both Houses of Parliament should remain free and that they should not have to look over their shoulders at the Bill, but I am intrigued that the exemption will also apply to
        a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.
        That strikes me as a phrase that could be said to apply very widely—to House of Commons administration and staff, as well as Officers of the House and perhaps even Hansard reporters. Will the Minister flesh out a little more which people the Government intend the phrase to cover?
        4.30 pm
        The Bill will now exclude the security and intelligence services and GCHQ. I support those exclusions, but if those organisations are to be excluded, why not the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and others who work closely with the security and intelligence services and may well be party to operational knowledge that the Government rightly want to keep secret? Those police organisations are engaged in very sensitive and secret work against organised crime, terrorism and drug trafficking. Do they not need the same protection that the Government want to afford to the security and intelligence services?
        A comparable point could be made about members of the armed forces on active service. We discussed that in Committee, and it was debated in the House of Lords. Should not the exception that the Government are applying to the security and intelligence services and to members of the armed forces assisting GCHQ also apply to members of the special forces, and especially those on active service? There are units whose operations have traditionally been regarded as a matter for secrecy by Governments of both political colours.
        The Minister said that the courts would have to rule in due course on what is a public authority. In Committee, I referred to the position of the Churches and I make no apology for doing so again. As an obvious example of my point, civil registrars, as public officials, will be subject to the provisions in the Bill in carrying out their duties involving the preparation of couples and the conduct of the marriage ceremony, but will ministers of the Church of England or the Church of Scotland be similarly subject? Surely those ministers carry out a public function when they, too, conduct marriages. Have the Government engaged in any consultation with the Churches about the impact that the Bill might have on them, especially in the light of the controversy that blew up on the matter during proceedings on the Human Rights Act 1998?
        I have no problem with the Government's proposal that judicial authorities—judges, magistrates and tribunals, in their judicial capacity—should be exempt from the normal operations of the Bill, but does that exemption also apply to Ministers of the Crown when they act in a quasi-judicial capacity, for example when they place themselves in the shoes of a judge in setting the tariff for a life sentence prisoner? I should be grateful for answers to those questions.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Like other colleagues, I am grateful for the progress that we have made on this matter,
        530
        and for the fact that, when we came up with what seemed to be the best way forward in terms of the definition of "public authority", the debate was listened to.
        First, it strikes me that that produces a shorter Bill, and that must be a good thing. I will comment on the way in which the Bill could be further shortened when we come to another debate.
        Secondly, it is a good idea for the definition of "public authority" in one piece of legislation passed by a Parliament to be the same as the definition of "public authority" in another piece of legislation passed by that Parliament, albeit a year or so later. That seems to be a good idea in terms of political and parliamentary practice, and I welcome it. I am grateful for the work done by colleagues in the Lords and for the debate that we had in Committee.
        I have a supplementary question, which picks up on one of the points made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) about definition. It concerns the point about employees or functionaries of the Church or other religious organisations carrying out a public function.
        I raise that not only because I have responsibility for these matters on the Liberal Democrat Benches but because the matter has been raised in the context of prospective European legislation. Last week, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was given leave to introduce a ten-minute Bill so that we may at least take the debate forward and discover what exactly is allowed. The hon. Gentleman's Bill would exempt religious organisations and although it was not on all fours with this proposal, it raised the same set of issues.
        What we are discussing now is clearly a narrower issue because it is about people acting for religious organisations who, in that context, are also acting as a public authority. The conduct of marriages is a good example. People in this country can have their marriage conducted entirely in a religious ceremony, and do not, as in other countries, have to have a separate civil ceremony. I should be grateful for elaboration on that matter and on whether Ministers have been advised how—if at all—the measure ties in with prospective European legislation on such matters.
        Mr. Mike O'Brien: The welcome from both hon. Gentlemen speaking for the Opposition parties is music to my ears. The Government are pleased that we have been able to take a constructive and listening approach during the debate, and grateful for the contributions from all parts of the House on these issues.
        The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) asked about the areas covered in respect of Parliament. The existing Act already covers employment functions and certain unlawful acts—they are set out in part IV—and areas that may be subject to parliamentary privilege. It covers the provision of goods, facilities and services.
        The Government do not wish to fetter the legislative functions of Westminster, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly in extending the Act. In the case of the United Kingdom Parliament, there are issues of parliamentary privilege. Interference with the privileges of Parliament should obviously be avoided. The first report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege has looked at the need for, and recommended, clarification of the definition of parliamentary privilege in relation to each House's privilege to administer its own internal affairs.

        531
        It would be pre-emptive and impractical to try to resolve the issues involved for the purposes of the Bill before critical decisions have been made in relation to the wider issue of privilege. We are not therefore proposing to extend any further the application of the Bill to the UK Parliament. That is consistent with the approach taken in the Human Rights Act 1998.
        The hon. Gentleman asked about the issue of exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament. We envisage that it is an area directly involved in the preparation of legislation. It is not an exclusion that would deal with areas not directly involved in preparing legislation and the proceedings of this place. That is the position as far as I understand it. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter and I raised it with officials. The definition is quite tightly drawn.
        Like the hon. Gentleman, I was a little concerned that the measure might look a little wide, but considering Pepper v. Hart and being aware of all that, 1 am indicating that we intend it to be construed in a way that has direct applicability to legislation and to the proceedings in this Parliament relating to debates.
        The hon. Member for Aylesbury also asked me why the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad are not included. Following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, our intention was to bring the police within the realm of the Race Relations Act. As NCIS and the National Crime Squad are akin to police forces and their director-generals have responsibilities which are equivalent to those of a chief constable, the Government believe that, in order to meet the commitment made in response to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report to apply race relations legislation to police forces, NCIS and NCS must be covered. The Government do not envisage that the problems associated with including the intelligence and security agencies would be replicated for NCIS and NCS, and indeed we have no reasons to have any concerns that this might cause problems in terms of the operational effectiveness—or anything else—of those two organisations, which are well aware of their responsibilities to ensure that they do not racially discriminate.
        The hon. Gentleman asked me about special forces. I have had no requests from the Ministry of Defence to exclude them, so I assume that there is a degree of happiness with the current situation. However, just to be sure that there is no difficulty, I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's point with Ministers at the MOD. These days, the Army in particular has a proactive view on race equality and many parts of our armed forces have a good and improving record in that respect.
        The hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked me about a more complex issue—whether the legislation would cover ministers of the Church of England and the Church of Scotland in relation to their role as registrars. They will be covered when they carry out a public function but not when they carry out private functions as ministers of the Church. I envisage that the public function of signing the various documents which relate to their legal and public duties will be covered. However, decisions about who should have a service conducted in their Church, for example, will be an issue for the Church. The same would apply to other Church-related decisions. However, in recent decades Churches have been particularly conscious of the need to ensure that they regard race equality as
        532
        particularly important and I have no real concern that the Churches will find themselves subject to any substantial litigation in relation to the Bill. The Churches are well aware of their responsibilities on race equality and I suspect that most of them will welcome the inclusion in the Bill of at least their public functions.
        Finally, the hon. Member for Aylesbury asked me whether the legislation covered Government Ministers exercising a judicial function. The answer is yes. An immigration function, for example, would be covered. That is not a good illustration as immigration matters are excluded, but any other quasi-judicial decision would be covered by the exemption. However, we want to make sure that Ministers are aware that they have moral as well as legal responsibilities and that they must not discriminate unless there is a good public interest reason for doing so. Later amendments relate to circumstances in which discrimination may be proper and lawful and may well have the support of the House, but normally that would not be the case.
        I hope that I have dealt with most of the issues, and I am pleased with the warm welcome that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have given to the amendment.
        Amendment agreed to.
        4.45 pm
        Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out from beginning of line 18 to end of line 31 on page 3.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 38, after "(5)", insert—
        'in connection with the granting or refusal of—

        (a) pre-entry clearance to enter the United Kingdom;

        (b) leave to enter the United Kingdom;

        (c) leave to remain in the United Kingdom;

        (d) a condition or conditions of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; or

        (e) citizenship of the United Kingdom.'.

        Government amendments Nos. 3, 35 to 37, 41, 42, 44 and 45.
        Mr. Cohen: This is a good Bill which implements the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and tackles the real problems of direct and indirect institutional racism. However, my amendment deletes the exemption of immigration and asylum matters from the institutional racism provisions.
        I can put the case by putting on record an article in journal No. 56 of the Campaign against Racism and Fascism. It is by Frances Webber, a leading immigration lawyer. She puts the matter succinctly, albeit a little pejoratively towards the Home Secretary. The article, which is called "The last frontier: immigration controls and racism", asks:
        Why does a minister who wants to be remembered for his anti-racism keep on giving aid and comfort to racists? In the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill currently going through Parliament, Home Secretary Jack Straw is once again trying to face both ways at once. On the one hand, the Act allows immigrants and asylum-seekers to appeal against immigration decisions and to obtain damages from a county court, if such decisions have discriminated on grounds of race or colour. On the other hand,

        533
        immigration officers will be authorised to discriminate on the grounds of "nationality, ethnic or national origin" in carrying out their functions under the Immigration and Nationality Acts.
        In the Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton sought to justify the provision by talking about the need to stop "scams" operated by Chinese nationals masquerading as Malaysian or Singaporean Chinese which, he claimed, made it acceptable for immigration officers to check every Chinese-looking person.
        The question puzzling us lawyers who act for immigrants and asylum-seekers is this: how on earth are we going to prove unlawful race discrimination on the part of an immigration officer, if it is not unlawful for an immigration officer to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their "perceived ethnic origin"? It is ironic that a law brought in to counter institutional racism ends up—so far as immigration is concerned at least—by rationalising and further institutionalising it.
        Notwithstanding the comments regarding the Home Secretary, there is a fundamental point there concerning the complete exemption of the immigration and asylum service. I tabled the amendment to get a response from the Minister on why this exists, when the thrust of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and the Bill is to tackle institutional racism wherever it occurs, including in the public sector. I do not see why immigration should have that total exemption.
        Proposed section 19C states that it will not be
        unlawful to discriminate against another person on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origins…
        where the act is by a Minister acting personally or an immigration official acting in accordance with an authorisation by the Minister, or with respect to a particular class of case authorised by statute or statutory instrument. If this House has delegated the power to a Minister, I see that he could exercise that power. However, I am concerned as to how he will delegate power—presumably down to a civil servant, or even to junior civil servants. I would like the operation of the system to be spelt out. Will the exemption also apply to a junior civil servant in the immigration and nationality directorate acting in the name of the relevant Minister or civil servant?
        How will the Minister be held accountable? Will ministerial responsibility extend to the actions of the junior civil servants in the immigration and nationality directorate who act in his name under the proposed legislation, or will he be able to palm things off on the civil service, as happened with the BSE scandal? That is a serious point about ministerial power and its possible extension to civil servants.
        In the context of junior immigration officers who may exercise power and to whom the exemption may apply, there have been cases in the past of such officers being sympathisers and supporters of openly racist parties such as the National Front or the British Movement. Although I have not heard of a case for many years, there have been such cases in the past. I presume that disciplinary measures are in place. I ask the Minister to confirm that. How will they operate against an officer who is openly racist if it is lawful under the Bill for him to discriminate? Those questions need answering.
        I understand that there is a delay in determining and authorising the classes of cases in respect of which discrimination will be lawful. Perhaps the provision will not be effected until next April or later because the immigration and nationality directorate needs more time to determine those classes of cases. If that is so, will the
        534
        classes be spelt out to Parliament, perhaps with an opportunity for a discussion on them? They do not appear in the Bill. Can they be changed arbitrarily? Can new classes be added without anyone other than civil servants knowing?
        If the Government are going to persist with the exemption for the immigration service, what activities will be authorised as lawful racial discrimination? A broad, blanket authorisation is not right. I am worried about the classes of cases to which the clause refers. Racial discrimination could take place on the basis of scare campaigns. For example, an argument was made for trying to ban all Kenyan Asians and Ugandan Asians as a class, regardless of the merits of the cases of individuals, who were facing perhaps torture or death in the countries that they were leaving. The same could apply currently to the Roma.
        The provision could lead to a susceptibility to scaremongering, and to racial discrimination in immigration and asylum policy—through banning whole categories of people—becoming legal under the Bill. Another recent example is the Kosovans—perhaps they could all have been banned under the Bill. I shall be interested in the way in which the Minister deals with that concern.
        Today, I received a letter from Mr. Richard Jarman, the parliamentary officer of the Commission for Racial Equality. It stated:
        In a meeting I had with the Refugee Council and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the one activity where discrimination occurs that is of real concern is the detention of asylum seekers on arrival (when they have committed no offence in the UK whatsoever). Currently certain nationalities and people of Roma ethnicity are nearly always detained. The CRE, Refugee Council. ILPA all say that detention of asylum seekers should not be done on the basis of nationality or ethnic or national origin but on the basis of the particular circumstances of each individual asylum seeker.
        Clearly that will not happen given the way in which the law is framed. There is a potential blanket provision to discriminate. There should not be a blanket authorisation of discrimination when dealing with asylum seekers on arrival. That is clearly different from detention prior to deportation, which often happens after a person has breached his conditions of entry. Blanket authorisation on arrival has a possible institutional racist content.
        The role of the monitor is set out in proposed section 19D. I know that he will submit an annual report to Parliament, but what can he say? How can he refer to any institutional racism in the immigration and nationality service or even on the part of a Minister? Will that be exempt under the law? Could such racism be deemed legal in immigration matters? What power will the monitor have? Will he have the power, for example, to see all the papers and files in a case? Can a Minister or civil servant deny access to them?
        The monitor might be toothless, rather like the prison ombudsman, who was denied access to papers and files by the previous Government. Will he be able to investigate every case where a charge of racism is brought, or will he not even be notified of cases where racism has been alleged? Will he be able to require revised consideration by the immigration and nationality service, perhaps of a Minister, and a possible new decision where, in his opinion, racism has occurred in the service?

        535
        If the monitor is not to be able to do any of these things, what can he do? Without any of the powers to which I have referred, he will be toothless and not worth even an annual report to Parliament.
        These are important matters. The Government have set off on the path of total exemption for the immigration and nationality service, and it is not the right approach. It might be a matter of balance but total exemption is not the answer. If my amendment and those of Liberal Democrats are not accepted, the matter should be kept under review. Perhaps an amendment might be introduced later. I await my hon. Friend's answers with interest.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the debate. Effectively, the amendments set out three options. The matter was the subject of considerable debate in Committee.
        We face the danger of bad drafting. The Government are seeking to amend the Race Relations Act 1976 by inserting a new clause that states what is unlawful and by introducing a supplementary new clause, proposed section 19C, which sets out exceptions to what is unlawful. Later, there are tabled the exceptions to the exceptions to what is unlawful. I am not, and have never wished to be, a parliamentary draftsman, but I hope that we can do a bit better. The Bill has to go to the other place when we have dealt with it, so perhaps someone can consider whether we can make it easier for people to use.
        5 pm
        The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) has tabled the most widely drawn amendment. It would remove new section 19C, which is to be inserted into the 1976 Act. The Minister's proposal in Government amendment No. 3, which he will speak to later, qualifies the list of Acts with immigration and nationality functions that come within the exemption and are, therefore, outside the protection of the legislation, by stating that the list will not apply to certain activities. It does not say what activities it covers, but refers to another part of the legislation. It excludes
        sections 28A to 28K of the Immigration Act 1971 so far as they relate to offences under Part III of that Act.
        Those are in fact policing functions in relation to the activities of the immigration and nationality directorate. Again, it might be helpful to make that clear.
        Our amendment seeks to do what the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead hinted might be a way forward. It would allow the law to apply in general terms: people could not discriminate in their work in the immigration and nationality directorate unless those activities were on the legislated list. We believe that those activities should certainly and logically be included in the list. In relation to immigration, there are clearly activities in which discrimination on the basis of nationality, for example, is justifiable.
        Our amendment sets out five exemption categories. The first is
        in connection with the granting or refusal of…pre-entry clearance to enter the United Kingdom.
        It is entirely logical to allow people to be discriminated against if the view is taken that, for example, the entitlement of someone from a Commonwealth country is different from that of someone from a European Union country or someone who is from neither. The second
        536
        category relates to leave to enter, which is the permission granted when people arrive here as opposed to the permission granted before they leave to come here. The third category concerns permission to stay here—leave to remain. The fourth is in connection with conditions that are imposed on a leave to enter or remain. The fifth relates to citizenship, because we discriminate against people on the basis of where they come from and their relationship with this country. We propose that those should be exempted categories. I hope that, at worst, we get confirmation from the Minister that, in light of our debate in Committee, the Government will move in that direction.
        I do not pretend to have a perfect understanding or knowledge of this subject, but we would argue that those are the most logical categories for exemption and, to take the view of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, that no others appear to need that protection. I stand to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong. He might say that I have forgotten a category and that a sixth should be added. However, our case is that the categories should be specified in the Bill. If we do not do that, we will give a "relevant person", who is defined as
        a Minister of the Crown acting personally; or—
        the hon. Gentleman alluded to this—
        any other person acting in accordance with relevant authorisation,
        who could be quite a long way down the hierarchy of responsibility, the ability to make decisions in particular cases. The Bill as it stands leaves it to Ministers to define at a later date the particular class of case. We are effectively providing for secondary legislation, although it might not technically be called that—again, I stand to be corrected. Decisions are to be made later by Ministers when we have given general permission under the Act. Our argument is not unfamiliar. The provision gives Ministers huge discretion and does not even provide the benefit of allowing us to know what the category will be, even though Ministers have been much better on that matter recently than they have in the past. Sometimes when a Bill is introduced, we see a draft of regulations under it before we approve it. We know what the Government have in mind and can be clear about what is expected. However, this Bill does not make provision for a schedule or document setting out what the authorisations are likely to cover.
        In addition, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead pointed out, we do not have a date by which such a decision will be made. I accept that, if we are going to go down that road, the Bill has to be introduced before any power under it can be exercised. However, the time gap could last several months. This debate is a bit like our earlier debate on the definition of public authority. It is better to specify clearly the categories under the Bill, but I accept that Ministers may argue that one category, or perhaps two categories, have been forgotten. I accept that categories have to be clear.
        This issue is controversial in the world outside Parliament, so I shall explain when we accept that it is right to discriminate and allow that power, and when it is wrong. In Committee, we said that we would limit the scope for permitted discrimination on the grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origins to functions of the immigration and nationality directorate, when nationality is a legitimate ground for difference in treatment, or when ethnic or national origin could be a ground for different treatment.

        537
        That would not interfere with rules or procedures requiring visas, entry permits or work permits for people of some, but not all, non-UK nationalities. That is quite understandable, as every country works on that basis, and the issue would, rightly, remain separate from anti-discrimination legislation. To take a slightly controversial example, we would not stop the Home Office taking into account the ethnicity of Romanies or Roma people from eastern Europe when deciding their asylum applications, as it is a relevant factor that, clearly, is not to be excluded. However, we would prohibit discrimination on the grounds simply of nationality or ethnicity in circumstances such as those described by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead. It would therefore be impossible to say that one was going to detain all asylum seekers from Kosovo, but not those from Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro or elsewhere.
        It is important to make that distinction as the decision about asylum seekers and their treatment consists of two elements. The first is how asylum seekers are treated when they come into this country and whether they are free—I shall return to that in a second—and the second is how their application is determined. In law, it is clear that every asylum application must be treated on an individual basis. The Government accept that case, which is unarguable under the United Nations convention on refugees. It is also clear that there should be no presumption about detention for any particular category, which should be decided on an individual basis.
        There is a dispute on this issue, not so much between Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, but between both our parties and the Conservative party. We believe that it is against international law for asylum seekers to be detained when they come to this country simply on the basis that they are asylum seekers. We accept that it is proper to detain them if they have a criminal record or if intelligence leads the authorities to believe that they could break the rules, escape or be unwilling to be subject to authority. However, my understanding is that such discrimination is illegal in the areas covered by the European convention, and possibly also in the European Union.
        I tested that during my one official foreign visit—all Members of Parliament are authorised to make one two-day European Union visit during each year. I went to Finland. My visit coincided with a certain football match, at which I considered it important to watch crowd control measures, having dealt with the Football (Disorder) Bill in Parliament. The police in this country—the National Criminal Intelligence Service and others—and the Finnish police were extremely helpful, and my visit was very informative.
        I asked about asylum seekers, who come to Finland mainly from Russia and Estonia, and some from elsewhere in eastern Europe. The Finnish police take the view that it would be illegal to detain people who come as asylum seekers. There are reception centres, quite properly, but no detention centres.
        Mr. Winnick: I do not make a party point, although it will probably be interpreted as such, and I accept entirely that the hon. Gentleman speaks from a genuine wish for tolerance. I do not question that at all, but what he says
        538
        seems to conflict with the attitude of Liberal councillors in my constituency and in the Walsall borough, as demonstrated in correspondence and speeches relating to a single family that is to be housed temporarily in a ward represented by a Liberal Democrat councillor. I have pointed out before that there seems to be a discrepancy between the hon. Gentleman's fine words—again, I entirely accept his genuineness and sincerity—and those of some of his councillors.
        Mr. Hughes: Obviously, I do not know the details of the case, but if the hon. Gentleman is concerned about it, I am happy to see any correspondence or documentation that he wants to give me. I shall not prejudge the matter. No one is perfect and our councillors may be wrong; they may be right. I cannot judge, but I have sometimes been in difficulty on the same subject. I understand the pressures and the difficulties, but we must be clear about the issues. I have large numbers of asylum seekers in my constituency and I am aware df the potential issues that that can generate in the community. If there are matters that the hon. Gentleman wants to bring to my attention, I shall make sure that they are examined.
        Mr. Winnick: I am grateful.
        Mr. Hughes: If there is a serious allegation, I would rather see the documents that support it.
        There are various stages in the treatment of asylum seekers, during which it is possible to test whether discrimination exists. If the amendment were accepted, it might affect other matters, such as the financial support systems. We would argue that it should not be possible to discriminate generally by people's ethnic origin and where they come from, and that there should be no generalisation in respect of the dispersal system around the country or the withdrawal of support.
        The amendment would also make it unlawful to discriminate directly or indirectly on any racial grounds, including race, colour, nationality, citizenship, or ethnic or national origin, with regard to support arrangements, finance and so on. However, there could still be positive measures to help people who, for example, may not speak English. People with particular needs may require positive action and extra support. It is a difficult debate, but I understand that such exceptions will be lawful, because they come under another part of the Act—section 53—which allows special needs to be looked after.
        We are discussing a difficult matter, open to misinterpretation if we are not careful. It will be much better regulated by clear language, rather than open-ended language, and by Parliament dealing with the issue, rather than leaving it for subsequent authorisation. It is clear that in such difficult areas of policy—refugees, immigration, asylum seekers and the like—decisions must be seen to be fair by applicants and their representatives, and by society as a whole.
        5.15 pm
        I hope that the Minister will give an assurance either that he is willing to consider the proposition that we have advanced or that the authorisations will cover only the sort of list that I described when I discussed the five examples contained in our amendment. If he gave a categorical statement about what the authorisations would cover,

        539
        even if he did so on a later occasion, that would be some consolation to those of us who are interested in the matter, both in the House and outside it. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead made it clear that there was such interest.
        Mr. Lidington: We should remind ourselves of two points. First, illegal immigration remains a serious challenge for this country. Attempts at illegal immigration are frequently assisted by organised criminals who traffic in human beings, much as they might traffic in drugs or other contraband goods. Secondly, the officials whom we charge with enforcing our system of immigration control have to take complicated decisions that involve judgments about the quality of evidence that they receive from individuals. They might also have to take such decisions, which are of great importance, quickly and under great pressure. Those officials deserve to know that Parliament will provide them with certainty about what they are, and are not, allowed to do.
        I, and, I am sure, hon. Members from all parties, have sat alongside entry clearance officers at posts overseas, immigration officers at ports and case workers at the Croydon headquarters of the immigration and nationality directorate. On each occasion, I was struck by the professionalism of the officers concerned—they have absolute commitment and try to examine the merits of a case and the quality of evidence that is presented to them—and by the immense responsibility that we devolve to them when they take decisions about cases involving individual men, women and children.
        As I made clear in Committee and earlier, I start from the premise that some immigration exemption is necessary. I was persuaded by the arguments that were contained in the letter of 26 January from Lord Bassam of Brighton to Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to which the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) alluded. Lord Bassam explained why the Home Office believed that some exemption for discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin should, in particular and defined circumstances, remain within the law. That remains my position.
        I hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who said that his amendment would lead to greater clarity and greater control over ministerial discretion. However, as I listened to his speech, various questions occurred to me. He invites us to agree to an amendment that would limit the exemption to a list of specific functions of the immigration and nationality directorate and the migration and visa department of the Foreign Office, but what functions would his amendment exclude from the exemption?
        The hon. Gentleman discussed the detention of various people. As I understand the arrangements for detaining people at the Oakington detention centre, decisions are made on the basis that, on the whole, people are sent there because the immigration officer at a port believes that they have a fairly straightforward case, about which an initial decision can be taken within relatively few days.
        I have not examined the statistics in detail, but I think it conceivable that analysis of the nationalities of people detained in Oakington would show particular nationalities to be represented disproportionately, in terms of the proportion that they represented of the total number of
        540
        seekers of asylum in the United Kingdom. If amendment No. 54 were passed, a court might conceivably decide that the fast-track rule applied in respect of Oakington was indirectly discriminatory on grounds of race. I think there is a danger that the amendment would introduce more rather than less ambiguity.
        Although I do not close my mind to arguments in favour of further amendments, my inclination is to leave the provision as it stands.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, too, and I accept that fast-track systems start with presumptions. However—in this regard, as in others, there may not be much between the hon. Gentleman's view and mine—whereas a presumption might be made that would put someone into a category in respect of consideration of his case, the actual consideration would be on the basis of the paperwork, the facts and the information collected. That, not national, ethnic or other discrimination, would be the determining factor.
        Mr. Lidington: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I still think that his amendment has the potential to reintroduce a measure of ambiguity.
        I welcome Government amendment No. 3, which, as I read it, would remove from the scope of the exemption the powers—effectively—of a constable which were conferred on immigration officers by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I think that the reference to sections 28A and 28K of the Immigration Act 1971 refers to new powers conferred by the 1999 Act. If so, I consider the amendment sensible.
        Mr. Mike O'Brien: There has been much discussion during the Bill's passage, both here and in another place, about the exemption for immigration and nationality functions provided in new section 19C in clause 1. Amendment No. 1 would remove altogether the exemption, and the associated provision creating an independent monitor whose function would be to account to Parliament on its operation. Amendment No. 54 would narrow the immigration exemption in new section 19C.
        At present the Bill allows discrimination that is proper and necessary, on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origin, in the carrying out of immigration and nationality functions. Those are defined as functions exercisable by any of the enactments listed in subsection (5). The amendment seeks to prescribe only a limited number of functions in which discrimination may occur.
        I am fully aware of the concerns expressed about the immigration and nationality exemption. The Government have said on many occasions that it should be no wider than is absolutely necessary. The amendments, however, would damage our attempts to provide a fast, firm and fair immigration control. They ignore a number of the principal functions contained in the immigration legislation in which discrimination may well be proper and necessary. In particular, they would not permit discrimination in respect of the removal, deportation or detention of individuals who did not qualify for leave to enter or remain. Detention, for example, is sometimes necessary to enforce the removal of those who do not qualify for leave to remain, and who will not comply voluntarily with instructions to leave the United Kingdom.
        As hon. Members will know, owing to operational factors such as the ready availability of national travel documentation, or the preparedness of other states to

        541
        allow us to return their nationals using other forms of documentation, some nationalities are easier to remove than others. In respect of certain nationalities, enforcing removal can be a prolonged process. In such cases, when there is no immediate prospect of removal, detention may not be appropriate.
        It is necessary for the immigration service and the integrated casework directorate to conduct special nationality-specific exercises, involving the fast-tracking of cases in response to sudden or sustained influxes of certain nationals seeking to circumvent control. In particular, the immigration service needs to ensure that resources are targeted at the nationalities that offer the best prospect of successful removal, often in the light of other Governments' attitudes to accepting the return of their nationals. I am not convinced that the amendments would permit such activity.
        At ports the immigration service requires the ability—under close ministerial supervision—to treat people differently on the basis of their nationality and, occasionally, their ethnic or national origin when it has intelligence that, for example, certain national travel documents are being abused, or individuals or groups of one nationality are presenting themselves as nationals of another country in order to benefit from compassionate policies or asylum procedures that are being applied to one nationality or ethnic group but not to others. The Kosovan situation is an obvious example.
        We have encountered a number of rackets emanating from various countries. There are also many examples of the immigration system discriminating positively in favour of individuals on the basis of their nationality or ethnic or national origins. For example, in the past we have given special treatment to Kosovan Albanians, during the recent conflict in the Balkans. Kosovan Serbs were not treated in the same way, for obvious reasons.
        There are other examples in which guidance to asylum caseworkers indicates that one ethnic or national group from a particular country should be treated differently from another. The ethnic or national origin of the applicant is a key consideration in the determination of applications for asylum and exceptional leave. It is clearly important to establish whether a particular ethnic group is the subject of some form of persecution in the country from which it comes, rather than another ethnic group. It would be impossible to operate a rational asylum process, requiring the immigration authorities to treat cases alike without always delving into the detail of each claim, if caseworkers were unable to make such distinctions. That would make the operation of the asylum and immigration system extremely difficult.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I hear what the Minister says, but in my constituency experience of dealing with huge numbers of such applications, at the end of the day Ministers and officials make decisions on the basis of the individual concerned, and—either initially, or if pressed—provide explanations. Is it not the case that, whatever may be the starting point of a policy, decisions are and should always be made on the basis of an individual's circumstances? We cannot get away from that.
        Mr. O'Brien: Certainly each asylum application is decided on its individual merits. To that extent, the hon.
        542
        Gentleman is right. The individual, however, comes with a history—a background. In the case of Kosovo, for instance, in which we operated special procedures in relation to ethnic Albanians, it was clearly relevant to determine whether an individual claiming to be an ethnic Albanian was indeed an ethnic Albanian. An ethnic Albanian coming from Kosovo rather than Albania itself might be given different treatment from an Albanian coming from Albania, or a Serb coming from Kosovo. On that basis, we had to examine not just individual circumstances, but the broader context. It was not necessary to look much further into the individual circumstances of a person identified as a Kosovan Albanian to decide how that person should be dealt with.
        The hon. Gentleman is right in principle: when deciding whether to grant asylum, we should consider individual cases. However, the context in which the decision is made cannot be ignored.
        5.30 pm
        Mr. Cohen: I understand that the immigration service deals with nationality and ethnic origins in much of its case work, but at the heart of the Stephen Lawrence case and the subsequent inquiry lay the fact that there have been individual massive injustices caused by false stereotyping. That is what institutional racism is about. Why should the immigration and nationality service be exempt from provisions relating to institutional racism and false stereotyping when the police and many other public services are subject to those provisions? Why should an individual who is anti-Saddam Hussein be treated the same way as someone who is pro-Saddam Hussein, just because he or she comes from Iraq? It might be a false stereotype to assume that any applicant from Iraq should be turned down.
        Mr. O'Brien: As we have already identified, when an asylum or immigration case is determined, the circumstances of the individual are important, as is the individual's background. I do not think that my hon. Friend and I disagree on that point. However, he appears to think that there is reason to believe that many, or at least a significant number, of the decisions taken by immigration officers are based on some sort of stereotyping or discriminatory intention. That is not my experience of the professional way in which decisions are normally taken. That is not to say that there have been no mistakes made—no public service is immune from the errors of individuals or the mendacity of a small minority—but, by and large, the immigration service bases its decisions on the proper and openly arrived at decision-making guidance issued by Ministers.
        In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend mentioned Frances Webber. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has broad enough shoulders not to worry about criticism from that source, but he is certainly not facing both ways on the issues. He is trying to ensure that our record is that of a Government who promote a combination of the firm and fair immigration controls to which we committed ourselves in our manifesto and a strong commitment to race equality, which we have demonstrated throughout our term in office, both in the Bill and in the establishment of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.
        There is no question of facing two ways: our aim is to restore integrity to our asylum system so that it works for the genuine refugee, discourages those who would abuse

        543
        it or make unfounded claims and recognises the need to respect race equality. That is why we have tabled an amendment that makes a change that I am sure my hon. Friend wants. We think it is possible to do that because exemptions should be no wider than is necessary.
        My hon. Friend quotes Frances Webber asking,
        how…are we going to prove unlawful race discrimination…if it is not unlawful to discriminate…?
        That is a very lawyerly way of putting it—of course one cannot prove something to be unlawful if it is not unlawful. However, there are circumstances in which it is proper, lawful and right to discriminate, for example, when we were helping Kosovan Albanians. There should be no disagreement about that. The lawyer quoted is placing a lawyerly concern to win—to get at the immigration service—above the need for proper decision making and justice. I, as a Minister, am concerned to ensure that just decisions are made and public policy operates properly to achieve the openly articulated aim of the Government to ensure that we have a system of immigration control that is both fair and firm.
        My hon. Friend asks whether junior civil servants have the ability to take unto themselves the exemption. The answer is no: a junior civil servant has no ability to say, "I have decided that, in that case, such a course of action is no longer discriminatory," nor does a senior civil servant, or the chief immigration officer. Immigration officers will operate under the guidance issued by Ministers, which is, by and large, in the public arena. My hon. Friend will be able to ascertain the criteria by which such decisions are made and the way in which they are reached.
        In no sense does the Bill create an exemption that gives a civil servant broad discretion to discriminate. Civil servants will be able to discriminate properly and lawfully only when there is a clear instruction from the Minister to do so in specific circumstances, and those circumstances are mainly in the public arena. One of the actions taken by the Government after entering office—indeed, while I was Minister with responsibility for immigration—was to ensure that the guidance on how such decisions are made was put into the public domain and so made available to immigration lawyers such as Frances Webber. There is a degree of openness from which my hon. Friend can take solace. We do not accept that any official is entitled to discriminate in a way that is unacceptable to the Government.
        Mr. Hughes: I shall not dispute the issue of openness with the Minister. I hope that he will now address the question of the timetable from now on governing the exemptions provided under the legislation. However, the example he gives works both ways. The House and the country had huge sympathy for Albanian Kosovans and everything started from there. However, I know from colleagues and from discussions with the Refugee Council when I visited Kosovo that some Serbian Kosovans felt that their case was prejudged against them, even though they had no history of acts of aggression or intimidation or other anti-social activities. The very generalisation that Albanian Kosovans should be considered together and regarded favourably and that Serbian Kosovans should not is worrying to me, because I know how much grief that presumption has caused over the past couple of years.
        Mr. O'Brien: We considered Albanian Kosovans differently from Serbian Kosovans not because specific
        544
        individuals might have been involved in activities that, in retrospect, they would not have been proud of, but in the light of evidence of persecution of a particular ethnic minority. Obviously, in Kosovo at that time, the issue was whether Albanians were suffering persecution, not whether Serbs were. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that point.
        I recognise that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) nor the Liberal Democrats intend to frustrate control, even though that would be the effect of their amendments. The Government accept that the amendments were tabled for bona fide reasons, even though we cannot accept them. We are concerned that they would deprive us of the ability to preserve the integrity of immigration control.
        The provisions in the Bill to ensure that any discrimination in the sphere of immigration and nationality is justified are quite strict. Such discrimination must be in accordance with the provisions of the various enactments, or must be authorised by Ministers who, in turn, are accountable to Parliament. Such instructions are normally in the public arena, although there might be security issues relating to specific individuals or circumstances that oblige Ministers to decide otherwise—no doubt, hon. Members can work out for themselves the circumstances in which a Minister might decide not to make such matters public.
        Precisely because there have been concerns, we took the view that there should be a race monitor to ensure that the decisions made by the immigration service were made properly and subject to some public scrutiny. The race monitor will have free access to all of the IND's papers. He or she will also be able to call on the IND to provide an individual file. However, I make it very clear that the monitor should not be a surrogate appellate authority. It is not the monitor's job to examine an individual case and to make decisions on it. The monitor's job is to look at the broad array of cases and at a selection of cases and to determine whether, as a whole, immigration control is being operated within the spirit of this legislation. The race monitor will, therefore, monitor the immigration service and the IND to ensure that the legislation's spirit is being properly adhered to.
        The current entry clearance monitor, who provides real accountability to Parliament, provides a very successful precedent for the role of race monitor. The entry clearance monitor will report annually to Parliament, and I know that many hon. Members pay great heed to the views that the monitor expresses. We very much hope that the race monitor will have the same type of credibility and impact, so that Ministers, too, pay great heed to what is said by him or her.
        I am satisfied that we have struck the right balance, and therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead to consider withdrawing amendment No. 1.
        Government amendment No. 3 would modify the exemption for immigration and nationality functions in clause 1, new section 19C. As I said, we have consistently made clear our view that the exemption should be no wider than is absolutely necessary to safeguard the effective operation of immigration control. We have reached the view that a refinement to the immigration exemption can be made in the interests of securing the Bill's objectives without the risk of harm to immigration control.

        545
        The amdendment is designed to remove from the scope of the immigration exemption sections 28A to 28K of the Immigration Act 1971 as they relate to offences under part III of that Act. Those offences include seeking to obtain leave to enter or remain by deception, facilitating the entry of an illegal entrant into the United Kingdom, and possessing false immigration documents—such as passports, visas and work permits—for use. Many of those offences are committed by our own citizens, although some may be commissioned only by those subject to immigration control.
        The amendment would place the immigration service, in the investigation and prosecution of such offences, on the same legal basis as police—with whom they often participate in joint operations—in operating the Bill's provisions.
        It is right that the investigation and prosecution of offences should be based on some objective evidence or intelligence, rather than on an individual's nationality or ethnic or national origin. The immigration service does not prioritise the investigation of such offences by nationality. It is also right that the immigration service and police should be subject to the same legal constraints in carrying out similar activities, often conducted together. Those constraints will not harm or hinder the administration of justice or action against those engaged in immigration fraud or human trafficking.
        Immigration service functions that support the removal or deportation of individuals from the United Kingdom will, however, remain within the scope of the exemption. As I said, it is sometimes necessary to prioritise cases for removal on the basis of nationality in response to particular pressures on control or as a result of the attitude of other Governments towards accepting the return of their own nationals.
        The amendment contains a justifiable refinement to the immigration exemption. We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by hon. Members and by Members of another place, and we have taken action to ensure that the exemption is no wider than is necessary. I hope that the House will accept this Government amendment to new section 19C.
        Mr. Hughes: When does the Minister expect new authorisations in relation to this part of the Bill to be made?
        Mr. O'Brien: I cannot give a date now, but we would want to implement the provisions as soon as we possibly can. Although we would have to take account of the analysis of controls that is currently being done, we would, as I said, want to implement the provisions as soon as reasonably possible. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to let them know when we anticipate implementing them.
        5.45 pm
        Government amendment No. 35 provides that a finding of unlawful discrimination by the independent appellate authority in an immigration case will trigger the power of the Commission for Racial Equality to seek an injunction under section 62 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
        546
        Government amendment No. 36 extends section 66 of the 1976 Act to allow the CRE to give assistance to people in immigration proceedings before the independent appellate or the special immigration appeals commission.
        Government amendment No. 37 amends section 67 and will protect applicants whose visa applications are successful, but who nevertheless consider that they have been racially discriminated against by an entry clearance officer. It ensures that redress is available in the county court.
        Government amendments Nos. 41 and 42 extend the Lord Chancellor's current jurisdiction under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 to make rules.
        Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are technical ones to ensure that in cases in which a claim of racial discrimination has been certified as manifestly unfounded, an adjudicator is able to determine whether it was correct for the Home Secretary to issue a certificate when the claim was made and to make a decision on that certificate. A consequential amendment has also been made to the equivalent certification provisions on human rights and asylum in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
        I hope that the House will accept not only these technical and consequential amendments, but the more substantive amendments that I have outlined.
        Mr. Cohen: My amendment No. 1 was always a probing amendment, to express concern and to get answers, and I appreciate the answers that the Minister has given. I particularly welcomed his answers as they touched on the role of civil servants and the race monitor and on the transparency of the criteria. I am still concerned, however, about the broad exemption being granted to the service. It is too great in the case of the IND and it should have been reined in a bit more. Although I heard the Minister's comments about exemptions being no wider than necessary, I do not think that the exemption granted to the IND should be any wider than that granted to other public services.
        Nevertheless, I also appreciate the full answers that the Minister has given to my questions. I also realise that the Home Secretary has broad shoulders, and that he will not be too worried about the comments of Frances Webber that I quoted.
        I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 41, after "1999" insert—
        'but excluding sections 28A to 28K of the Immigration Act 1971 so far as they relate to offences under Part III of that Act'.
        No. 4, in page 3, leave out lines 46 and 47.—[Mr. Touhig.]

      Clause 2

        SPECIFIED AUTHORITIES: GENERAL STATUTORY DUTY
        The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 5, leave out from beginning to "due" in line 6 and insert—
        ', in carrying out its functions, have'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6 to 10, 24, 26 and 28.
        Mr. Tipping: Government amendment No. 5 alters the wording of the new general duty on public authorities to

        547
        promote race equality to reflect better the Government's policy intention. It makes it clear that public authorities, rather than simply putting arrangements in place to have regard to the need to work towards the elimination of unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups, must have regard to that duty. Although they should of course make arrangements to meet that obligation, greater focus is placed in this amendment on the outcome rather than on the process itself. The wording follows the approach taken in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and has the support of the Commission for Racial Equality. I commend the amendment to the House.
        I deal now with Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9, which are perhaps slighter than the preceding one. Many public authorities are already subject to various statutory duties imposed by other legislation. I cite as an example the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which subjects the Greater London Authority to a duty in relation to equality of opportunity for all people. In clause 2, the proposed new section 71(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 will allow, by order, the Secretary of State to impose on bodies that are subject to the general duty to promote racial equality specific duties aimed at ensuring their better performance of that duty.
        The proposed section 71(6) in clause 2 allows the Secretary of State to make

        such incidental, supplementary or consequential provision
        as appropriate when, by an order under the proposed section 71(5), he amends the list of public authorities subject to the duty in schedule 1A.
        We wish to have similar powers in the proposed section 71(6) in relation to orders as those made under the proposed section 71(2). That will allow the Secretary of State, when making such orders, to amend other legislation imposing duties on bodies in order to remove any overlaps on the duties. That is necessary to avoid a body becoming subject to separate but possibly conflicting duties.
        Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 10 are technical drafting amendments. Amendment No. 24 adds a new entry to schedule 1A to bring the coverage in Scotland of certain health bodies under the general duty into line with coverage of the Bill in England and Wales. Amendment No. 26 adds regional development agencies, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to the schedule, along with the London development agency which was already in it. Certain housing bodies covered by the existing section 71 duty are added by amendment No. 28 so that they remain seamlessly specified for the purpose of the new duty. That extends the scope of the bodies covered. I commend the amendments to the House.
        Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he moved the amendments. I understand the Government's reasons for proposing the new draft of the general statutory duty, but I would like to press him on the Government's thinking on what they expect public authorities to deliver under the statutory duty. It is important for the Government to clarify their thinking, given that we are proposing to grant the Secretary of State extensive powers by order to impose specific requirements on individual public authorities if he believes that they are failing to comply with the
        548
        general duty. That marks a significant departure from the arrangements set out in section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which places a duty on every local authority to make appropriate arrangements to carry out their functions with a view to the need

        (a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and

        (b) to promote equality of opportunity, and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

        The 1976 Act does not give the Secretary of State the power to step in to say that a local authority is failing in that duty. However, under the Bill, central Government will be able to insist on certain actions being taken or certain codes being adhered to so that a local authority or group of local authorities complies with the Government's view of how to give effect to the general duty. That is important, partly for the parliamentary reason that the order-making power is subject only to the negative resolution procedure. It could come into effect without any debate or formal approval by this or the other House.
        More important, when we judge the amendments and the definition of the statutory duty, we need to pay careful regard to the specific obligations that we wish to impose on specific public authorities as a result of what is phrased in fairly general terms in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of his thinking on that.
        The precedent set by the 1976 Act shows that in the 24 years in which local councils have been under a statutory duty, most have used the requirement in section 71 to good effect in serving their local communities. That is how I would like things to continue.
        However, certain local authorities have hit the headlines because they have interpreted the duty in the 1976 Act in a way that many people have found outrageous and not in accord with their expectations of their local council. In the past couple of weeks, the report of the Runnymede Trust's commission, which was chaired by Lord Parekh, has been published. Although I do not disagree with everything in the report, it calls for a much greater degree of central Government interference in promoting good relations than I believe to be justified.
        We are told by the media that Home Office Ministers had intended to welcome the report with open arms and to announce several specific measures to give effect to some of its recommendations. It is not unfair to ask the Minister what he expects local councils and other public authorities to do that they are not doing already. For example, do the Government intend to impose on all public authorities the more onerous requirements of ethnic monitoring that the Runnymede Trust's report recommends?
        To take things to the extreme, do the Government foresee that they might want to implement what I would regard as one of the daftest recommendations in the report—namely, that museums and art galleries whose exhibitions do not comply with the Government's idea of what promotes racial equality should lose some of their funding? The report is explicit in that it recommends:
        Organisations funded by public bodies should lose some of their funding if they do not make changes in their staff and governance and do not demonstrably make their programmes and activities more inclusive.
        The amendments and clause 2 will give the Home Secretary or his colleagues in the Cabinet the power by an order, which is subject only to the negative resolution

        549
        procedure, to instruct a local authority museum or art gallery to change its way of doing things. If it does not do what he prescribes, it will stand to lose its grant.
        In our previous debates, the Minister has also shown himself to be a reasonable chap who wishes to argue constructively, so I hope that he will be able to reassure me that my fears are misplaced. Given the general terms in which the statutory duty is defined in legislation, it is only fair to ask the Government to be more specific about the practical measures that they wish authorities to undertake or that they will seek to impose on them.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome clause 2, to which the Minister has introduced further amendments today. We have argued for it in the House of Lords and in Committee. We are very keen to have this new development in race relations legislation which will oblige authorities to do two things. They will have to have regard—the Minister has suggested a change of words, but keeping the same principle—to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination. It is not a matter of waiting for the court case but of dealing with matters in advance and being proactive.
        Secondly, authorities will have to promote equality of opportunity and good relations. Those are good things, and it is good that these provisions are in the Bill. The amendments proposed by the Minister are also welcome; they seem to be entirely consistent.
        6 pm
        The comments of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) included two fair points, to which the Minister may be planning to respond. First, the hon. Gentleman asked the Minister to amplify in what way the Government would expect, and people should expect, the legislation to be enacted. Secondly, he alluded to the report sponsored by the Runnymede Trust, the "Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain". I was going to say a word about it on Third Reading, but it seems logical to do so now.
        It would be helpful if the Government indicated how they will respond to the list of proposals in the report. I was away on the day it was released, but I realised that the content of the report got hijacked by, clouded by and coloured by the proposal on what we call the country and getting rid of the word "Britain". That was not a key proposal, as I understand it, but just one of the things in the report.
        There are none the less a significant number of proposals in the report, including a list of points for immediate action. I only have the report's summary here, but I know that the Government have many of the items, both general and specific, on their agenda. I refer to introducing a single equality act, setting up a human rights commission and legislating to prohibit direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religion or belief—all matters to which the Government have at some time said they are committed.
        I hope that the Minister will respond in general terms to the request about how the Government propose to respond to the report. I hope that once the initial wave of comment has died down, there will be a positive and considered response to each proposal. The report appears
        550
        to be on all fours with the attempts by many people to have the promotion of good race relations and equal opportunity as part of the duty of those of us in public service and in public life.
        Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the general support from the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The point of difference between them was the difference in emphasis and concentration on the Runnymede Trust's report which has been published fairly recently and has led to some controversy.
        The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was right to say that the focus had been on one section of the report—the notion of Britishness. The Home Secretary has made his position on that clear. He has also made his position, and that of the Government, clear on the Runnymede Trust's report. We welcome the report; it contains many recommendations that can be built on. There are also recommendations that go against the grain of what the Government are doing. Suffice it to say that we generally welcome the report, are working on its propositions and intend to come forward with proposals to take the debate further.
        The hon. Member for Aylesbury made two important points. He said that this was a very important subject, and indeed it is. The duty to promote is the key to the Bill, so it is important to get these provisions right. Secondly, he talked strongly and positively about local authorities, and I agree with him on that. Politicians are not very good at praising success; neither are Governments, of whichever colour. Local authorities, as has already been said, are very successful. We need to use our regulatory framework; bodies such as Ofsted and the Audit Commission, instead of always identifying weakness, should identify and promote success. Successful local authorities should be used as vehicles to drive change forward.
        As the hon. Gentleman said, many local authorities have a good deal of which to be proud. There have been occasional mishaps when local authorities may have been over-zealous in their approach. However, concentrating on the best and on bringing everyone up to the standard of the best is the right approach.
        I was asked directly how the Government intend to proceed. As I said earlier, we are using as our model the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The phrasing is almost the same. The hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in these matters, knows that in Northern Ireland we are consulting on how to do this. Public authorities do not come in one shape or size. There are different degrees of public authority. The hon. Gentleman talked earlier of vicars in the Church of England pursuing a public role. That public role is only a small proportion of their work. It is important that we consult and that we are proportionate in our approach and do not bring forward a set of measures that will not work for organisations of different size and complexity.
        The hon. Gentleman asked me directly what we would be looking at and looking for. He used local authorities as his example, so perhaps I can too. It is important that local authorities introduce policies that meet the needs of the entire community, so it is important to consult the entire community about how best to do that. In a social services department, areas in which policy will need to

        551
        have some focus would be the kind of meals on wheels that are supplied to the entire community, and the variety of choice that there is. Similarly, the care of people from a black and Asian background in residential accommodation is a difficult and complex area. It will be important for local authorities to consult about that, introduce policies and have ways of measuring those policies to ensure that people from a black and Asian background really are taking up meals on wheels and, if not—as is often the case these days—why not. It is important for local authorities to take that into account in relation to social policies.
        It is also important for local authorities to follow this approach in relation to their employment policies. Some do, very satisfactorily, but some do not. If public authorities claim to be equal opportunities employers, as many do, but do not appear to deliver when one considers their work force, it is important that local authorities consult all the community and have policies that are acceptable to all the community on the way in which staff are advertised for and recruited. They should ensure that if people from any ethnic background are not represented and there appear to be handicaps in the way of that happening, they should introduce policies to resolve the matter.
        The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that he enjoyed working with me. I enjoy working with him, and I have enjoyed doing so on this Bill. These amendments are about ensuring that we set up mechanisms for public authorities, including local authorities, to have in place policies that meet the needs of the black and Asian community and to measure them.
        In closing, let me simply say that the range of measures on which consultation will take place depends on the size and complexity of the public authority. As I said earlier, the Home Office is very clear that this is not a "one approach fits all" method. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 6, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
        '(b) may make different provision for different purposes.'.
        No. 7, in page 4, line 25, leave out "which" and insert "who".
        No. 8, in page 4, line 27, after "subsection" insert "(2) or".
        No. 9, in page 4, line 46, leave out—
        'section 74 so far as it applies'
        and insert—
        'sections 71(6) and 74 so far as they apply'.
        No. 10, in page 5, line 3, leave out "which" and insert "who".—[Mr. Touhig.]

      Clause 3

        CERTAIN APPOINTMENT FUNCTIONS OUTSIDE THE EMPLOYMENT FIELD
        Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 3, leave out "or refused".
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12 to 18 and 32.
        Mr. Tipping: Clause 3 already makes provision in relation to the coverage of public appointments,
        552
        dignities and honours under the Race Relations Act 1976. These amendments will improve the current provision in the Bill in two ways. First, they will make improvements to the drafting of the provision. More substantively, they will bring within the scope of the provision a substantial new area—that of discrimination involving the terms and conditions of appointments or the termination of the appointment.
        I shall deal with the latter, more substantive matter first. I note that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is nodding. I think that he can take pride in this matter, which he pursued in Committee. We gave an undertaking to reflect on it, and I hope that we have met his needs to a large extent. The Government propose to extend the protection against discrimination in relation to appointments that is provided under section 76 of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended under the Bill. It should cover discrimination not only in the arrangements for determining who should be appointed, but in the terms and conditions of the appointment, in the termination of the appointment or in subjecting the appointee to any other detriment.
        Thus, overall, it will be unlawful for a Minister or Department to discriminate in relation to the terms of the appointment; the way the appointee is afforded access to opportunities for promotion, transfer, training or any other benefits, facilities or services; the refusal or omission to afford access to such things; the termination of the appointment; or subjecting the appointee to any other detriment. Discrimination against appointees and potential appointees will be unlawful in those circumstances where it is unlawful against employees under section 4(2) of the Race Relations Act, thereby improving the protection afforded to appointees by our race discrimination legislation.
        Some drafting improvements have also been made to those provisions. The position for negative recommendations and refusals, including deliberate omissions, is now set out separately, making it clearer that they are covered by the provisions, as are positive recommendations and approvals.
        The drafting for the extension of the Act to appointments, dignities and honours made on the recommendation or approval of Ministers or Departments has been brought more into line with the drafting of the existing provision in section 76(2) of the Act for appointments made by Ministers or Departments. The effect is to clarify the application of the provision, making it clear that a Minister or Department, in making recommendations or approvals, should do nothing that would be unlawful under the Act—as though the appointee were an employee, and the Crown the employer. It has been made clear that the sanctions provided under sections 53(2) to 53(4) are the only sanctions on the appointments, conferments and other acts covered by section 76.
        The opportunity has been taken to introduce provisions to ensure that not only the recommendations and approvals of Ministers and Departments in relation to life peerages but those of bodies set up by Ministers for that purpose are covered by the provisions. The Committee spent some time considering this complex matter and we

        553
        have listened to its views. I hope that the amendments represent improvements, and I commend them to the House.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Government for responding to our concerns. They do not represent three-star, flashing light, huge legislative matters. I do not pretend that they are the central part of the Government's programme.
        Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman underestimates his powers.
        6.15 pm
        Mr. Hughes: Even on our shopping list, they are not matters that we would have died for in Committee. None the less, the Government have tried to bring within the same system appointments or selections under the slightly anomalous routes by which people are given honours. As far as I and those who advise me have been able to work out, our concerns have been met. A minor caveat remains in that I am not sure that the Minister can be absolutely certain that the small print is perfect. However, I am pleased that the Bill has been improved; it will become more consistent legislation. I am grateful to those behind the scenes who have helped to make that happen.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 12, in page 8, line 7, leave out first "the" and insert "a".
        No. 13, in page 8, line 9, leave out "or refused".
        No. 14, in page 8, line 11, leave out from "giving" to end of line 18 and insert—
        'the approval, and in making the arrangements for determining who should be recommended or approved, the Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act which would be unlawful under section 4 if the recommendation or approval were an offer of employment and the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.
        (6) Subsections (3) to (5) do not apply in relation to the making of negative recommendations.
        (6A) Subsection (6C) applies to—

        (a) any negative recommendation made by a Minister of the Crown or government department, or any refusal to make a recommendation by such a Minister or department, in relation to an appointment to an office or post where section 4 does not apply in relation to the appointment, and

        (b) any approval refused by such a Minister or department in relation to any such appointment.

        (6B) Subsection (6C) also applies to—

        (a) any negative recommendation made by a Minister of the Crown or government department, or any refusal to make a recommendation by such a Minister or department, in relation to a conferment by the Crown of a dignity or honour; and

        (b) any approval refused by such a Minister or department in relation to any such conferment.

        (6C) In making a negative recommendation or in refusing to make a recommendation or give an approval, and in making the arrangements for determining, whether to make such a recommendation or refusal, the Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act which would be unlawful
        554
        under section 4 if the recommendation or refusal were a refusal to offer the person concerned employment and the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.
        (6D) Subsection (6E) applies in relation to any appointment to an office or post where section 4 does not apply and—

        (a) the appointment is made by a Minister of the Crown or government department, or

        (b) the office or post is an office or post in relation to which a Minister of the Crown or government department has made a recommendation (other than a negative recommendation) or given an approval.

        (6E) A Minister of the Crown or government department shall not do an act in connection with—

        (a) the terms of the appointment;

        (b) access for the person appointed to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities or services; or

        (c) the termination of the appointment, or subjecting the person appointed to any other detriment;

        which would be unlawful under section 4 if the Crown were the employer for the purposes of this Act.'.
        No. 15, in page 8, line 21, after "(5)" insert—
        ', subsection (6C) or, in relation to an appointment falling within subsection (6D)(b), subsection (6E)'.
        No. 16, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—
        '( ) The sanctions provided by virtue of the operation of section 53(2) to (4) in relation to this section shall be the only sanctions under this Act in relation to appointments, conferments and other acts to which this section applies.'.
        No. 17, in page 8, line 27, leave out from first "to" to end of line 28 and insert—
        'refusal include references to deliberate omission;'.
        No. 18, in page 8, line 31, at end insert—
        'and
        () references to Ministers of the Crown and government departments so far as they relate to the making of a recommendation or a refusal to make a recommendation, or the giving or refusal of an approval, in relation to a conferment of a peerage for life under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 include references to any body established by a Minister of the Crown to make such a recommendation to the Prime Minister or to determine whether to give such an approval.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

      Clause 5

        CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS
        Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 10, line 45, leave out "or".
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 20, 23, 25, 34 and 49.
        Mr. Tipping: These are technical and drafting amendments, but I hope that they are transparent. I intend to speak to them only briefly.
        Amendment Nos. 19 and 20 are designed to ensure that the definition of criminal investigation applies, in the different circumstances that arise in Scotland, to the same extent as it does in England and Wales. In Scotland, authorities such as the vehicle inspectorate or the Health and Safety Executive have investigatory powers, but no power to conduct prosecutions. The definition of a criminal investigation at paragraph (b) of section 57(4B),

        555
        as inserted under clause 5, therefore does not cover investigations carried out by such bodies; nor does the definition at paragraph (a) of section 57(4B), since they will not necessarily always have a duty to conduct their investigations. The amendments are therefore needed to ensure that the definition of criminal investigations covers investigations carried out by such bodies in Scotland.
        Under amendments Nos. 23 and 25, we propose to make minor technical amendments to two Scottish entries in schedule 1A, which lists specified public bodies for the purpose of the new duty to promote race equality.
        Amendment No. 49 repeals a provision that provides for Scottish Homes to be subject to the existing duty to promote race equality under section 71. That duty will be made redundant by the new duty under the Bill, which will apply to Scottish Homes by virtue of amendment No. 28.
        Amendment No. 34 will allow an enforcement notice served by the Commission for Racial Equality in respect of an immigration decision to be appealed in the civil courts. That will not restrict the commission's powers; it will simply place immigration decisions on the same footing as other areas of decision making under section 59 of the Race Relations Act 1976. I commend the amendments to the House.
        Amendment agreed to
        Amendment made: No. 20, in page 11, line 3, after "conduct;" insert "or
        (c) any investigation which is conducted by a person in carrying out functions to which section 19B applies and which in the circumstances may lead to a decision by that person to make a report to the procurator fiscal for the purpose of enabling him to determine whether criminal proceedings should be instituted;'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

      Clause 10
        SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT ETC.
        Amendment made: No. 21, in page 14, line 35, leave out "Schedules 1" and insert "Schedules 2".—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Schedule 1
        PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
        Amendment made: No. 22, in page 16, line 2, leave out Schedule 1.—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Schedule 2

        BODIES AND OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO GENERAL STATUTORY DUTY
        Amendments made: No. 23, in page 19, line 29, leave out "established" and insert "constituted".
        No. 24, in page 19, line 30, at end insert—
        '. A Special Health Board constituted under section 2 of that Act.'.
        No. 25, in page 20, line 30, leave out—
        'constituted under section 62A or 62B'
        and insert—
        'within the meaning of section 235(1)'.
        No. 26, in page 21, line 6, at end insert—
        556
        '. A regional development agency established under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (other than the London Development Agency).
        . Scottish Enterprise and Highland and Islands Enterprise, established under the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]
        Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 13, at end insert—
        'Other educational bodies
        . Governing bodies of—

        (a) educational establishments maintained by local education authorities;

        (b) institutions within the further education sector (within the meaning of section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992); or

        (c) institutions within the higher education sector (within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Act of 1992).

        . The managers of a grant-aided school (within the meaning of section 135 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980).
        . The managers of a central institution (within the meaning of section 135 of the Act of 1980).
        . The board of management of a self-governing school (within the meaning of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989).
        . The board of management of a college of further education (within the meaning of section 36(1) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992).
        . The governing body of an institution within the higher education sector (within the meaning of Part II of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992).'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 29 to 31, 33, 43, 46 to 48 and 50 to 53.
        Mr. Tipping: The amendments add public sector educational bodies to the list of specified bodies for the purpose of the duty to promote race equality in clause 2. They also provide for a number of consequential amendments: in particular, the duty on educational bodies currently at section 19 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which is a more limited duty than the new duty, is being repealed. I draw that to the attention of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who I know is concerned that disproportionate duties should not be imposed on schools and school governors.
        One aspect of the amendments which I should explain for the avoidance of doubt is the apparent absence from the list of local education authorities—and in Scotland, education authorities. Those authorities are covered by the duty, but there is no need to make a specific reference to them, because the existing references to local authorities in the schedule cover local authorities in all their capacities, including their education capacity.
        The amendments also take the opportunity to remove the requirement in the 1976 Act for a two-month period to elapse before proceedings against education bodies can be progressed through the courts. The original purpose was to provide the Secretary of State with the opportunity to investigate the case and direct the bodies against which the discrimination case was being brought, but the Government now agree with the Commission for Racial

        557
        Equality, which recommended the change in its third review of the Act, as the delay is thought to be unnecessary.
        The amendment relating to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 amends schedules 4 and 5 of that Act, which require school organisation committees to have regard to the obligations placed on local education authorities and school governors in part III of the Race Relations Act 1976. The amendment requires school organisation committees also to have regard to the obligations placed on those bodies by clause 2 of the Bill.
        The amendments ensure that educational bodies are subject to the duty to promote racial equality, as other public authorities are. That makes them important, and I commend them to the House.
        Mr. Lidington: No one—least of all me—would quarrel with the proposition that it should be part of the duty of any responsible educational institution to help to promote good race relations and oppose racial discrimination. It would be hard to find a head teacher who would say that he or she was not already engaged in trying to give effect to that aspiration.
        I want to flag up one or two concerns. Clause 2 and schedule 2 give the Government new powers to impose specific duties on public authorities—including, when Government amendment No. 27 is made, the state sector of education—if those impositions are necessary in order to make those bodies comply with their duty to promote good race relations. Having heard his response to my earlier comments on this theme, I emphasise to the Minister that it is of the utmost importance that there is thorough consultation with practitioners in the education sector.
        We all want schools and colleges to play their part in building a society in which the various ethnic communities respect one another, but it is important to do that without prejudice to what is surely the prime duty of schools—to promote high standards of achievement for all pupils, regardless of ethnic background.
        I refer again to the recommendations of the Runnymede Trust report. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), that most of the previous debate on that report concerned its references to the notion of Britishness, but my criticism of it is more that its conclusions place too much faith in the beneficent power of Government intervention.
        The Parekh committee gave us a list of specific proposals concerning educational institutions. There is a proposal that the national authorities should require local education authorities and schools to keep substantially more detailed and helpful statistics on ethnicity than hitherto. The committee also recommended that all higher education institutions should review and improve their arrangements for encouraging access for students from the ethnic minorities—again, a principle with which no one in the House would quarrel, but the extent to which central Government should seek to impose a specific view of how that objective should be attained is a matter for debate.
        The Parekh committee recommended that schools and colleges alike should review their courses and syllabuses with a view to making them culturally more inclusive
        558
        "wherever appropriate". Of course, the devil is in that phrase, different people's interpretation of which may vary tremendously.
        The Minister's consultation with schools and colleges should be serious and thorough, and he should treat with appropriate scepticism the pressures that will undoubtedly be brought to bear on him constantly to have new codes, duties and guidelines handed down from Whitehall to individual schools and colleges. What I said earlier in respect of local authorities is the key to identifying examples of best practice and encouraging their wider dissemination. That, rather than a centralised, prescriptive approach, will work best.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I had a word with the Minister for School Standards the other day and put to her the concern felt by many heads and deputy heads about the proliferation of paperwork. She assured me that the Government were on target to deliver reductions in paperwork. I think she said that there would be a third fewer bits of paper this year and only half as many next year. That is absolutely the right principle. I am the chair of governors of a primary school and I know that that is right, but if, as a result of this Bill, there has to be any more paperwork, let us ensure that there is as little as possible; that it is sent by non-paper means whenever possible; and that bits of paper that have to be sent are sent at the same time as other bits of paper, in as few bundles a year as possible.
        Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who both acknowledged that there is already good practice in many schools. It is important to build on that good practice so that the standards of the less good reach those of the best.
        The hon. Member for Aylesbury spoke specifically about the need to consult practitioners. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ensure that practitioners' views are heard.
        I heard what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said. Schoolteachers say to me, too, "Don't send us paperwork—send us pound notes." They want investment in education in real terms, to make a difference. It is no secret that the current Secretary of State has taken a close interest in this part of the Bill. Like my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, he is determined that the obligations—the rules from the center—diminish, and keen that any new obligations that are put on schools are proportionate and that, again, there will be consultation on those matters.
        6.30 pm
        The good practice at the moment springs in part from the fact that there is already an obligation on schools under sections 17 and 18 of the Race Relations Act. Schools are liable to challenge. The Bill brings forward a new duty—the duty to promote. Again, one of the issues that one would need to look at is the steps, say, that a small village school with perhaps a head teacher and one other teacher might want to take, as against a large comprehensive school with 100 teachers on its staff. Again, it is important that we get that right, that we do

        559
        not make unrealistic objections and place unrealistic demands on the attitude of schools. We think that, taken carefully, thoughtfully and, most important, practically, the Bill can make a real difference to schools. Again,
        I am grateful for Opposition Members' support.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment made: No. 28, in page 21, line 13, at end insert—

        'Other housing bodies
        . The Housing Corporation.
        . Scottish Homes.
        . A housing action trust established under Part III of the Housing Act 1988.'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

      Schedule 3

        CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
        Amendments made: No. 29, in page 21, line 26, at end insert—
        ' In section 17 of the 1976 Act (prohibition on discrimination by certain education bodies), in the Table—

        (a) in paragraph 7 for "73(c) or (d)" there is substituted "73(d)"; and

        (b) after paragraph 7 there is inserted—

        "7AA. A grant-aided school, The managers of the school."
        within the meaning of section
        135 of the Education (Scotland)
        Act 1980.
        No. 30, in page 21, line 26, at end insert—
        ' In section 27(1) of the 1976 Act (extent of Part III) for "19" there is substituted "18D".'.
        No. 31, in page 21, line 27, leave out—
        'the 1976 Act (extent of Part III)'
        and insert "that Act".
        No. 32, in page 21, line 38, after "76(5)" insert—
        'or (6C) or by virtue of section 76(6D)(b) and (6E)'.
        No. 33, in page 21, line 38, at end insert—
        ' In section 57(5) of that Act (claims under Part III in relation to certain educational bodies)—

        (a) for the words "section 19(1)" there is substituted "subsection (5A)"; and

        (b) the words from "and" to the end of the subsection are omitted.

        . After section 57(5) of that Act there is inserted—
        "(5A) This subsection applies to—

        (a) local education authorities in England and Wales;

        (b) education authorities in Scotland; and

        (c) any body which is a responsible body in relation to an establishment falling within paragraph 3, 3B or 7B of the table in section 17." '.

        No. 34, in page 21, line 38, at end insert—
        ' In section 59(1)(b) of that Act (appeal against non-discrimination notice) after "the court" there is inserted "(ignoring section 57A)".'.
        No. 35, in page 21, line 38, at end insert—
        ' In section 62(1) of that Act (persistent discrimination) after "or" at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted—
        "(ba) a finding under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 or Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that he has done an act which was unlawful by virtue of section 19B; or"'.
        No. 36, in page 22, line 1, at end insert—
        ' After section 66(7) of that Act (assistance by Commission) there is added—
        "(8) This section (except for subsection (4)) applies to proceedings or prospective proceedings under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 or Part IV of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 so far as they relate to acts which may be unlawful by virtue of section 19B as it applies to proceedings or prospective proceedings under this Act.
        (9) In this section as it applies by virtue of subsection (8) "rules and regulations" means—

        (a) in relation to proceedings under the Act of 1997, rules tinder section 5 or 8 of that Act;

        (b) in relation to proceedings under Part IV of the Act of 1999, rules under paragraph 3 or 4 of Schedule 4 to that Act."'.

        No. 37, in page 22, line 1, at end insert—
        ' After section 67(3) of that Act (extension of jurisdiction of county courts and sheriff courts) there is inserted—
        "(3A) A designated county court or a sheriff court shall have jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under this Act with respect to an act done outside the United Kingdom where section 19B applies in relation to such an act by virtue of section 27(1A)." '.
        No. 38, in page 22, line 13, leave out "75(1)" and insert "75(2)".
        No. 39, in page 22, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—
        ' "(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (2B).
        (2B) Sections 19B to 19E, sections 71 to 71E (including Schedule 1A) and section 76 bind the Crown; and the other provisions of this Act so far as they relate to those provisions shall be construed accordingly (including, in particular, references to employment in Part IV)." '.
        No. 40, in page 22, line 17, after "Act" insert "—

        (a) for "and (2)" there is substituted "to (2B)"; and

        (b)".

        No. 41, in page 23, line 18, at end insert—
        '. In section 5 of that Act (procedure in relation to jurisdiction under section 2 of that Act etc.)—

        (a) in subsection (1)(a) after "2" there is inserted "or 2A";

        (b) in subsection (1)(b) for "that section" there is substituted "section 2 or 2A above"; and

        (c) in subsection (2) after "2" there is inserted "or 2A".'.

        No. 42, in page 23, line 18, at end insert—
        ' In Schedule 2 to that Act (appeals: supplementary)—

        (a) in paragraph 4 after "2" there is inserted "or 2A"; and

        (b) in paragraphs 6 and 7 after "2" there is inserted "and 2A".'.

        No. 43, in page 23, line 18, at end insert—'
        'School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31)
        . In paragraph 8(b) of Schedule 4 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (school organisation committees to have regard to certain obligations owed by local education authorities and governing bodies under the Race Relations Act 1976) after "Part III" there shall be inserted "or section 71".
        . In paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 5 to the Act of 1998 (adjudicators to have regard to certain obligations owed by local education authorities and governing bodies under the Race Relations Act 1976) after "Part III" there shall be inserted "or section 71".
        No. 44, in page 23, line 42, after "(appeals)," insert—
        'in paragraph 9(2) for the words "that the claim is one to which this paragraph applies" there is substituted "with the opinion expressed in the Secretary of State'
        s certificate".
        . In that Schedule to that Act,'.
        No. 45, in page 24, line 7, leave out from beginning to "paragraph 22" and insert—
        'with the opinion expressed in the Secretary of State's certificate,'.—[Mr. Touhig.]

      Schedule 4

        REPEALS
        Amendments made: No. 46, in page 24, line 13, column 3, at end insert—

        'Section 19.

        Section 19ZA.

        In section 57(5), the words from "and" to the end of the subsection.

        Section 58(6).

        In section 68, subsection (2)(b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it and, in subsection (3), the words "or, as the case may be, eight" and "or (b)".'.

        No. 47, in page 24, line 17, column 3, at end insert—

        '1980 c. 44.

        Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

        In Schedule 4, paragraph 14.'.

        No. 48, in page 24, line 26, column 3, at end insert—

        '1988 c. 40.

        Education Reform Act 1988.

        In Schedule 12, paragraphs 19 and 79.'.

        No. 49, in page 24, line 26, column 3, at end insert—

        '1988 c. 43.

        Housing (Scotland) Act 1988.

        Section 2(11).'.

        No. 50, in page 24, line 27, column 3, at end insert—

        '1989 c. 39.

        Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act. 1989.

        In Schedule 10, paragraph 6(3).

        1992 c. 13.

        Further and Higher Education Act 1992.,

        In Schedule 8, paragraph 88.

        1992 c. 37.

        Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992.

        In Schedule 9, paragraph 5(4).,'.

        No. 51, in page 24, line 31, column 3, at end insert—

        '1994 c. 30.

        Education Act 1994.

        In Schedule 2, paragraph 6(4).'.

        No. 52, in page 24, line 38, column 3, at end insert—

        '1996 c. 56.

        Education Act 1996.

        In Schedule 37, paragraph 42 and, in paragraph 117(4), paragraph (b) and the
        word "and" immediately preceding it.'.

        No. 53, in page 24, line 46, column 3, at end insert—

        '2000 c. 21.

        Learning and Skills Act 2000.

        In Schedule 9, paragraph 10.'.

        —[Mr. Touhig.]
        Order for Third Reading read.
        6.31 pm
        Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        The Bill is a major milestone on the road towards race equality. It is the first significant amendment to the Race Relations Act in almost a quarter of a century. It is a necessary and important part of the legislative and administrative framework that the Government are creating to put public authorities where they should be: at the forefront, leading by example on race equality issues.
        The Bill has its origins in the murder of the teenager Stephen Lawrence, a tragic and untimely death compounded by the failure of public services to respond to the needs of the victim and his family—a failure to provide a response that most would expect if faced with similar circumstances; indeed, a response most of us can take for granted.
        The Stephen Lawrence inquiry report recommended that race relations legislation should apply to the police and that chief officers of police should be made vicariously liable for the actions of their officers. The Government accepted that recommendation and, in doing so, promised to extend the law not only to the police, but to other public authorities. That approach is consistent with the inquiry's finding that the problem of inequality in public authorities and of inequality in their provision of services to the public is not confined to the police. It is a problem in many other public institutions. We as a community and society must address that.
        The Bill, which today we will send back to another place, will outlaw discrimination in public functions, with very limited and justifiable exceptions. Moreover, it will place a duty on specified public authorities to promote race equality—to avoid discrimination before it occurs.
        The House should be particularly proud of the Bill. In it, we are sending a clear message to public authorities about the standards that we expect of them—standards that are being given the full force of the law as recommended by the inquiry. We are saying that public authorities must treat all British citizens equally. regardless of their race or the colour of their skin. Many ethnic minorities are proud to describe themselves as black British, Asian British, Chinese British or just plain British.
        The Government want equal treatment for ethnic minorities to be reflected in employment practices, in policy development and in the implementation and provision of services. We as a nation cannot afford to waste talent. We need all our communities to be able to realise their potential free from bigotry, racial prejudice or

        563
        downright ignorance. That will help to achieve the goal, building a strong inclusive society and a successful multiracial society.
        The Bill has been greatly improved during its passage through the House and, indeed, through another place. Government commitments in another place have been delivered in the Commons. We introduced many amendments that have been accepted by the House through constructive and helpful scrutiny. We have included indirect discrimination in the Bill; defined public authorities widely for the purpose of outlawing discrimination; and provided for a positive duty for public authorities to promote race equality.
        The contribution of hon. Members throughout the House to the work in Committee deserves particular mention. I want to take the opportunity to pay particular tribute to the constructive approach of the representatives of both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. Without tempting fate, I think that we had a model Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for their contributions. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, for his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig)—the Whip on the Committee—and the members of the Committee themselves, together with those who chaired it.
        I do not normally name officials who deal with Bills, particularly controversial Bills—they might not thank me for it—but the Bill has had widespread support in the House. Callton Young and his team of officials deserve special thanks for the tremendous job they have done in preparing the Bill. The benefits of the Bill will be benefits that their efforts have brought about.
        The consideration of the Bill by this House means that it should go back to another place in good shape. I, for one, look forward to seeing its effects when we get it into law, ensuring that we create the successful multiracial society that the House wants: then we can all look back and feel proud that we have been associated with the Bill. I commend it to the House.
        6.36
        Mr. Lidington: I unreservedly support the Bill's objectives and hope that it will in practice have the beneficial impact that the Government believe it will.
        It is important that, when we consider the Bill's impact, we are prepared to remind ourselves of two things. First, it is not just through Acts of Parliament, legislation, rules and regulations that we will build a successful multiracial society. As I said on Second Reading, legislation has a part to play. As one looks at the current state of the law, it is difficult to argue, if one believes that there should be laws against racial discrimination, that we should have a law that includes the private sector and part of the public sector, but excludes an ill-defined, indeterminate part of the public sector in the way that the 1976 Act does. However, it is in the acts, the decisions, the growing together of individuals, families and communities throughout this country that we will see the creation of a tolerant society that accepts people of different ethnic backgrounds and that appreciates the contribution that people of different ethnic communities bring.
        Secondly, we need to be aware, when we think about the Bill's impact and consider how future Ministers should implement the powers that it gives them, of the
        564
        complexity of community relations. Last week's report from the Office for Standards in Education reminded us of that. It pointed out, rightly, the under-achievement of far too many black boys in schools, but it pointed out, too, that pupils from other ethnic minorities, particularly from some of the British Asian minorities, are achieving very high standards, securing good results at public examinations and good places at universities and colleges. We need to look at those problems in all their complexity. So much will depend on how the legislation is enforced and interpreted.
        On Second Reading and in Committee we spent a great deal of time debating the Bill's impact on the police. More than once I voiced the concerns that had been expressed to me by serving police officers that the Bill could, albeit unintentionally, inhibit their ability to deal effectively with crime, especially street crime. In London, where many police forces have stopped using their powers to stop and search, there has been a significant rise in street crime in the past 12 months.
        During our earlier proceedings, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), repeatedly assured me that there was no reason for responsible police officers to be fearful. The Government's consistent view has been that, provided that a police officer complies with the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that any deployment of officers or any targeting of particular crimes or particular villains could be justified objectively in terms of preventing or reducing crime, there should be no problems under race relations legislation. I welcome those assurances, and provided that they are borne out in reality once the Bill is on the statute book, I promise the Minister that I will be the first to cheer.
        We have a real problem of mistrust of our police among far too many young British blacks and Asians. If the Bill will help to ease that tension and build confidence and trust, it will be welcome. Another real problem is that police officers in London and elsewhere feel that they are under enormous pressure, with near-impossible expectations being laid upon them. I pay tribute to the representative organizations—the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales and the Association of Chief Police Officers—for the way in which they have sought to work with Ministers on the detail of the legislation. They have given a great deal of thought to how they can change and develop best practice within the police service so that they can effectively fight and reduce crime and, at the same time, help to rebuild trust and confidence in their service among young people from ethnic communities, as that is sorely needed.
        Earlier in the debate, I expressed my concerns that we should avoid a culture of litigation and compensation and I was grateful for the assurances, particularly from the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, that the Government would consult closely with affected organisations before making specific proposals on the enforcement of the general duty.
        Hon. Members from all three parties who have participated in debates on the Bill have found them constructive and good-tempered. There will be occasions when we shall continue to disagree as we approach the subject from different political and philosophical perspectives, but I believe that we are united in our

        565
        commitment to build a successful multiracial society in the United Kingdom. I remain an optimist about our chances of doing just that.
        The Bill was triggered by Sir William Macpherson's report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the appalling failure of the investigation into that crime. In the past two years, there has been a great deal of at times ill-tempered debate about race relations, policing and crime. I was heartened when I saw this week's edition of The Voice. I confess that it is not always my regular reading, nor is it probably a publication that looks for compliments from Conservative spokesmen. However, I felt that the editorial, in accepting that young black men are responsible for a great deal of street robbery in London, just as young white men are responsible for most violence that does not involve robbery and middle-class white men tend to be responsible for most fraud, took the debate about the relationship between race relations, policing and crime onto a different, more mature level, from which together, as a community, we can address the issues seriously.
        I wish the Bill well. I hope that the fears that I have expressed during our debates are misplaced and I look forward to seeing what transpires when it reaches the statute book.
        6.46 pm
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Like the Minister and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) I am pleased and proud to be part of the process of bringing the Bill very near to becoming legislation. I did not want to interrupt the Minister, but if he has time at the end of the debate, perhaps he will let us know when he anticipates orders will be laid to bring the Bill into force, provided that it gets through the other place and receives Royal Assent in November. That is a matter for the Government and I would encourage the Minister—and through him, the Home Secretary—to lay the orders so that the Bill comes into force this year, for reasons that I shall turn to in a moment.
        As the Minister said, the Bill does two hugely important things. It has taken nearly 25 years for the original and very worthwhile race relations legislation, introduced by the then Labour Government, to be updated in this way. It takes the duty not to discriminate across the public sector and adds the duty that we discussed earlier to take proactive steps to promote good race relations and equality of opportunity and eliminate unlawful racial discrimination. Those are hugely important measures.
        I share the Minister's view that it would be a model Bill for people who study politics. It had goodwill from the beginning although, unusually, it started in the House of Lords. There were good, robust debates. Many amendments were tabled—there were defeats and successes—and it was amended significantly in both Houses, resulting in a Bill that we are all much more satisfied with than we were at the beginning. Yet, as the Minister said, it has received almost no coverage in the parliamentary press or elsewhere.
        Like others present in the Chamber, I am a London Member. I represent a constituency in south-east London. I trained there as a youth leader and have lived in south
        566
        London since my student days. The Bill matters a lot to mixed-race communities such as ours which comprise all sorts of different backgrounds, cultures, faiths and traditions. It matters a lot that they can trust the public services and that the public services can trust them. If we are to have a society in which black and Asian people and people of different faiths, colours, creeds and backgrounds can become Members of Parliament, Cabinet Ministers, leaders of industry, head teachers of schools, chancellors of universities and Speakers of the House of Commons, we must start by inculcating and providing the proper public authority responsibilities that are in the Bill.
        I will not dwell on the one or two disputes that remain between ourselves and the Government, but we hope that some of those will be taken up. A set of equality issues is still to be taken on, including religious equality issues about which some faiths understandably have strong feelings. There is more work to be done. I am not complacent, and I know that the Minister is not complacent. I wish to thank the Minister and his colleagues, particularly the team of civil servants which I know included somebody seconded from another Department to lead the team. I also pay tribute to colleagues, both here and at the other end of the building, who have worked hard.
        Expressly, I want to pay tribute to Doreen and Neville Lawrence, who made their tragedy something that will leave a legacy that will probably be more valuable than they could ever have imagined. Those who have been privileged to meet them, and those of us who sat in the inquiry, know that the Bill is probably one of the most valuable things that that terrible trauma in Eltham can have produced—legislation to make our society a fairer and less discriminatory place.
        I pay tribute to the inquiry, to Sir William Macpherson and to his assessors, who were there day after day and, in the end, were clear about what needed to be done. I pay tribute to the Commission for Racial Equality, which keeps us up to the mark all the time; I wish its new chief executive and director well. I thank people such as Richard Jarman and Barbara Cohen, who serve us well. I pay tribute also to a researcher of mine, Simon Hunt, who has now left for better-paid employment at the Greater London Authority. He did all the work on this Bill until, literally, a couple of weeks ago.
        My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith)—who has just arrived—served with me on the Committee. He would have been with me today had travel been easier, and I thank him for his support.
        Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asked me about the commencement order. We must undertake consultation in relation to the immigration function. We are anxious to move on, but the consultation will need time. All I can say to him, in the words of Martin Luther King, is "How long? Not long."
        Mr. Hughes: That is an assurance and I know of the Government's commitment to get this Bill on to the statute book.
        In one of the idle moments that we occasionally have in this place, I checked some figures. We have had 43 Government Bills in this Session, 28 of which have so far been enacted. We have had 12 Home Office Bills;

        567
        four have been enacted, one withdrawn and one defeated. There are six still to finish, including this one. In the end, this one may be as significant as any of the others. I hope that, either this year or very early next year, this Bill will become law. We can then start as we mean to go on in a much fairer Britain for people of all backgrounds. That would be a tribute to Stephen Lawrence.
        6.53 pm
        Ms Oona King: I join all colleagues in welcoming a momentous leap forward in protection from race discrimination. The Bill embodies the implementation of the Government's commitment in response to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry to extend the Race Relations Act 1976. I am particularly pleased because it underpins the right of all British citizens to receive not just equal treatment, but fairer access to services.
        In a diverse society—particularly in constituencies such as mine—good race relations means protecting the civil liberties of all members of society. This is highlighted by the fluid nature of the situation regarding ethnic minorities, and by the term itself. After all, in Tower Hamlets we must consider that, in some areas, the ethnic minority is the white community. That shows clearly that it is in the interests of all British people, black and white, to ensure that we have robust legislation protecting us all from racial discrimination.
        Having said that, my constituency clearly illustrates that black and Asian people suffer the greatest burden of direct and indirect discrimination. The most important provisions of the Bill are, first, to make it unlawful for public authorities to discriminate on grounds of race and, secondly, to impose a duty to promote equality on public authorities. Taken together, those measures represent a major breakthrough in anti-discrimination legislation on which the Government must be congratulated.
        I particularly want to thank the Government for their acceptance that tackling indirect and institutional discrimination is critical if the Bill is to offer serious protection. There has been a controversial debate in Britain about the validity of this approach and about tackling institutional racism. People have asked where we will end up if we start here. They say that it may be a slippery slope. I hope that, if we start here, we will end up with a society where the colour of a person's skin does not determine his opportunity or treatment under the law.
        That strikes a chord with me personally, as my family experience has been shaped by indirect discrimination. My father was arrested and imprisoned because, as a black student in the American south, he asked for equal treatment with his white peers. He was brought up in a place where the local authority and the Government routinely discriminated institutionally against black people. Recently, the judge who sentenced my father—now 98 years old—wrote to President Clinton saying that his judgment in my father's case had been coloured by race. How often do black people get an opportunity—after waiting 40 years, it has to be said—to see a judge put in writing to the head of state that his judgment was coloured by race? It does not happen very often. Forty years is a long time to wait for a Government to recognise the evils of institutional racism.
        In this country, we have been waiting for just under a quarter of a century to strengthen the Race Relations Act 1976 and to achieve the racial equality that is the Act's
        568
        central aim. The CRE carried out reviews of the 1976 Act in 1985 and 1992, but its recommendations were ignored by the then Conservative Government. I am pleased to hear how positively the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), spoke about the Bill.
        In contrast, the Labour Government were quick to progress positive race relations as soon as we were elected. We did that in the first instance by setting up the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, which reported in February 1999. One of the key recommendations was that the
        full force of the race relations legislation should apply to all police officers and that chief officers of police should be made vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers relevant to that legislation.
        Following the inquiry, the Home Secretary promised to introduce legislation to bring authorities, including the police, within the scope of the Act. True to his word—as ever—here it is.
        Having said how much I welcome the Bill, I wish to point out my concern about enforcement. How will the duty to promote equality be enforced? Could the Minister elaborate? Obviously, the CRE's role will be crucial in terms of guidance to organisations, issuing codes of practice, enforcing compliance and, if necessary, taking authorities to court. As the CRE has pointed out, compliance with the duty to promote equality can be audited by other means; for example, by Ofsted or by Her Majesty's inspectorates of schools and of prisons. What types of audit does the Minister envisage? Will they take place annually?
        My other concern is about religious discrimination. I was reminded of this by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). He has had to leave because of an important constituency meeting, but he is naturally concerned about this debate as he is approximately the same age as Stephen Lawrence would be, were he still alive. Under the 1976 Act, Sikhs and Jews are protected, but Muslims are not. Although that has been the result of case law and interpretation rather than a specific provision in the Act, it has given offence to many Muslims and to anyone who cannot accept religious discrimination. I commend the work of Lord Ahmed on the subject, and the extra protection that the Human Rights Act, which took effect on 2 October, offers. Will the Minister tell us whether further legislation on religious discrimination is being considered?
        I hope that the Minister will consider the seriousness of the discrimination that British Muslims suffer. I know that he is aware of that, and that it is difficult to untangle—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she is straying outside the bounds of the Bill. On Third Reading, she must confine her remarks to the content of the Bill.
        Ms King: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I am in need. One day, I shall understand all the various rules about what can be said and when it can be said.
        The Bill accepts that many strands contribute to the poverty of British Muslims. They are more than four times more likely than white households to live in poverty. More than 60 per cent. fall below the poverty line;

        569
        for white families, the figure is 16 per cent. Given all the contributory strands, such as education and employment, will the Minister let me know the Government's thinking on improving that position if it is not covered by the Bill?
        No debate on the issue would be complete without a tribute to Doreen and Neville Lawrence. We have heard many tributes from both sides of the House. It is fitting that the Government have changed the race relations legislation in this country largely as a result of the enormous dedication and commitment that the Lawrences have shown. The Bill is truly a fitting memorial to their son, Stephen.
        7.2 pm
        Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise for not being present for the Minister's opening speech. Travel from Humberside has not been easy today.
        I welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on behalf of the Conservative party. I listened with interest to the words of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King).
        Stephen Lawrence would have been 26, were he still alive. I congratulate the Government on setting up an inquiry into his death. Richard Stone, one of the assessors, made a comment that influenced me enormously. He said that we should not expect the victims to overcome injustice; those who have greater influence or power, or are more established members of the community, are responsible for putting things right.
        I accept that responsibility, and I shall continue to pursue it until the colour of my skin is as important as the colour of my eyes or my hair. People may notice it, but it tells no more about me. I may have no hair left soon, so only the colour of my eyes and that of my skin will remain.
        The Bill is important. However, it is more important that people act in the spirit of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Bill, which amends it. I welcome the fact that the police accept that the responsibility will fall vicariously on chief officers' shoulders, but that by itself is not enough. Chief officers have senior officers, middle-ranking officers, managers, sergeants and others beneath them. A high proportion of police officers already do their best to treat people fairly and equitably. I believe that, in five years, the police will be able to look back to this year and appreciate the progress that they have made since the Bill was enacted. They can look back now at the progress that they have made in the past five years. Of those two statements, one is true and one will be true.
        Much baggage hangs over the police, and not only the Metropolitan police. I was pleased that the inspector of police and the Minister were present at the first meeting of the Black Police Association in Birmingham. At the meeting, it was clear that some senior officers, who had ethnic minority officers with them, treated them as a normal part of the police service. I suspect that others believed that, while they were not undergoing a charade, they were playing a role to show, "We're all equal now." Yet I do not believe that that is true in all parts of all police services in this country. It is true of the majority, and of a growing number of parts of the police service, but it is not generally true.
        570
        Let us consider three examples in the Metropolitan police area. I am glad that the police resolved the matter with Detective Inspector David Michael without having to go through a tribunal. That was wise of both sides. In such a case, the relevant officer might have done better in monetary terms by fighting it out, and I have no doubt that the Metropolitan police could have made various comments in an open forum. They wisely came together. That could apply to outstanding cases when the Bill changes the current Act.
        Without going into the details or the merits of the different claims and hearings in relation to Sergeant Gurpal Virdi, or those that may arise in relation to Police Constable Manmohan Sandhu, it would be wise for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to look through the outstanding cases and ascertain the number that can be resolved by agreement with the relevant officers or employees.
        Perhaps the Minister will say that, had I been present earlier, I would have heard his comments about people outside the police rather than the police dealing with their employees. I accept that. However, the police should be able to draw a line on both outside and inside complaints and, when possible, to resolve them by agreement. I believe that, in the case of former Sergeant Gurpal Virdi, and other cases around the country, it would be possible to reach a satisfactory, honourable agreement, which could sweep away much of the past and allow people to move forward without tying up police time and action.
        I believe that I was chosen to represent Worthing, West partly because, when asked what was effectively a race question, I gave the sort of promise that I made at the beginning of my speech. I outlined my determination as a Member of Parliament to try to help to put matters right. When people accuse the Conservative party of being racist, I would say that, in one of the safer Conservative seats—one of the whiter constituencies, if I may put it that way—people want to embrace a modern Britain and the sort of inclusiveness that is shown by an extended story that I shall abbreviate.
        In one of Dorothy Sayers' essays, a man whom she calls Budgery is asked, "Are you English?" He replies, "Yes, of course." He is then asked, "Did your ancestors arrive with William the Conqueror?" "Oh no" he replies, "There were Budgerys here before Billy the Conk. But of course, there is some Norman blood in us, and Sir Gilbert brought back a Saracen wife from the third crusade, and so-and-so married a daughter of Pocohontas, and Robert Budgery was black. He came from south America—no one knew who his mother was. The Cornish branch was, of course, Spanish—the Armada, you know." It goes on. The character unrolls Britain's history as he introduces more people. He concludes, "I am of course English, although my mother's father was perhaps Irish and my mother's mother was Scottish." People can accept that sort of inclusiveness with pride.
        When people talk about the cricket test, I do not understand why I cannot cheer for the Irish because of my Irish ancestry, just as my wife may cheer the English because her great uncle captained England before the first world war, even though she was born in Scotland. Such mixtures will become increasingly common and need to be made increasingly open.
        In my constituency, a young mother told me that she wanted to move to an area where there were more mixed-race children in school because she did not want

        571
        her child to feel different. Her husband said that he would prefer to move closer to the police station. He explained that, as he was arrested so often, such a move would save journey time. He is black, and he was stopped three times in two days on suspicion of excess alcohol. The roadside test and the two tests in the police station showed that he was teetotal. One begins to wonder what police sergeants, inspectors and superintendents are doing.
        We are talking about setting standards, which no doubt could have been set in the past. I think that we all now treat people in the spirit of the legislation that has been introduced, and I think that the police will too. I commend the Bill and welcome the response of the police to it. I do not underestimate the responsibilities that chief officers of police have taken on for themselves.
        7.10 pm
        Mr. Mike O'Brien: With the leave of the House, I should say a few words in response to a couple of points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who asked about enforcement of the Bill. The Bill will empower the Commission for Racial Equality to issue a compliance notice to any public authority that fails to fulfil a specific duty imposed by order to promote race equality. If necessary, the CRE could seek a court order to enforce that provision. Audit bodies such as the Audit Commission would also be subject to the duty to promote race equality. They will be able to report on the issue, and that will help to underpin the duty.
        I hope shortly to publish the results of research undertaken by Derby university on the extent of religious discrimination and the results of other research into legal issues, which may involve considering possible legislative options. I can take the matter no further than that now.
        572
        I join all colleagues in paying tribute to Doreen and Neville Lawrence. The death of Stephen Lawrence was a tragedy, but it has resulted in changes to the law. I hope that it will make this country a better place for us all, no matter what our race or background.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

    PETITION

      2001 Census (Wales)
      7.11 pm
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I wish to present a petition of the residents of Wales and the other countries in the United Kingdom. It declares that the census forms for 2001 do not allow those who wish to describe themselves as Welsh to do so; nor do they allow for Welsh speakers resident outside Wales to state that they can speak the language. That would render the census a wasteful and pointless exercise. The petition is presented in both Welsh and English and has 9,455 signatures.
      The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that these forms be amended to remedy these flaws.
      And the petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      2001 Census (Wales)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Touhig.]
      7.13 pm
      Mr. Simon Thomas: First, let me assure the Minister and everyone else present that, after a marathon nine-hour journey from west Wales, I do not intend to delay the House too long. It is to be welcomed, however, that we have a little time to debate the issue.
      I wish to discuss some aspects of the census to be undertaken in Wales next year, and particularly the lack of the Welsh tick box, as it is known, on the census forms. I wish to discuss also some issues that relate to the Welsh language aspect of the census, which are somewhat less important at present.
      About two minutes ago I presented a petition on behalf of about 9,500 residents of Wales and of beyond Wales. These are all people who wished to state that they wanted a Welsh tick box on the census form next year. That demand became apparent over the summer months—perhaps the Government thought that it would be a summer flash flood or storm. However, since the emergence of unhappiness in Wales about the format of the census form, the campaign has grown in status as support has grown. It is an issue that many people in Wales are concerned about for the future.
      It may be useful if I outline briefly how we got ourselves into this position. I understand that planning for the census began at least four years ago—it probably began much earlier than that. The White Paper that set out some of the Government's proposals for the census was published in March 1999. That was followed by an exercise in Wales at least, in parts of the counties of Ceredigion and Gwynedd in April 1999. That was before I became the Member for Ceredigion and before I had any representative role in the county.
      It is important to emphasise that all those events took place before devolution and before the National Assembly for Wales was established. Most of the consultation on the census format was therefore undertaken with the Welsh Office rather than the Welsh Assembly. That might be one reason why some disquiet has arisen within Wales since then.
      In 1991, basically the same question was asked throughout England, Scotland and Wales. At that time, many people thought that it was an adequate catch-all to cater for the situation within those countries. We did not have devolution. However, it is worth noting that in 1991, for the first time, the census form included a question about Irish people, and people of Irish descent within Wales. I have no doubt that that was an important step forward for the delivery of services to Irish people, particularly in some English cities. That begged the question of the position of Scottish people, Welsh people, or whatever.
      I do not see this matter as an ethnic issue. It is one of national identity. I note that the National Statistician, Len Cook, has recognised the principle. In his statement last Wednesday, when he announced several concessions on this matter, he said:
      We are explicitly recognising the diversity of those who identify themselves as Welsh as having other ethnic backgrounds.
      574
      That is important. I would like the census to discover how many of those in, for example, the Somali community in Cardiff or the Chinese community in Bangor feel themselves also to be Welsh. That sentiment is part of the emerging Welsh nation and part of the emerging pride, self-determination and self-confidence that is now abroad and burgeoning in Wales with the National Assembly for Wales. Some of that self-confidence has taken a knock with the announcement of the format of the census forms and the lack of ability for people in Wales to tick a simple box to say that they are Welsh. There is no provision either for a box that they can use to state what other background they may have. That has caused some
      concern.
      In 1991, before devolution and before we started to discuss some of these matters, the term "British" may have seemed to be adequate. However, it is important that we recognise what the term means now. I think that it designates a mostly white ethnic background. Many people in the United Kingdom do not see it as a useful term. The Runnymede Trust report of about two weeks ago raised the question of how "British" is used as a term. What was tolerable 10 years ago may not suit as a catch-all now.
      Once the Scottish Parliament decided that in Scotland the first question on the relevant part of the census would be, "Are you Scottish?", that begged the question what would happen in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be interesting if the Minister were to tell us—it would take a long history lesson and I am sure that we do not want that and do not have time for it—when Britain became England and Wales only. When was it that we could use the term "British" for the residents of England and Wales? That is de facto what we are doing now throughout the United Kingdom with the census. The residents of Scotland have the ability to describe themselves as Scottish and Irish people, wherever they are in the United Kingdom, have the ability to describe themselves as Irish. All other ethnic groups can use the term that they find most appropriate.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. I think that on page 15 of the census form there is a question about place of birth. People can indicate whether it is England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales. After that, there is a question about ethnicity—for example, whether one is British, Irish, white, black, African, Asian or whatever. There is also the facility to write Dutch, German, French, Welsh or whatever. The form does not deny anyone. A tick box is not required. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so unsure of his Welshness that he requires a tick box to affirm it.
      Mr. Thomas: I am well aware of what the form says: I have it in front of me. I shall deal with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's argument later, if he will be patience, as I am coming to that issue. However, I shall make a general point. The hon. Gentleman represents the constituency with the highest proportion of people born in Wales and still resident there—more than 95 per cent. I represent the constituency with the highest proportion of people born outside Wales but now resident there. Where people were born is no indication of where they identify with, and it is important to allow people to identify with Wales on the census form whether they were born outside

      575
      or inside Wales, and whether they speak Welsh or not. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, but, in a second, I shall address the point about whether the tick box is the best way to do that.
      Mr. Llew Smith:
      Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Thomas: No, I shall not take any further interventions for the moment, as I want to pursue my argument.
      Following the discussions, and especially in the light of what occurred in Scotland, the Office for National Statistics should have realised what was happening and perhaps returned to the National Assembly to see whether it wanted to make a further amendment to the census form.
      A cynical definition of "British" is that it is what those in England call people from Scotland and Wales when they win an Olympic gold medal.
      Mr. Smith: You seem to be saying that Welshness is a question of identification. The logic of your argument is that, if someone from England comes to live in Wales and identifies with Wales, he may be regarded as Welsh. If that is your argument, it is against the whole history of your party, which has been based on an anti-English sentiment. I can give an example. During the second world war, child evacuees came to Wales. Your party opposed that on the basis that it would be one of the greatest threats—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman should know the courtesies of the House. He is not referring to the Chair: he is referring to an hon. Member.
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) does not half talk rubbish sometimes.
      Mr. Smith rose—
      Mr. Thomas: If that is the quality of the hon. Gentleman's interventions, I do not want to give way to him.
      I and many people in Wales cannot accept that, post the decision on the format of the census form, the term "British" can be used for Wales and England only. Many people accept that "British" refers to the people who live in all these islands.
      Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Thomas: No, I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I will not give way.
      It is a moot point whether "British" can refer only to Wales and England given the way in which the census form has been put together. When the form appeared on the website back in July, it sparked a reaction in Wales and a little uproar began which, it would be fair to say, was led initially by the Western Mail. It gave this matter much attention, but pretty soon other parts of the media and Members of the House took it up. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), ran her own petition in her
      576
      constituency asking for the census form to be amended. I launched the petition that I presented to the House tonight at the National Eisteddfod in Llanelli. Within a week it had 5,000 signatures, and tonight it had almost 10,000.
      I have also received letters of support from more than 100 community councils in Wales, which are the forum of local debate and democracy in Wales. As I was trying to make my way to the House tonight, I heard about the flood problems along the Usk, Wye and Severn valleys— all border areas with England. I was struck by how many of the community councils in those areas had written to say that they would like the census form to have a tick box to record whether people are Welsh or not.
      Ten of the county councils in Wales have sent me letters of support. More importantly, the Welsh Local Government Association has said that the census form should be amended, as has the Commission for Racial Equality in Wales and the Welsh Language Board.
      Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Thomas: Why not, if the hon. Gentleman would like to have another go.
      Mr. Smith: I do not want to have another go. Through Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to ask whether you deny the history that I outlined. Secondly, what is your definition of Welshness?
      Mr. Thomas: I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you have a definition of Welshness. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, my definition of Welshness is anyone who lives or works in Wales and who wants to be Welsh. It is as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman's other comments were not worthy of his so-called socialist background.
      I shall press on, because I am sure that many hon. Members want to sleep after their hard work getting here today. I ask the Minister to consider the deep hurt that was felt by many in Wales because the Office for National Statistics had seemingly overlooked this aspect of Welsh public life. The Minister will note that I referred to the Welsh Local Government Association, the Commission for Racial Equality and the community councils and local authorities in Wales. They are the ones who will use the census forms, and they will evaluate the information gathered by the census to deliver better public services in Wales.
      Usefully, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales made an announcement to the press today that every census form not filled in and returned from Wales would be a cost to Wales of £3,000 per person. That is a useful figure to play with, because, as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury may know, there is serious talk in Wales of a boycott of the census forms, and that still cannot be ruled out, despite the recent concessions.
      We have one chance in 10 years to get this right. We want to maximise the number of people who fill in the census forms and get them back so that the national statistics present the best argument for Wales. To get it right we need to design census forms that are easy to fill in and which do not put people off. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), that is why tick boxes were designed. Any statistician will tell

      577
      him—he is a scientist, so I suspect he already knows—that it is easier and better to gather information through a simple tick box method. Each time we ask people to write something in, we put up a small barrier. People may note that they could write in Welsh, but may put the form on the kitchen table and the next day forget, make a few ticks and send it off. That is why the announcement of a publicity campaign to encourage people to write in Welsh is an important step forward, and I welcome that concession.
      The response from the Office for National Statistics was not as welcome as the hon. Member for Rhondda may think. It first tried to ignore the campaign in Wales, and then tried to belittle it, saying that it was unimportant. It went down the road that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent wishes to go down. It then said that individuals could write "Welsh" in the "other" box if they so wished. Finally, last week, it accepted the point of principle. It accepted that it was wrong and that something needed to be done. So far, that something has been a local campaign in Wales to encourage people to write on the form that they are Welsh, and a second survey within the labour force survey that will be carried out at the same time.
      Many people in Wales have told me that they told the Office for National Statistics, at least informally, that that amendment should have been made. I should like to bring a particular case to the Economic Secretary's attention. Following the exercise in Gwynedd, one of the people who was distributing the forms—an Englishman as it happens—told the local managers from the Office for National Statistics that people filling in the forms in Gwynedd had told him that they would like to see a "Welsh" tick box. Somehow that message did not get back. It got back much too late, possibly after the forms had been printed.
      I believe that senior staff in Government organisations, such as the Welsh Language Board, may also have mentioned this matter informally, but it is not the board's role to deal with the ethnic question: it is concerned with the provision of the forms in both Welsh and English.
      The whole business has added insult to injury in Wales. In response to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I would argue that the tick box, which is designed to achieve complete and accurate reporting, symbolically has equal status with the tick box in Scotland. Many people have a gut reaction to this issue. It is important that we recognise that statistics are not politically neutral: they are politically loaded. The unemployment statistics in the 1980s were massaged by the Conservative Government, and the present Labour Government want to change them. That is a clear sign of how statistics are used for political purposes. If we look at the history of European funding in Wales, it took the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales to get to the bottom of the statistical mess of that funding. In time, that led to the concession on the comprehensive spending review that was announced in the summer.
      Without a proper set of statistics that everyone in Wales can use and be confident about, we are in danger of losing the political gain. This debate raged in Wales until last Wednesday when, in advance of my question to the Prime Minister, the subject of which was clear, a £1 million campaign in Wales was announced. There will be
      578
      £0.5 million for publicity, which I welcome, as it will be the first time that any Government have encouraged people in Wales to write in to say that they are Welsh. There will also be £0.5 million for an identity survey in Wales, which can be taken as an extension of the labour force survey. Will the Minister confirm that my interpretation of the details is correct?
      I understand that the survey will look at 3,000 households and will ask further questions about Welsh identity. I welcome the first concession, but have serious doubts about the second, which involves the problem of which figures we now believe. Some people will write on census forms in Welsh, some will follow the labour force survey and respond that they are Welsh. If they are asked that question, they may respond more easily. However, I am concerned that we will not get accurate figures and that we may get conflicting evidence. As a result, we will not know where we are or be sure about national identity in Wales for the next 10 years.
      No doubt the Minister will say that I should welcome £1 million being spent in Wales on those matters. However, that money could have been saved if the census forms had been correct in the first place. We have to shout all the time in Wales for our voice to be heard. Last week, the BSE inquiry showed that the views of the Wales Office were ignored because its civil servants were junior to those in London. It seems as if we always have to shout to make a louder noise before we are heard. When we are heard, as we have been in the past few weeks, it is too late to make a fundamental change.
      I shall conclude with one or two small points about the Welsh language aspect of the census. It may be too late this year, but certainly for 10 years' time and the future, will the Minister look again at why the census cannot measure the number of Welsh speakers outside Wales? A simple question could be put on the census form in England, Wales and Scotland.
      In the days of digital television, when our Welsh language television channel S4C is no longer terrestrially bound to Wales, but is available in the House of Commons and throughout England, it would be useful if that television channel could know the extent of the market of Welsh speakers or Welsh learners outside Wales. On a practical front, that would be good for advertising and for initiatives such as the Welsh language school in London, which could make its case on the basis of firm statistical information. It would not be hard to add such a question to a census form in England and many people feel that, as the Welsh Language Act 1993 gives equal status to Welsh and English, it is a natural progression to ask people in England, many of whom have moved out of Wales, whether or not they speak Welsh, so that we could tailor and deliver some element of services in England to Welsh speakers, especially, for example, the Welsh language school in London.
      May I put some direct questions to the Minister. On what date did the printing of the census forms begin? We are told that the forms cannot be amended as it would cost£2 million to pulp and reprint them which, I agree, would be a waste of paper. We are told that that cannot be done as the forms have already been printed. I have been unable to find out when printing began, but wonder whether it was after concerns were first raised and whether, therefore, a mistake was made.

      579
      Will the Minister confirm that the different treatment of Wales and Scotland meets the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998? That question has been asked an awful lot in Wales, so the Minister's confirmation would be useful. Will she outline the concessions announced last week by the Office for National Statistics, especially the meaning of the survey that is going to be carried out? Where and how will the survey be carried out and how will it identify Welsh identity? How will the Office for National Statistics treat the National Assembly for Wales as an independent body?
      An alternative form is now available in Wales that can be downloaded from the internet and is exactly the same as the official form. It probably breaks all the copyright rules, but has been slightly amended to include a Welsh tick box. Will the Minister tell me and others in Wales whether that form would be ruled admissible if people were to choose to fill it in and send it back? Does she accept that the results of that question in the census will be flawed, however we look at it, as the question was not asked in quite the right way? What will happen in 2011? What are the Government's plans to ensure that this never happens again? Will the identity survey that will be carried out as part of the labour force survey next year be carried out again in future to measure progress?
      About 150 years ago, as many Members will know, the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" said "For Wales, see England". There is a danger of the National Office for Statistics saying "For Welsh, see British (other)". Many people in Wales think that that is not good enough, and I would welcome an explanation from the Minister about how the Government will undertake to remedy the situation.
      7.36 pm
      Mr. Allan Rogers: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on seeking and securing this important Adjournment debate, which addresses questions that need to be asked about the relationship of nations in the United Kingdom to devolution. He is right to say that Welsh identity is sometimes overlooked both in this country and abroad, and that we are lumped together with the English, the British or whoever.
      Our debate is a useful step forward in helping to raise the concept of the identity of Welshness, which needs to be done, given general geo-political forces in this country. The Government did not make a mistake, as they did not draw up the census form. The Office for National Statistics did make a mistake—there are no ifs or buts about that. However, the hon. Gentleman and I differ over the way in which the situation was then tackled.
      I sat with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on the Committee that dealt with the census, but this issue never came up, as one can see from Hansard and the general forms that were put on the Table in Committee— [Interruption.] I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) is laughing. Perhaps he should serve in Committee, then he would know a little about what we do.
      The issue never came before the Committee. The Economic Secretary told us what the census involved, explained its general progress and so on. An issue arose concerning the development of health statistics, to which
      580
      I shall return later. I made only a suggestion about the definition of illness in the form and the English-speaking areas of the south Wales valleys, where the hon. Member for Ceredigion and I come from—indeed, we are from the same valley. I said that definitions of illness as being sick, very sick and so on had no validity in the south Wales valleys. The way we measure states of health is that one is bad, or bad in bed, or bad in bed under the doctor. I said that the idea of being sick, very sick or terribly sick had no relevance, which illustrates a difference in vernacular speech and our general attitude.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion is right and his argument about a tick box is irrefutable. A mistake was made, but what do we do about that now? I do not like the way that mistake is being used as a political football.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that I am a scientist. As I understand it, censuses create a framework for the development and administration of future policies, so it is necessary to get matters right. We want to know who is sick, what needs exist, who speaks Welsh, who does not speak Welsh, whether there is a reason for putting more money into the Welsh language or whether we are wasting money by throwing money at it, and whether it is declining in the population.
      For those of us who want to save the Welsh language and who have been working for that for most of our political lives in various ways, particularly in local government, it is important to try and measure such things. However, people are running around for political and extreme nationalist reasons—I do not call the hon. Member for Ceredigion an extreme nationalist, but perhaps extreme bonkers—saying, "Don't fill the form in. There is no tick box. It is a flawed census." Even the hon. Gentleman used the expression.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is going off at a tangent. May I make it clear to him and to the House that I have never called for anyone not to till in the census form?
      Mr. Rogers: I did not say that; I said that there were extreme people saying so. I would not call the hon. Gentleman extreme. I would not call his party particularly extreme. It was not concerned about the tick box until another fringe party picked it up, forcing the hon. Gentleman and his party into a corner. It realised that somebody had taken its clothes, so it had to respond by developing the campaign.
      I understand all that. It is no good being a Welsh nationalist party and suddenly finding that one's nationalist clothes have been taken, but that is the way of the world. The trouble is that the Western Mail, which calls itself the national newspaper of Wales, is backing the campaign in its editorials and its coverage of the matter.
      The biggest problem of all is what will happen if people do not fill in the census form. In that case, it will indeed be a flawed census. People may put a line through whatever the hon. Gentleman and his friends object to, but for God's sake let them fill in the rest of the form. To create the idea that there is something wrong with the census is a ghastly mistake which could have profound consequences. I want to find out how many people speak Welsh, how many do not, and where the need is. If people flaw even that one page, it will be counter-productive.
      I am very proud of being Welsh, as are other hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies. We do not run around waving the dragon all the time, but in our

      581
      own way all of us have worked for the benefit of our communities—the people who elect us and whom we represent. However, our patriotism is not based on resentment against another nation. That is the divide between those on the Government Benches, who love Wales and things Welsh, and certain members of the hon. Gentleman's party, who seem to have a resentment against the English—why, I do not know. Perhaps it is a personality disorder of his party, which is unfortunate. Some of my very best friends are members of his party—
      Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend should not stretch the case.
      Mr. Rogers: I will not stretch it too far. I mentioned that the hon. Gentleman's party had been pushed into a corner. I understand, and perhaps the Minister can confirm, that the chairman of the Welsh Language Board when it was consulted about the document was the former Member of Parliament for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who is now Lord Elis-Thomas and who presides over the Welsh Assembly. The ex-president of the hon. Gentleman's party—the big wheel in the party—was consulted, yet he is not the focus of any attack for not doing his job at that time.
      Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I know that he listened carefully to what I said, but he may have missed the part in which I stated clearly that the Welsh Language Board was consulted as a statutory consultee on the running of the census in both languages and on the question relating to the use of Welsh in Wales. The board did not see it as its job to comment on any other aspects. Nevertheless, I said that members of the board have told me informally that they told the Office for National Statistics that that should have been done.
      Mr. Rogers: If that is the case, perhaps we are both right. That is a good way to conduct such a debate, in which we agree on so many points.
      The hon. Gentleman is concerned that people should be able to state on the census form that they are Welsh, and that they should know where they come from and where they are going, which is a bigger problem. As I understand it, on the front of the form is a space for the address, so people can state where they live.
      Mr. Thomas rose—
      Mr. Rogers: No, I shall not give way again.
      For the first time, a census form in Welsh and English will be delivered to every household. That has never happened before. Previously, if one wanted to fill in a form in Welsh, one had to ask for it. That is no longer the case, and I congratulate the Office for National Statistics on that. That is the first point. Let us be generous in our praise, as well as in our accusations.
      Secondly, on the form people will fill in the address at which they live, so it will be possible to identify all those who live in Wales. The problem arises in respect of Welsh people who live in England, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. That is not covered by the address, but a little
      582
      further on in the form, there is a category dealing with place of birth. There are tick boxes for England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and "other". Those are in the bottom left-hand corner on page 15, as I recall. People can indicate, for example, that they are Welsh-born and live in Newcastle or London. That is no problem.
      The third question is about ethnicity. I suppose that that is where the tick box causing all the concern might have appeared. I am happy to say that I was born in Wales, I live in Wales, I represent Wales, but I am also British. I see no problem with that, but I accept that if people have a problem with it, they will feel aggrieved about the tick box.
      Mr. Smith: Why?
      Mr. Rogers: I do not know why. As I said earlier, I do not require a tick box to affirm my Welshness, but people can write that they are Welsh. They can tick "British" or not tick it, tick "Irish" or not tick it, and write in "Welsh" if they want to. There is a space to write it.
      In the next column on page 15 there are important questions relating to the Welsh language. From the provision of the forms and throughout the questions on address, place of birth and ethnicity, there is every opportunity for people to affirm their Welshness, but such a fuss is being made about the fact that there is no specific little box in which to do so.
      I accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Ceredigion that it was a mistake on the part of the Office for National Statistics not to have recognised the very fine sensitivity that exists in some Welsh people. I do not need a census form to affirm that I am Welsh, and I am sorry that the issue is being made such a political football. Next time around, there will be a box. In that sense, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the Office for National Statistics will not make the same mistake again.
      7.49 pm
      Mr. Paul Flynn: My mother explained to me many years ago about our ethnicity—a difficult problem for one brought up in an Irish Catholic family in Grangetown, Cardiff. We did not speak Welsh—or English very well-and most people spoke with Irish accents. We had friends carrying splendid, traditional Welsh names such as Salvatore, Elgezebal and Marina. My mother explained that we were Welsh just as they were Welsh, but some other people were "real" Welsh and others "proper" Welsh. If my mother were still alive to design the form, she would include three tick boxes. We are all Welsh, just as the splendid Newport rugby team is. One might be surprised at the names of the players, but they feel Welsh when they play Bath, as they recently did, winning by a happy margin.
      All of us were Welsh who felt Welsh, no matter our background or ancestry. The real Welsh were those from the valleys of south Wales who did not speak Welsh but had the shadow, the pattern and the music of the Welsh language in their English speech. The idioms and the cadence of the Welsh language was in them. The proper Welsh were those who had the great good fortune to be born speaking Welsh.
      I agree with almost all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). This sensitive

      583
      issue has stirred emotions, and my hon. Friend was right to say that it was brought to our attention by a party whose leader is domiciled in Newport, West. If the matter is a political football, it is not one that Plaid Cymru kicked off. It may seem minor, but it has touched a raw nerve. People have become concerned that their Welshness, their nationality and their love of Wales were being downgraded, given that Scotland is in the census.
      When the hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned something that happened 150 years ago, I thought that he was going to talk about the chartist riots in Newport, West, which we are celebrating this week. Some 21 martyrs gave their lives for what they called a noble cause, and people are proud that Welsh women and men, living in terrible conditions of cruelty and unfairness, rose against their oppressors—not, in the main, Welsh—knowing that they were likely to die in the cause. We want to mark that history, nobility and Welshness on the census form.
      7.53 pm
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate and—like several of my hon. Friends—on making a long journey to the House today.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows, the format and content of the form for the 2001 census in Wales were the product of detailed consultation over several years. The subject of tonight's debate was not raised until a fairly—indeed, very—late moment in that process. Not until the beginning of July was there any indication—despite informal indications referred to by the hon. Gentleman of which I am not aware—from the extensive consultation of any demand for the Welsh tick box as an option for answer to what is, in fact, an ethnicity question. The hon. Gentleman spent some time saying that he felt that this was less a matter of ethnicity than of nationality, and that is one of the several difficulties surrounding questions of this type.
      We must be clear— the hon. Gentleman has made it clear in this debate, if not outside the House—that it is wrong to say that anyone who wishes to record himself or herself as Welsh cannot do so. On the contrary, anyone can write "Welsh" against the last category specified in the question.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Lady is correct, but when the issue was first raised in July, the Office for National Statistics was not clear as to whether it would count everyone who wrote that he or she was Welsh. As a result, a bone of contention has arisen.
      Miss Johnson: Matters are now clear: the National Statistician has made it plain that anyone who writes that he or she is Welsh will be counted as such in analyses of the census in Wales.
      The hon. Gentleman was fully briefed on the consultation exercise. The census questions in Wales have been subject to comprehensive public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me loiter for a moment over some of the dates contained within the consultation period. Consultation began in June 1998 when the United Kingdom census committee considered a paper including recommendations on the content of the 2001 census.
      584
      The draft White Paper was published on 18 December 1998, but work was done before that. On 30 March 1999, the Welsh census user network group met, and that meeting was attended by representatives of the ONS, 22 Welsh local authorities, health authorities, national park authorities and other public sector services such as the police. The White Paper proposals were discussed, but issues were raised only in relation to the religion and income questions.
      Several public roadshows were held. At a meeting in Cardiff, 46 representatives of the census user community included those from the councils of Caerphilly, Carmarthen, City of Swansea and Neath Port Talbot. The issue of ethnic group categories was not raised. On 22 April, a public roadshow meeting held at Mold was attended by a further 34 representatives, including those from Gwynedd council. On 25 April, a census rehearsal was held at 15,000 households. The hon. Gentleman smiles, having realised that that took place not just in Gwynedd but in Ceredigion. Contrary to what he said, the ONS was not made aware of any evidence of concern about the wording relating to ethnic group. If the matter was contentious in any way, it was not raised as a result of the extensive census rehearsal. We are not, I know, concerned only with the hon. Gentleman's constituency tonight, but about 25 per cent. of the total households there were involved in that exercise.
      A further meeting was held last July with the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the output requirements. Again, the question was not raised. On 26 July 1999, there were discussions between several parties, including the Welsh Language Board, which was also involved in discussions held in January 2000. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not yet a Member of Parliament at that point, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, a notable member of the hon. Gentleman's party was then president of the Welsh Language Board, and, although his concentration may well have been focused on the Welsh language, he was in an ideal position to make any representations had this been a burning topic. So far as I am aware, no such representations were made.
      The hon. Gentleman was elected to the House in February 2000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda made clear, census regulations were laid before Parliament several months later—in June. The hon. Member for Ceredigion observed that, because people did not shout about these matters from Wales, the situation did not reflect what might be a sensitive issue for some there. I do not think that it would be regarded as such by all on the same basis; but let us assume that some Welsh representatives might well have wanted to shout about it—including, I have to say, the hon. Gentleman, who did not shout on 6 June when the census regulations were laid before the House.
      Mr. Rogers: In fairness to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), and as a member of the Committee involved, let me say that two members of that Committee never saw the census form. We never saw that there was no tick box. We looked carefully at the Hansard,

      585
      and at the documents submitted to the Committee. However, I support everything that the Minister has said so far.
      Miss Johnson: I accept that that may well be so, although someone was clearly concerned about the need to find out what was there.
      We must, I think, conclude that regular liaison meetings were indeed held with the Welsh Language Board, and that the statistical directorate of the National Assembly has been involved at all stages of the planning process. There was extensive local authority engagement with the Welsh census user network, which was consulted a number of times before the questions were finalised. As I have said, there were rehearsals.
      Mr. Thomas: I appreciate what the Minister has said about the census consultee group, on which local authorities were represented, but why have local authorities suddenly woken up to the issue since then—so much so that their own body, the Welsh Local Government Association, has said that it wants the census forms to be changed? We should not accept, "Something went wrong in the consultation process."
      Miss Johnson: I really cannot comment. We have undertaken an extensive consultation, and the fact is that the issue was not raised.
      Options for answering the ethnicity question include a write-in box in which people can identify themselves as Welsh if they wish to do so. As the National Statistician announced last week, the Office for National Statistics has undertaken to organise a significant advertising campaign to publicise that option.
      The National Statistician also announced a new study of Welsh identity. That brings me to the hon. Gentleman's point about the separate survey now being planned for 2001—the Welsh labour force survey. A survey is already in progress, but will be expanded following the Assembly's request for a "booster." The aim is to obtain additional data on Welsh identity, and the results will be used to refine and expand information gathered in the census from the write-in option.
      Let me reassure the hon. Member for Ceredigion. The labour force survey is a large and well-established Government survey, providing key information on labour market and related topics. The expanded and enhanced version that will be carried out at about the time of the census is designed to provide additional estimates of aggregate labour market statistics for unitary authorities in Wales.
      The extra information will consist of questions about Welsh identity and a range of other variables, and will be brought together with the census information at local level. The result will be an unprecedented amount of detail about Welsh identity in every part of Wales, and the National Statistician has undertaken to publish a special report based on the information. The Office for National Statistics responded properly to issues that emerged from the census rehearsal.
      There was a demand for the census form to be made available in both Welsh and English to people throughout Wales. As a result, the form will for the first time be
      586
      available in both languages to every household in Wales. It will be the biggest-ever print run of an official document in Welsh. There was a demand for a question asking respondents whether they could understand, speak, read or write the Welsh language. Such a question has been included in the census form.
      Other measures have been taken to ensure the success of the census in Wales. A question on the country of birth will provide a tick box enabling people to indicate that they were born in Wales; my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda mentioned that issue. For the first time, a census manager has been appointed specifically for Wales, and is a Welsh speaker. Efforts are being made to recruit bilingual field staff in Welsh-speaking areas, and the public inquiry line will offer full support in the Welsh language. We have tried to accommodate the points made during the extensive consultation period and reflect them in a census that will, in many respects, be well-tailored to Wales.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion asked about the parliamentary process. The census is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the respective Registrars-General are responsible for holding the census. The Registrar-General for England and Wales, who wears another hat as the National Statistician, has responsibility for the census in those countries. The census is governed by the Census Act 1920, which requires draft Orders in Council to be laid before both Houses. Those orders were approved in the Commons on 2 February, and in the Lords on 16 February, after which the census regulations were laid. The lead time is long and the period from the start of the parliamentary process to the holding of the census also needs to be long because of the scale of the logistical exercise to be undertaken.
      The time scales allow the Registrar-General to recruit census field staff, prescribe the detailed arrangements for the delivery and collection of forms and set out the actual questions to be asked on facsimile copies of the census forms. The regulations were laid before both Houses on 6 June, and came into force on 27 June. Both those statutory instruments could have been objected to by Members of Parliament or peers at any time, but such objections did not arise.
      In Scotland, a parallel process was conducted through the Scottish Parliament. The census regulations in Scotland were made on 15 June—a couple of weeks before ours came into force—and the regulations were laid before the Scottish Parliament the following day. The decision to include a "Scottish" category in the census in Scotland was taken by the Scottish Executive. The demand for a Welsh tick box had still not arisen.
      The census is the biggest peacetime civilian operation affecting the whole population. Years of planning are required. The process includes not only the forms, but the preparation of the systems for their scanning, processing and analysis; in addition, there are logistical issues and contracts for the haulage company to deliver millions of forms. A lengthy time scale is required for the whole process.
      To make a considered change to the census form would require testing and an assessment of the effect on the choices open to all the major communities. The addition of a Welsh tick box now would require additional legislation and parliamentary time, and technical and logistical operations that have been in train for months

      587
      could not be changed now without considerable disruption and expense. We have now entered the phase where even minor changes in any aspect could disrupt the process and jeopardise the census as a whole—something I am sure the hon. Member for Ceredigion does not want.
      The National Statistician has promised that the possibility of a Welsh tick box will be considered during the consultation process for any future census. In the meantime, I urge the people of Wales to complete their census forms in April 2001—if they wish, using the write-in option to register their Welsh identity. The census informs £3 billion of public spending in Wales each year and I do not believe the people of Wales will want to see any part of that substantial sum put at risk. Those who
      588
      fail to participate in the census increase the possibility that Welsh people will lose out on resource allocation and, consequently, on the provision of community services. It is in the interests of all the people of Wales to fill in their census forms and to ensure that Wales counts.
      For those concerned about the lack of a tick box, the message is a simple one: "Tell us that you're Welsh and we'll count you as Welsh." As I am sure the House agrees, that is the best course of action for the people of Wales.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Eight o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Private Sector Secondments
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the private sector companies from which secondments have been made to her Department since June 1997. [133874]

  Clare Short
  Secondments from the following private sector companies have been made since June 1997:

  Cisco Systems

  Marconi

  Virgin

  Natural Resources Institute (University of Greenwich).

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Court
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans he has to review the operation of plea bargaining in the Crown Court. [134730]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Code for Crown Prosecutors provides guidance to Crown Prosecutors on a range of casework issues, including the acceptance of guilty pleas. Defendants may want to plead guilty to some, but not all charges. Alternatively, defendants may want to plead guilty to a different, possibly less serious charge. The Code states that, in these circumstances, Crown Prosecutors should accept a defendant's guilty plea only if they think that the court is able to pass a sentence that matches the seriousness of the offending. The Code also states that Crown Prosecutors should never accept a guilty plea just because it is convenient. The Code is a public document, issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was re-issued in a revised form earlier this month after an extensive public consultation exercise and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 16 October 2000 in a Reference by the Attorney-General of a sentence passed on Robin Peverett for offences of indecent assault. The Attorney-General has said that in the light of that judgment he will consider, with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, whether additional guidance should be issued on the acceptance of guilty pleas at the Crown Court.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment he has made of the(a) resources and (b) quality of the staff of the Crown Prosecution Service. [134784]
  220W
  The Solicitor-General
  The resource position for the CPS has been challenging since 1994–95 but the SR2000 settlement was a good one. As a result the CPS budget in 2003ߝ04 will be 8 per cent. higher in real terms than in this year. This is on top of the additional funding of £15.8 million for 2000ߝ01 announced on 26 June 2000.

  The quality of staff is assessed by the CPS through the performance appraisal system, whereby staff are assessed individually against the performance standard appropriate to their job. The quality of staff is also benchmarked externally by involving staff outside the Service in recruitment panels and in opening up selection exercises to outside competition. I have been impressed on my frequent visits to CPS offices around the country by the commitment and professionalism of staff.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement concerning the Commission for Racial Equality's investigation into allegations of race discrimination in the Croydon branch of the CPS. [134333]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Commission for Racial Equality announced its decision to conduct an investigation into allegations of race discrimination in the Croydon Branch on 28 July 2000.

  The Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service met on 28 September to discuss the way in which the investigation was to be carried out.

  Following that meeting, on 3 October the Crown Prosecution Service received a request from the Commission for detailed information on the Croydon Branch to be sent to the Commission by 27 October. This information was forwarded to the CRE on 26 October.

  The investigation is ongoing.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the work of the Serious Fraud Office. [134406]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office currently has a case load of 73 serious and complex fraud cases, including appeals. In the year to date some 22 defendants have been convicted, out of 27 tried. In addition, six trials are under way involving 15 defendants. The Serious Fraud Office continues to be an effective force in the fight against fraud.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Postal Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of the Working Time Directive on the opportunities for postal workers to earn overtime payments. [134377]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Working Time Regulations, which implement the provisions of the European Working Time Directive, are designed to protect employees from being required to work over a 48 hour week on average,
  221W
  but allow them to opt-out of this protection if they wish. This individual opt-out is reviewable by the EU Commission in 2003.

  Overtime payments are a contractual matter.

  Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the current timetable is for the implementation of the new electricity trading arrangements in England and Wales. [135878]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Ofgem announced on Friday the revised timetable for the implementation of the new electricity trading arrangements The planned implementation date is 27 March 2001 but, due to the complexity of the work to be undertaken by a large number of participants, this date will be subject to confirmation early in the new year.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's intention to lift the stricter consents policy in November remains unchanged.

  Telecommunications
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation his Department has undertaken of the effect of the EU Telecommunications Regulation concerning unbundling of the local loop on the UK telecommunications industry. [135666]

  Ms Hewitt
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment on the costs and benefits of the draft Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on unbundled access to the local loop is currently being prepared.

  Local Loop Unbundling has already been mandated in the UK. Oftel decided in November 1999 that BT should allow operators to access its local access lines, and a condition in BT's licence requiring it to provide unbundled local loops was put in place in April 2000 and brought into force on 8 August 2000—four months ahead of the deadline in the Regulation. BT started the process of accepting orders for co-location in its exchanges in September and the first loops should be available early in 2001. This progress means the UK is well placed in Europe in the introduction of local loop unbundling, which will promote competition in the provision of broadband and other communications services to consumers and small businesses.

  The Regulation also requires the introduction of shared access, where the incumbent operator continues to provide telephony while an alternative operator provides a broadband service over the same line. While shared access is not yet in place in the UK (nor is it widely available elsewhere in Europe), Oftel has already proposed its introduction in a consultation document "Access to bandwidth: Shared access to the local loop" published in October 2000. Oftel's proposal is in line with the Regulation.

  The overall effect of the Regulation in the UK will thus be to underpin the existing regime, which will bring significant benefits to the telecommunications industry and consumers as a whole. The Regulation will also enable UK industry to reap similar benefits elsewhere in Europe by creating a harmonised framework for local loop unbundling.
  222W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) of 24 October 2000,Official Report, columns 106–07W, concerning the telecommunications council, what the Government's policy was towards the Commission's postal services proposal; and if he will make a statement. [135744]

  Ms Hewitt
  For the UK, I said that we strongly supported further liberalisation of postal services in Europe compatible with the maintenance of the universal service. We recognised that this was an increasingly global market and that postal services within the EU needed greater commercial freedom if they were to become global players. Liberalisation should proceed in a way consistent with our social objectives so as to allow the full benefits of competition to be achieved for all consumers. At the moment, and subject to the content of the package as a whole, our view was that a reduction of the reserved area to 150grams was achievable without putting the universal service at risk. We would need to consider the advice of the new UK postal regulator on whether a greater reduction could be achieved without putting at risk the universal service at a uniform tariff. However, we would play a constructive role in further discussions on the proposal reflecting the new regulator's advice.

  Banana Trade Dispute
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 24 October 2000,Official Report, column 101W, on the banana trade dispute, what the obstacles to compensation are; and how they are affected by World Trade Organisation membership. [135793]

  Mr. Caborn
  Any compensation scheme for companies affected by the banana dispute would raise a number of questions concerning compatibility with both the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and EC state aid rules. There is a significant risk that a scheme would be incompatible with these. As I pointed out in my earlier answer, the only way to alleviate this burden from all the companies facing US sanctions is to find a solution to the banana dispute that is satisfactory to all parties. It is precisely this that the Government have been working hard to achieve since the US first imposed retaliation last year.

  No other European State is running a scheme to assist its own industries affected by the dispute. Several posts have reported that their hosts have looked into such a possibility and have concluded that any scheme would fall foul of these rules.

  Coal Authority
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the quinquennial review of the Coal Authority will take place; and what the terms of reference of the review will be. [135862]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Work has now commenced on the second quinquennial review of the functions and organisation of the Coal Authority. The terms of reference for the review are as given.
  223W
  Overall Aim

  To determine whether any changes are necessary to the functions and organisation of the Coal Authority.

  First Stage: Prior Options

  To examine whether the Coal Authority should be retained as an NDPB and, if so, should continue to carry out some or all of the functions it presently delivers.

  In the course of this, to consider specifically:
  whether an NDPB is the best way of meeting DTI objectives in this area and the Authority's past performance in doing so;
  whether the role and functions of the Coal Authority contribute to the delivery of wider DTI and Government objectives;
  whether existing functions still need to be undertaken or reduced and whether new functions could usefully be undertaken by the Authority;
  whether there is potential for closer working with other parts of the public sector, or the private sector, on particular activities, including possible transfer of activities to or from those bodies;
  how functions can best be delivered and whether there is scope for other organisational options, including discontinuing, contracting-out, market-testing, merging or rationalising, privatising, or restructuring internally, some or all of them;
  whether the statutory framework within which the Authority operates is appropriate or whether changes to its powers would be desirable;
  whether the funding regime within which the Authority operates is appropriate or whether changes (commensurate with public accountability) would improve the ability of the Authority to carry out its functions.

  Second Stage: Review of Efficiency

  If NDPB status for the Coal Authority is confirmed, in the light of the findings of the Prior Options Stage consider how the Authority's operations, services and functions could be provided and operated more efficiently and effectively in the future.

  To consider particularly:
  the Authority's aims and objectives and the part they play in delivering wider DTI and Government objectives;
  performance targets and whether they are sufficiently comprehensive and stretching, and properly reflect the Authority's aims and objectives;
  how the Authority can improve its responsiveness to those who use its services and functions and the involvement of its staff in the way it works;
  whether the Authority's organisational structure and effectiveness, its staffing, management and personnel policies adequately take into account changes in workload;
  opportunities for joint-working with other bodies to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery;
  whether the Authority can make better use of new technology to improve the delivery of its services and functions;
  the Authority's system of financial management and control together with the budgetary process and the application of fees and charges;
  existing outsourcing arrangements and confirm that they are providing value for money. In particular, to advise on whether the boundary between in-house and outsourced work is appropriately drawn in all areas including that of monitoring work on subsidence and historic liabilities;
  whether there is scope to increase the current level of efficiency savings and income and to improve the utilisation of its assets;
  whether the Authority needs different freedoms or flexibilities to improve delivery of its services;
  whether the roles and reporting arrangements of the Authority, the Department and Ministers need clearer definition and whether they provide proper support for operational and policy work.
  224W
  The findings of this review will be summarised in a report in a format agreed with the Department, including a set of recommendations.

  The first stage of the review will be carried out by an official in the Department of Trade and Industry. If, once this stage is completed, it is decided to proceed to a second stage, it is likely that this work will be undertaken by consultants. The first stage should be completed by the end of 2000 and stage two would commence early in 2001. The review is being overseen by a Steering Group chaired by the Director of Coal Unit in my Department. The team includes the Chairman of the Coal Authority and an independent member.

  My Department is particularly keen to hear the views of interested parties including suggestions for improvement in the provision of services. Any comments, which should be sent by 30 November, should be addressed to Mr. Brian Morris, Department of Trade and Industry, Bay 179, 1 Victoria Street London, SW1H 0ET (e-mail: brian.morris@dti.gsi.gov.uk).

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the Government's progress in creating the universal bank; and if he will make a statement. [135561]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office and the high street banks are continuing to work together to develop the concept of universal banking services and the Government are closely monitoring developments.

  Sub Post Offices
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub post offices closed between May 1997 and the latest available date. [135557]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the net number of sub post office closures since end March 1997 to end September 2000 is 1,183.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to reform the current provisions relating to parental leave. [135560]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  On 22 June I announced the terms of reference for a review of maternity pay and parental leave. This is looking at the steps needed to make sure that parents have choices to help them balance the needs of their work and their children, so that they may contribute fully to the competitiveness and productivity of the modern economy. The provision and impact of parental leave is key to this work.

  Ministers working on the review have participated in a series of roundtable discussions across the English regions, Wales and Scotland. This gave over 250 individuals and organisations the opportunity to put forward their views on what is needed to change. All the comments and suggestions expressed are now being considered with the aim of publishing a consultation document before Christmas.

  Private Recruitment Industry
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on labour market flexibility of(a) IR35 and (b) current reform of regulation of the private recruitment industry. [135562]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We do not expect the IR35 legislation to have a material effect on labour market flexibility. Our proposals to reform the regulations governing the private recruitment industry will increase labour market flexibility. A revised regulatory impact assessment will be published at the time the regulations are laid before Parliament.

  Offshore Wind Projects
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if capital expenditure funded to the extent of 40 per cent. by capital grants for offshore wind projects will be eligible for capital allowances(a) on the full expenditure and (b) on only the expenditure not funded by Government grant. [135054]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A firm would be able to claim capital allowances only on the expenditure not funded by Government grant.

  UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been received under the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme. [135051]

  Mrs. Liddell
  By Wednesday 25 October, applications had been received by the DTI in respect of the listed eight production units:

  Scottish Coal/Longannet

  Hatfield

  RJB/Selby Complex

  Blenkinsopp

  RJB/Harworth

  RJB/Maltby

  RJB/Rossington

  RJB/Welbeck.

  An up-to-date list of applications is given on the DTI web site at: http://www2.dti.gov.uk/support/appaid.htm

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the Statutory Instrument on the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme. [135052]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A Statutory Instrument on the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme will not be required.

  Copies of the scheme are available in the House Library, or on the DTI website at the following address: http://www2.dti.gov.uk/support/coal.htm.

  Under the provisions of the Industrial Development Act the excess of any payment of aid over £10 million will require authorisation by a resolution of the Commons. We are waiting for the European Commission's approval of our Coal Operating Aid Scheme. If such approval is granted, we will then seek any necessary Commons authorisation.

  Renewables Obligation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what period the proposed Renewables Obligation buy-out price of 3p/KWh will be maintained.[135057]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government propose that the Renewables Obligation will extend to 31 March 2026, and that the 3p/KWh level of the buy-out price will not be reduced throughout that time in order to ensure that there is a secure basis for long-term investment. The Government also propose to link the buy-out to the Retail Prices Index. The Government's proposals are subject to the outcome of the current consultation.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he notified the European Commission about the Renewables Obligation; and when he anticipates receiving approval. [135056]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The European Commission was formally notified of the Renewables Obligation in July 2000. My Department is currently in discussion with the Commission on the details of the notification.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research underlies his forecast for the level of greenhouse gas emissions after 2000. [135055]

  Ms Hewitt
  At a broad level, the DTI is responsible for projections of energy demand which are used to project carbon dioxide emissions, while the DETR and MAFF have responsibility for projections of other greenhouse gases.

  Projections of carbon dioxide emissions are based on the energy demand projections which are generated by the DTI's energy model, which has been developed through extensive research over many years. The approach taken to modelling energy demand is described in chapter 2 of a working paper made available in March this year. A copy of the working paper, entitled "Energy Projections for the UK", is available in the Library of the House. The DETR also funds extensive research into carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from specific sectors such as non-domestic buildings, manufacturing industry and road transport to help inform Government projections.

  Methods for projecting emissions of the other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride) have been developed by DETR and MAFF based on many years of Government funded research. The projections were updated recently by independent consultants for inclusion in the draft Climate Change Programme and provided as a working paper entitled "Projections of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases For The United Kingdom", March 2000, WS Atkins Limited, also available in the Library of the House.

  Cowboy Builders
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what projects his Department is supporting connected with the First Check Point organisation to combat incompetent and dishonest builders. [135429]
  227W
  Dr. Howells
  My Department is not supporting any projects connected with the first check point organisation.

  Romania
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the decision not to extend export credit guarantee cover to Romania; if he will review this decision; and if he will make a statement. [135556]

  Mr. Caborn
  A number of exporters have made representations about the provision of export credit guarantees to support potential business in Romania. ECGD has reached its exposure ceiling for Romania. They expect to carry out a review shortly to determine the acceptability of making more cover available in the light of Romania's political and economic situation.

  Bilateral Concordat
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the bilateral concordat between his Department and the Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. [135865]

  Mr. Byers
  The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment and I have today agreed the text of the Concordat between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Copies of the Concordat have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the text will be made available on the Department of Trade and Industry web-site.

  Part-time Working Directive
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in discussions within the EU on securing equal treatment for agency workers under the part-time working directive. [135709]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand that the Social Partners have held three meetings to date to discuss a possible framework agreement covering agency workers. The European directive on part-time work of 1997 was implemented in the UK through the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, in July this year. These regulations give protection to all workers, including agency workers, against less favourable treatment on the grounds that they work part-time.

  Asteroids
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when he will announce the next steps the Government plan to take to address the threat of cosmic impact; and if he will make a statement; [135476]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the findings of the report of the Taskforce on near-earth objects; and if he will make a statement. [135475]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 23 October 2000,Official Report, column 9W.

  Near Earth Objects
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will discuss with the Prime Minister the possibility of including the threat of Near Earth Objects at a future meeting of the G8 leaders; and if he will make a statement. [135477]

  Ms Hewitt
  Officials are consulting widely with interested parties and authorities in many countries about the issues raised by the report of the Task Force on Near Earth Objects. I have not discussed with the Prime Minister the possibility of raising this issue with G8 leaders.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make available the evidence upon which the statement on his Department's website, concerning the impact of action taken by the Government to reduce the burdens on business caused by regulation, was based; and if he will quantify the reduction in the burdens on business caused by regulation referred to in that statement. [R] [135664]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has been unable to identify the statement referred to in this question. Regulatory Impact Assessments, which are prepared for all new regulations with cost impacts on business, quantify the anticipated cost burden or saving of individual measures. Copies of these are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Silicosis Claims
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many silicosis cases(a) have been processed to date and (b) are still outstanding; and what assessment he has made of the length of time needed to complete all the outstanding silicosis claims; [135543]

  (2) what action his Department is taking to speed up the process of settling outstanding silicosis compensation claims. [135544]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since assuming the former British Coal's health liabilities in January 1998 the Department has received no claims for silicosis.

  Bujagali Dam, Uganda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the ECGD has made of the proposed Bujagali Dam in Uganda. [135112]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD cover is not currently available for Uganda, although a review is due soon. ECGD has not been asked to undertake an assessment of the proposed Bujagali Dam project.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on matters discussed and decisions taken at the International Atomic Energy Agency annual conference in September, in so far as they affect the United Kingdom; and if he will place relevant documentation in the Library. [135439]
  229W
  Dr. Howells
  The UK delegation to the 44th General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) played a full and active part during the conference. The UK was involved in the drafting and submission by the European Union of resolutions covering strengthening the effectiveness and improving the efficiency of the safeguards system and application of the model protocol, measures against illicit trafficking in nuclear materials and other radioactive sources and the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq. These draft resolutions were in some cases amended in negotiation with other delegations, but all were eventually adopted. The UK delegation also participated fully in discussions concerning other resolutions and decisions of the conference.

  A copy of the document produced by the IAEA containing resolutions and other decisions of the General Conference will be placed in the Library of the House when it becomes available.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total expenditure on fast reactor research and development at Dounreay from the inception of the Fast Reactor Programme until its closure; and what is his estimate of the likely costs of decommissioning the Dounreay site to greenfield conditions. [135437]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I understand from UKAEA that in 1990, towards the end of the UK Fast Reactor research and development programme, the total investment in the programme over 30 years was estimated to be £4 billion (undiscounted, in 1988 prices). This figure includes design and development for the programme at Risley and other sites as well as at Dounreay.

  The cost of decommissioning and restoring the Dounreay site is estimated to be in the region of £4 billion (undiscounted, in 1999–2000 prices) over a 50–60 year timescale.

  Ex-miners Compensation Claims
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if interest will be paid to ex-miners suffering from respiratory diseases and claiming compensation, following delays in payment, in addition to the compensation paid. [135118]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Under the Claims Handling Agreement, signed by the Department and the Solicitors acting for the claimants, interest on general damages is payable from the date of the receipt of the letter of claim. On special damages, interest is payable from either the date the loss occurred, or in some cases the date of receipt of the letter of claim. Loss of earnings are calculated at the appropriate Court rate, and other heads of special damages are calculated at a reduced rate, reflecting the fact that these are assessed at present day values. All interest runs to the date an offer is accepted.

  "Bankruptcy—A Fresh Start"
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he hopes to publish the results of his consultation on Bankruptcy: a Fresh Start and his conclusions on those representations. [135375]

  Dr. Howells
  We expect to receive a report on the public consultation on "Bankruptcy—A Fresh Start" and on the emerging issues in the near future. We will then consider the desirability of a further round of consultation on some of the specific issues identified in the consultation document.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what powers he(a) has and (b) intends to seek to control the retail prices of petrol and diesel; [134398]

  (2) what powers he (a) has and (b) intends to seek to ensure that oil producers and retailers pass on in full to consumers reductions in taxes on petrol and diesel. [134457]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Section 1(4) of the Energy Act 1976 confers power on the Secretary of State to regulate by order the price at which petroleum products (including petrol and diesel) may be supplied.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not intend to seek further powers.

  The Government believe that open competition provides consumers with supplies at the best available prices.

  Gas (Rural Communities)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the regulatory framework in relation to the supply of mains gas to rural communities. [134728]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government recognise the importance of gas supplies to rural areas and are looking to the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to be proactive in securing the widest viable coverage.

  In addition, the Government have just amended the regulatory framework in the Utilities Act 2000 to remove the geographical exclusivity of Public Gas Transporters. This should make it easier for those in rural communities to obtain a connection by stimulating competition between PGTs and exerting a downward pressure on connection costs.

  Later in the year, the Government will be taking two further steps with relevance to rural consumers and others. These are the publication, under the Utilities Act, of draft guidance to the new Gas and Electricity Markets Authority on social and environmental policies, and publication of a consultation document on UK Fuel Poverty Strategy.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the gas industry with a view to facilitating the supply of mains gas to rural communities. [134998]
  231W
  Mrs. Liddell
  Extensions to the gas network are a matter for the independent regulator, the Director General of Gas Supply.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Incidents
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) punishment beatings,

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings/assaults for Northern Ireland (by week of occurrence) 1 January–18 October 2000

  Shootings

  Assaults

  Date range

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  1 January–7 January 2000

  1

  —

  2

  —

  8 January–14 January 2000

  —

  —

  3

  —

  15 January–21 January 2000

  2

  —

  —

  —

  22 January–28 January 2000

  —

  —

  2

  1

  29 January–4 February 2000

  1

  —

  4

  —

  5 February–11 February 2000

  1

  —

  —

  1

  12 February–18 February 2000

  —

  —

  1

  —

  19 February–25 February 2000

  1

  —

  1

  2

  26 February–3 March 2000

  4

  —

  1

  —

  4 March–10 March 2000

  —

  1

  1

  —

  11 March–17 March 2000

  4

  4

  1

  2

  18 March–24 March 2000

  2

  —

  2

  1

  25 March–31 March 2000

  2

  1

  3

  1

  1 April–7 April 2000

  —

  3

  —

  2

  8 April–14 April 2000

  —

  5

  2

  2

  15 April–21 April 2000

  —

  1

  1

  1

  22 April–28 April 2000

  5

  —

  2

  3

  29 April–5 May 2000

  3

  4

  2

  —

  6 May–12 May 2000

  5

  —

  2

  2

  13 May–19 May 2000

  1

  —

  2

  3

  20 May–26 May 2000

  1

  1

  —

  3

  27 May–2 June 2000

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3 June–9 June 2000

  —

  1

  —

  1

  10 June–16 June 2000

  3

  —

  4

  1

  17 June–23 June 2000

  2

  1

  2

  2

  24 June–30 June 2000

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1 July–7 July 2000

  7

  1

  —

  1

  8 July–14 July 2000

  3

  —

  1

  1

  15 July–21 July 2000

  1

  1

  1

  —

  22 July–28 July 2000

  1

  —

  1

  2

  29 July–4 August 2000

  2

  —

  3

  1

  5 August–11 August 2000

  1

  —

  3

  —

  12 August–18 August 2000

  —

  2

  3

  —

  19 August–25 August 2000

  —

  —

  1

  1

  26 August–1 September 2000

  3

  4

  1

  1

  2 September–8 September 2000

  —

  2

  3

  —

  9 September–15 September 2000

  6

  —

  —

  2

  16 September–22 September 2000

  —

  —

  2

  2

  23 September–29 September 2000

  2

  3

  —

  1

  30 September–6 October 2000

  5

  2

  —

  1

  7 October–13 October 2000

  2

  1

  1

  1

  14 October–18 October 2000

  2

  —

  1

  2

  Totals

  74

  39

  61

  44

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings/assaults for Northern Ireland (by quarter) 1 January–18 October 2000

  Shooting

  Assaults

  Date range

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  January-March

  18

  6

  21

  8

  April-June

  21

  17

  19

  20

  July-September

  26

  13

  19

  13

  Totals

  65

  36

  59

  41

  1–18 October1

  9

  3

  2

  3

  1Provisional

  232W
  (b) punishment shootings and (c) murders there were in Northern Ireland in (i) each week and (ii) each quarter (1) from 1 January to 30 September and (2) in October, indicating for each week and quarter how many of those crimes were committed by (x) Republican groups and (y) Loyalist groups. [134296]

  Mr. Ingram
  The tables show the number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings and attacks, recorded by week and quarter of occurrence during the period 1 January to 18 October 2000, together with the number of deaths recorded as being due to the security situation in Northern Ireland by week of occurrence:
  233W

  Deaths due to the security situation for Northern Ireland (by week of occurrence) 1 January–18 October 2000

  Date range

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  8 January–14 January 2000

  1

  —

  19 February–25 February 2000

  2

  —

  20 May–26 May 2000

  1

  —

  27 May–2 June 2000

  —

  1

  8 July–14 July 2000

  1

  —

  19 August–25 August 2000

  3

  —

  23 September–29 September 2000

  —

  1

  7 October–13 October 2000

  —

  1

  Totals

  8

  3

  Note:

  Statistics may be subject to some slight amendment

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 23 and 24 October; and if he will make a statement. [135652]

  Ms Quin
  I attended the Agriculture Council meeting in Luxembourg on 23 October.

  The Council warmly welcomed a commitment from Commissioner Fischler to table proposals simplifying the administration of the CAP. This followed a UK/French initiative responding to concerns by farmers about unnecessarily bureaucratic regulation and recommendations by the Red Tape Review team looking at implementation of IACS. The Commission also stated that it recognised the importance of traditional landscape features, such as hedges, in implementing schemes.

  The Council held first discussions on proposals to reform the fruit and vegetables, rice and sugar regimes. On fruit and vegetables I welcomed the proposed simplification of the regime, particularly in relation to the funding of producer organisations. On rice, I stressed the importance of securing an outcome that safeguarded the interests of UK consumers, avoided problems in the WTO and for third country suppliers, and took account of the environmental aspects of rice growing in certain EU regions. I expressed disappointment that the Commission proposal for reform of the sugar regime was not more radical, particularly in view of the pressures from enlargement and from WTO developments. I nevertheless welcomed the proposed extension of sugar quotas for only two years to enable studies to be undertaken to inform a full review in 2002.

  The Council will consider these proposals further at future meetings.

  The Council also heard a report from Commissioner Fischler on developments in the WTO agriculture negotiations and a call from the Danish Minister to develop initiatives on organic agriculture, which was widely supported.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pleospora Papaveravea
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions will be imposed on use of the results produced by the United Nations Drugs Control Programme research into Pleospora Papaveravea; and if he will make a statement. [135150]

  Mr. Battle
  If the results of the United Nations Drug Control Programme's (UNDCP) research proves that Pleospora Papaveracea can be used for the eradication of illicit opium poppy cultivation without damage to human health or the environment, UNDCP would decide on sharing these results with its member countries. The decision on whether or not to use Pleospora Papaveracea for eradication would be for the governments of the countries where there is such illicit cultivation.

  Cuba
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when representations were first made to the Cuban authorities about access to the arrested United Kingdom citizens in Cuba. [135657]

  Mr. Hain
  Our Embassy in Havana made representations to the Cuban authorities about access as soon as they were informed of the arrest on 9 October and continue to do so subsequently.

  Mrs. Gillan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the travel advice for Cuba was last amended; and what plans he has to amend it following the arrest of United Kingdom citizens in Cuba. [135658]

  Mr. Hain
  FCO travel advice for Cuba was updated on 4 October 2000. It is kept under constant review. We are not planning to revise it in light of the recent arrests. British nationals travelling to Cuba who comply with the local law and are holding the correct documentation should have no cause for concern.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date, at what time and by whom Ministers in his Department were first informed of the arrest of United Kingdom citizens in Cuba; and which Minister in his Department was first informed. [135656]

  Mr. Hain
  Ministers were aware of the arrest of the British nationals on 24 October from media reporting. It is not normal practice for FCO officials to inform Ministers whenever a British national is arrested overseas.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice in relation to the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to EU participation in WTO proceedings; [135280]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to policies towards self-employed people (Article 47(2)); [135323]
  235W
  (3) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to measures on refugees and displaced persons (Articles 63(2)(a) and (b)); [135318]

  (4) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to economic and financial co-operation with third countries (New Article 181a); [135298]

  (5) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to (a) tax measures for the protection of the environment (Article 93(4)) and (b) provisions for mutual assistance between tax authorities (Article 93(5)); [135288]

  (6) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to measures setting out conditions for freedom of travel for nationals of third countries (Article 62(3)); [135320]

  (7) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to immigration policy (Article 63(3)(a) and (b)); [135317]

  (8) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to environmental matters (Article 175 (2)); [135297]

  (9) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to (a) the approval of the rules of procedure of the Court of Auditors (Article 274(3)) and (b) the appointment of Members of the Court of Auditors Article (247(3)); [135291]

  (10) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice in relation to the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to international agreements on intellectual property (Article 133(1)); [135281]

  (11) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to social security (Article 42); [135324]

  (12) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to anti-discrimination measures (Article 13); [135313]

  (13) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to minimum requirements in certain social areas (Article 137 (1)); [135289]

  (14) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to judicial cooperation for the internal market (Article 65(a), (b) and (c)); [135283]
  236W
  (15) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to CFSP/JHA international agreements (Article 24); [135314]

  (16) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the list of products which are connected with the production of or trade in weapons (Article 296 (2)); [135308]

  (17) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to association of overseas territories (Article 187); [135296]

  (18) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to asylum measures (Articles 631a to d); [135319]

  (19) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to association agreements (Article 300 (2)); [135307]

  (20) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the creation of a Cohesion Fund (Article 161); [135299]

  (21) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to measures to control the supply of certain products in difficulties (Article 100 (1)); [135290]

  (22) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to social security for migrant workers (Article 144); [135304]

  (23) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the Court of Justice in Title IV (Article 67(5)); [135285]

  (24) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to measures in the cultural field (Article 151 (5)); [135303]

  (25) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the conclusion of mixed agreements (new Article 300 (8)); [135306]

  (26) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to measures in the industrial sphere (Article 157(3));[135302]

  (27) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the appointment of (a) the Deputy Secretary General and (b) the Secretary General of the Council (Article 207(2)); [135292]

  (28) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the appointment of members of the Economic and Social Committee (Article 259(1)); [135311]
  237W
  (29) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to approximation of laws for the Common Market (Article 94); [135305]

  (30) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to specific action for economic and social cohesion (Article 159); [135301]

  (31) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the Statute of MEPs (Article 190(5)); [135295]

  (32) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to transport regulation (Articles 71(2) and 80); [135286]

  (33) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to rules for structural funds (Article 161); [135300]

  (34) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to financial regulations for accounting officers (Article 279(1); [135309]

  (35) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to rules on visas (Articles 62(2) b(ii) and (iv)); [135321]

  (36) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the rules of procedure of the European Court of First Instance (Article 224); [135293]

  (37) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to tax measures to prevent fraud, tax evasion and circumvention of rules (Article 93(2)); [135287]

  (38) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to rules and arrangements for border checks (Article 62(2)a); [135322]

  (39) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the establishment of agencies (New Article 256a); [135316]

  (40) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the movement of citizens between member states (Article 18); [135312]

  (41) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the choice of Common Foreign and Security Policy representatives (Article 23(2)); [135315]

  (42) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to appointments to the Committee of the Regions (Article 263); [135310]
  238W
  (43) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to the rules of procedure of the European Court of Justice (Article 223); [135294]

  (44) if he will make a statement on his policy to be adopted at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to cooperation measures under Title IV (Article 66); [135284]

  (45) if he will make a statement on the policy he will adopt at Nice on the proposed change from unanimity to qualified majority voting in relation to community financial aid to a Member State (Article 100(2)). [135478]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have set out our overall policy to the IGC negotiations which will be concluded at Nice in a White Paper published in February this year. We have made it clear that where the extension of qualified majority voting is in the United Kingdom's national interest, we will support it strongly; and that where it is not we will oppose it firmly.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the BBC World Service. [135905]

  Mr. Hain
  The BBC has today announced that the BBC World Service will move from Bush House to Broadcasting House at the end of 2006. We welcome and endorse this decision, about which we have been kept fully informed.

  We are confident that the World Service will maintain in Broadcasting House the standards and traditions that have made it the world's best known and most respected voice in international broadcasting. The new location will be better suited than Bush House to enable the World Service to meet the challenges of the digital age—for which the Government made available an additional £64 million in the recent Spending Review—and to work to maximum effect with key BBC partners.

  It also offers better value for money than remaining at Bush House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Office Furniture
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what the cost is of(a) four two-drawer pedestal units and (b) a four-drawer filing cabinet specified for use in Portcullis House; who took the decision that only the former could be made available in hon. Members' offices in Portcullis House; what surveys have been conducted on hon. Members' preferences for methods of storage of files. [134261]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  One of the responsibilities of the Select Committee is to consider the requirements of hon. Members as construction projects are progressed. In developing the proposals for the fitting out of the offices in Portcullis House, the Committee was aware of the ever-growing demand for both work surfaces and storage space in the offices of hon. Members and their staff. It
  239W
  concluded, therefore, that after the basic provision of storage and filing space in the wall cupboards, the most effective use of the available floor space would be achieved by providing flexible two and three drawer pedestals that could be housed under the workbenches. The matter of cost was not, therefore, a factor in our deliberations.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to offer House staff a stakeholder pension. [134375]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  As required under the legislation, from October 2001, designated stakeholder pension arrangements will be made available to all House of Commons Staff who cannot be covered by the House of Commons Staff Pension Scheme (HOCSPS). Stakeholder pension arrangements will also be made available to House of Commons Staff who are covered by the HOCSPS but who earn less than £30,000 a year, and who wish to top up their HOCSPS benefits.

  These arrangements will be for new House staff and existing House staff.

  New Members
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what arrangements she intends to make for the induction of new hon. Members in the next Parliament. [134463]

  Mrs. Roe
  Arrangements, similar to those introduced for hon. Members newly elected in 1997, are in hand. A Co-ordinating Group, with a membership drawn from across the departments of the House and reporting to the Board of Management, is responsible for planning and overseeing the induction of newly elected Members of Parliament. Assisting the Co-ordinating Group are three groups responsible for the listed tasks:

  planning and overseeing the making of a new Parliamentary Video, which presents a brief introduction to the House of Commons service;

  planning a Reception area for new Members to visit on their arrival; and

  co-ordinating the revision of the Members' Handbook.

  I know that departments of the House will also make arrangements to make newly elected hon. Members aware of the services that they provide.

  Dissolution (Administrative Arrangements)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans she has to advise hon. Members of the administrative arrangements for their staff and offices consequent upon Parliament's dissolution. [134462]

  Mrs. Roe
  A notice reminding all hon. Members of the regulations applied to them and their staff during a Dissolution of Parliament will be issued by the Serjeant at Arms. The Accountant will be writing also to every hon. Member with detailed information concerning their allowances and entitlements.

  Late-night Sittings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the proposals by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to reduce the number of late-night sittings of the House. [134580]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The objective of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is to improve the efficient working of the House of Commons.

  Programming legislation and the deferral of late divisions should assist hon. Members, both by giving increasing certainty about the business and reducing the number of late sittings. I expect the House will have an opportunity to consider the proposals in the near future.

  Recess Dates
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Council if she will announce provisionally the recess dates for the next 15 months. [135077]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am afraid I am unable to do so since the dates of adjournments depend on the progress of business.

  Cost Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Council what the total provision was for the additional cost allowance for hon. Members for the year 1999–2000; and what actual expenditure was during that year. [134573]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The total provision for the additional cost allowance for hon. Members for the year 1999–2000 was £8,272,000.

  The actual expenditure during 1999–2000 was £7,740,000.

HEALTH

  Porton Products Ltd.
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what products of SAMR and Porton Products have had agreements to market and distribute since 1980; to whom they were marketed and distributed; and if he will make a statement. [134132]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR) has been the executive arm of a special health authority, the Microbiological Research Authority, since April 1994. Prior to that date, it was part of the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). CAMR had a distributorship and marketing agreement with a private sector company, Porton Products Ltd., from April 1985 to October 1998 (at which time the term of the agreement ended). The range of products covered by the agreement included frozen bacterial cell pastes, enzymes and proteins, vaccines and therapeutic toxins. A full list will be deposited in the Library.
  241W
  Porton Products distributed CAMR products to a range of healthcare customers worldwide. Porton Products was purchased by a French company, the Beaufour Ipsen Group, in 1994. Beaufour Ipsen may be able to provide the hon. Member with information relating to the customers for these products.

  CAMR has only two current licence agreements with Beaufour Ipsen. These are for Dysport (a botulinum toxin-based therapeutic used in the treatment of cerebral palsy), and Erwinase (an enzyme used in the treatment of childhood leukaemia).

  Waiting List Statistics
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for in-patient treatment for(a) cancer, (b) heart disease and (c) HIV and hepatitis in each of the last 10 years in (i) Taunton constituency and (ii) Somerset Health Authority. [134315]

  Mr. Denham
  The numbers of patients from Somerset Health Authority waiting for inpatient treatment at 31 March in the specialities Cardiothoracic surgery and Cardiology are shown in the table. This information was not collected prior to march 1994. It is not possible to provide the information at a constituency level.

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

  Total inpatient waiting list for specialties cardiothoracic surgery and cardiology1

  Year

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  Cardiology

  March 1994

  104

  0

  March 1995

  84

  27

  March 1996

  118

  86

  March 1997

  148

  119

  March 1998

  105

  105

  March 1999

  179

  137

  March 2000

  236

  228

  1 Somerset HA (1997–2000)

  1Somerset DHA (1994–1996)

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many out-patients were waiting for treatment for more than six months in each of the last 10 years in(a) the Taunton constituency and (b) Somerset Health Authority. [134316]

  Mr. Denham
  The numbers of patients from Somerset Health Authority waiting more than twenty six weeks for an outpatient appointment are shown in the table. This information was not collected prior to March 1998. It is not possible to provide the information at a constituency level.

  Outpatients still waiting 26 plus weeks

  Year

  Somerset HA

  March 1998

  566

  March 1999

  1,068

  March 2000

  1,149

  Source:

  QM08, QM08R quarterly returns

  Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if staff employed by the proposed Patient Advocacy and Liaison Service will be represented on the patient forums; and if he will make a statement. [134341]

  Ms Stuart
  Chapter 10 of the National Health Service Plan states that half the membership of Patients Fora will be randomly drawn from respondents to trusts' annual patient surveys. The other half of the membership will comprise representatives of local patient groups and voluntary organisations.

  At the moment, we are conducting a major exercise to take the views of stakeholder groups nationally and locally on the specific details of how the new arrangements set out in Chapter 10 of the NHS Plan should be set up and co-ordinated in practice. Exactly how the membership of Patients Fora will be constructed, and which local patient representative group will be involved, will be resolved as part of this exercise. A clear statement on the outcome of the exercise will be given in the new year.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many victims of domestic violence have been treated in hospitals in England and Wales in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [134749]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows a count of in-patient episodes of care where the nature of injury has been specified as maltreatment by spouse or partner. The figures provided are for National Health Service Hospitals in England, for the years 1995–96 to 1998–99.

  Information available on the total number of patients attending accident and emergency departments and the number of patients attending outpatient clinics for each consultant speciality. The reason patients attend accident and emergency departments or outpatient clinics is not available.

  Count of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where the cause of injury is maltreatment by spouse or partner—NHS Hospitals, England—1995–96 and 1998–99

  Male

  Female

  1995–96

  14

  95

  1996–97

  16

  78

  1997–98

  9

  76

  1998–99

  12

  94

  Notes:

  1. An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  2. Data in this table are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 1998–99 which is not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Hospital Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many alcohol-related assaults on staff have taken place in hospitals in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [134750]
  243W
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of drug-related assaults on staff were recorded in each of the past three years. [134957]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive conducted a survey of violence in National Health Service trusts in England in 1998–99. The survey found that, on average, seven violent incidents were recorded each month per 1,000 staff. This is equivalent to approximately 65,000 violent incidents against NHS trust staff each year. The survey did not reveal the causes of violent incidents. This information will be held locally by individual National Health Service employers through local reporting procedures and identified through appropriate risk assessment measures. The information would be reflected in local prevention and reduction strategies. Details of the survey can be found in Health Service Circular 1999/229: 'Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS', copies of which are available in the Library.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people living in the UK are receiving hospital treatment for HIV/AIDS; and if he will make statement. [134816]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of people with HIV/AIDS receiving treatment within the National Health Service in England in the calendar year 1999 was 20,765, adjusted for under reporting. Information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved administrations.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend fluoridation of drinking water; and if he will make a statement. [134359]

  Yvette Cooper
  We will be discussing the systematic review of water fluoridation produced by the University of York with representatives of the water industry. We will also be encouraging health authorities with high levels of dental decay to consider fluoridating their water as part of their overall oral health strategy. The report of the evidence review will help ensure that local decisions are based on an authoritative, readily accessible summary of research into the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation.

  £000

  Authority

  Pathology MF

  Renal MF

  Action on cataracts

  Waiting times

  Additional waiting times

  Dental access centres

  Ambulance response times

  CHD MF

  NHS Direct

  Total

  Birmingham Heartlands

  968

  400

  120

  720

  298

  —

  —

  160

  —

  2,666

  Birmingham Women's Healthcare

  127

  —

  —

  395

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  522

  Birmingham Specialist Community

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Black Country Mental Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Burton Hospitals

  —

  —

  —

  75

  —

  —

  —

  191

  —

  266

  Birmingham Children's Hospital

  450

  —

  —

  358

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  808

  City Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  75

  214

  —

  —

  286

  —

  575

  Coventry Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Dudley Priority Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  First Community

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  626

  —

  —

  —

  626

  Good Hope Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  770

  116

  —

  —

  190

  —

  1,076

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  —

  —

  83

  Hereford Hospitals

  —

  —

  66

  62

  —

  —

  —

  28

  —

  156

  Herefordshire Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals

  —

  —

  414

  391

  147

  —

  —

  122

  —

  1,074

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers will be included in the Pay Review Body; and if he will make a statement. [134364]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) on 23 October 2000,Official Report, columns 80–81W.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the pay levels of Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers for the next three years. [134382]

  Mr. Denham
  Above inflation pay increases were agreed for Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers as part of a three-year pay deal covering the years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02. For 2001–02 this deal provides for a minimum pay rise of RPIX at December 2000 plus 0.5 per cent., subject to progress on negotiations with the trade unions on proposals for modernising the National Health Service pay system. Future arrangements for determining pay and conditions of service for Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers and other NHS staff will be the subject of those negotiations.

  Larval Therapy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he issues to health authorities concerning the use of maggots in larval therapy; what estimate he has made of the level of demand among GPs for maggot treatment for their patients; and if he will make a statement. [134349]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 October 2000,Official Report, columns 84–85W.

  NHS Funding (West Midlands)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much additional capital has been allocated to the West Midlands Region as part of the national bidding process; and how much each NHS trust has obtained through that process for each national priority scheme in the current financial year. [134720]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  245W

  £000

  Authority

  Pathology MF

  Renal MF

  Action on cataracts

  Waiting times

  Additional waiting times

  Dental access centres

  Ambulance response times

  CHD MF

  NHS Direct

  Total

  N. Staffordshire Combined Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  364

  —

  110

  —

  474

  North Staffs Hospitals

  —

  —

  235

  690

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  950

  North Warwickshire Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Premier Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  R. Jones and A. Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  250

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  250

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals

  —

  —

  —

  312

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  316

  S. Warwickshire Combined

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Sandwell Healthcare

  —

  —

  120

  290

  —

  —

  —

  75

  —

  485

  Shropshire Community and Mental Health

  —

  —

  —

  427

  —

  —

  55

  —

  —

  482

  Solihull Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  South Warwickshire General Hospitals

  —

  —

  201

  —

  —

  —

  —

  52

  —

  253

  Southern Birmingham Mental Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  The Dudley Group of Hospitals

  —

  —

  120

  644

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  784

  The Foundation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  The George Eliot Hospital

  —

  —

  207

  307

  40

  —

  —

  87

  —

  641

  The Princess Royal Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  693

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  703

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals

  —

  —

  —

  439

  124

  —

  —

  150

  —

  713

  University Hospital

  —

  —

  400

  1,833

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,233

  Walsall Hospitals

  —

  —

  —

  270

  340

  —

  —

  184

  —

  794

  Walsall Community Health Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Walsgrave Hospitals

  —

  200

  222

  719

  —

  —

  —

  252

  —

  1,393

  Warwickshire Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  —

  —

  27

  West Midlands Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  68

  —

  400

  533

  Wolverhampton Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Worcester Acute Worcestershire Community Healthcare

  —

  635

  —

  180

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  815

  Supported by RO block

  —

  -84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -84

  Awaiting allocation to Trusts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,381

  —

  1,381

  Total

  1,545

  1,151

  2,105

  10,100

  1,309

  1,055

  233

  3,302

  400

  21,200

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the block allocation is for discretionary capital to each NHS trust in the West Midlands in the current financial year. [134719]

  £000

  Trust

  Baseline discretionary block 2000–01

  Non-recurring addition to block 2000–01

  Total discretionary block 2000–01

  Birmingham Heartlands

  5,525

  1,430

  6,955

  Birmingham Women's Health Care

  1,160

  300

  1,460

  Birmingham Specialist Community

  1,795

  470

  2,265

  Black Country MH

  360

  90

  450

  Burton Hospitals

  2,325

  600

  2,925

  Children's Hospital

  1,745

  450

  2,195

  City Hospital

  2,975

  770

  3,745

  Coventry Healthcare

  310

  80

  390

  Dudley Priority Health

  785

  200

  985

  First Community

  260

  70

  330

  Good Hope Hospital

  2,075

  540

  2,615

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service

  460

  120

  580

  Hereford Hospitals

  825

  210

  1,035

  Herefordshire Community Health

  360

  90

  450

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals

  2,425

  630

  3,055

  North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare

  1,525

  400

  1,925

  North Staffs Hospitals

  5,425

  1,410

  6,835

  North Warwickshire Healthcare

  850

  220

  1,070

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health

  760

  200

  960

  Premier Health

  1,210

  310

  1,520

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital

  1,060

  270

  1,330

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital

  460

  120

  580

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals

  1,900

  490

  2,390

  South Warwickshire Combined

  760

  200

  960

  Sandwell Healthcare

  2,525

  650

  3,175

  Shropshire Community and Mental Health

  1,325

  340

  1,665

  Solihull Healthcare

  410

  110

  520

  246W
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  247W

  £000

  Trust

  Baseline discretionary block 2000–01

  Non-recurring addition to block 2000–01

  Total discretionary block 2000–01

  South Warwickshire General Hospitals

  1,625

  420

  2,045

  Southern Birmingham Mental Health

  950

  250

  1,200

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service

  810

  210

  1,020

  The Dudley Group of Hospitals

  3,325

  860

  4,185

  The Foundation

  360

  —

  360

  The George Eliot Hospital

  1,485

  390

  1,875

  The Princess Royal Hospital

  1,410

  370

  1,780

  The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals

  4,025

  1,040

  5,065

  University Hospital

  5,425

  1,410

  6,835

  Walsall Hospitals

  2,625

  680

  3,305

  Walsall Community Health Services

  510

  130

  640

  Walsgrave Hospitals

  5,475

  1,420

  6,895

  Warwickshire Ambulance Service

  310

  80

  390

  West Midlands Ambulance Service

  1,560

  400

  1,960

  Wolverhampton Healthcare

  710

  180

  890

  Worcester Acute

  3,350

  870

  4,220

  Worcestershire Community Healthcare

  1,550

  400

  1,950

  Total

  77,100

  19,880

  96,980

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the minimum and maximum times are for a business case submitted by an NHS trust in(a) the West Midlands Regional Office and (b) England and Wales to receive funding, differentiating between PFI and non-PFI schemes. [134721]

  Mr. Denham
  The timetables for the submission of outline business cases (and initial strategic outline cases for major schemes) are decided on a case by case basis by National Health Service Executive regional offices. If approved to test for funding options (public capital or the private finance initiative) then NHS guidance gives indicative timetables for major and non-major schemes for the preparation and approval of the full business case.

  Children's Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish new guidance for planning children's services. [134402]

  Mr. Hutton
  Draft new guidance on planning services for vulnerable children was issued for consultation in April 2000. The broad thrust of the guidance that planning for vulnerable children should be conducted by the whole Council with Health and other partners was welcomed. We are now working with the Children and Young People's Unit and others to produce non-statutory "good practice" guidance on planning children's services as soon as possible.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to offer NHS employees a stakeholder pension. [134373]

  Mr. Denham
  We expect that National Health Service employers will be exempt from the requirement to provide Stakeholder Pensions. The NHS already has an excellent occupational pension scheme. However, scheme members, earning £30,000 or less, will be eligible to make concurrent contributions to both the NHS pension scheme 248W
  and a stakeholder pension scheme of their choice. We will encourage NHS employers to facilitate this through payroll deductions.

  Drug Users
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of hard-drug users who began by using soft drugs. [134956]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not collected centrally. However, research shows that virtually all young heroin users have used other drugs earlier in their lives. Research also shows that almost all young heroin users have been regular heavy smokers.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the hospitals in England and Wales which have eliminated mixed-sex wards since May 1997; [134952]

  (2) by what date all remaining mixed-sex wards in National Health Service hospitals will be phased out. [134953]

  Mr. Denham
  At the moment, information on which hospitals in England have eliminated mixed sex accommodation is not available, as data are collected on a health authority basis. However, the National Health Service Executive is currently undertaking a monitoring exercise to find out which NHS trusts have achieved our objectives in this area and what remains to be done in those places which have not. The results of the monitoring results will be available in due course.

  Matters for Wales are for the devolved administration.

  Hospitals (Building Costs)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average overall cost is of building(a) a community hospital and b) a general hospital. [134955]
  249W
  Mr. Denham
  Each hospital development is unique, reflecting local requirements and circumstances. We are therefore unable to give an average overall cost. The capital value would be dependent on many factors, such as location, with the land and construction costs varying considerably, with inner London prices at over 25 per cent. higher than in many other parts of the country. Other factors include the geography and nature of the site chosen, and whether it is new build on an existing hospital site, a greenfield site or a major refurbishment project.

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reduction of burdens on other parts of the National Health Service since the introduction of National Health Service Direct. [134958]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct has not been set up to merely reduce demand on other health services. It is about making sure that patients get to the right service at the right time, and giving people re-assuring clinical advice so that they can look after themselves if that is the appropriate thing to do.

  Sheffield University's 2nd independent report on NHS Direct reconfirmed the levels of patient satisfaction and suggested that the introduction of NHS Direct was associated with halting an upward trend in demand for out-of-hours general practice.

  Data from those NHS Direct sites that handle calls on behalf of a general practitioner co-operatives also show that NHS Direct has been able to reduce demand on out-of-hours services. NHS Direct routinely handles 50 per cent. of calls to GP Co-operatives without the need to refer patients to the out-of-hours doctor.

  Feeding Stuffs Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the new feeding stuffs regulations. [134787]

  Ms Stuart
  The Feeding Stuffs Regulations 2000 for England have been made and came into force on 29 October 2000. The Regulations incorporate a number of European Commission Directives covering the labelling of feed materials and feed additives and improved procedures for the authorisation of new additives. The status of additives, such as vitamins and trace elements, used outside of feeding stuffs has not been changed by this legislation. Discussions are currently taking place with the European Commission on the best way to control this long standing practice, which occurs in all member states, without adversely affecting the welfare of farm animals.

  Hospital Services (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implications for hospital services in the county of the projected overspend of Worcestershire County Council's Social Services Department. [134476]
  250W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: Worcestershire Health Authority, Acute Trust and Social Services Department are working hard to address any potential risks to hospital services arising from the social services overspend.

  The acute trust has reported that there are currently fewer patients awaiting discharge than earlier in the year as a result of improved use of community beds and social services support. Health and social services are working together on any residual risk to ensure their winter plans meet demand over the winter. Social services have reinstated a number of care packages for the elderly.

  £1 million was transferred from county council to the adult services budget following committee approval in September, to reduce hospital delayed transfers. Additional winter funding of £550,000 has been allocated to Worcestershire Health Authority, and is also targeted at delayed transfers.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sanctions are available under the prescribing incentive scheme for use against a practice which fails to meet the budget for prescribing set by the Primary Care Group; and what rights of appeal there are against such sanctions. [135729]

  Mr. Denham
  The Statutory arrangements for prescribing incentive schemes make no provision for imposing sanctions.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will set out in respect of each general practitioner practice within the North East Dorset Primary Care Group(a) the prescribing budget, (b) the indicative amount for prescribing under section 18(1) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and (c) the target budget for prescribing calculated in accordance with the prescribing incentive schemes directions 1998 and 2000 for the years (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01; [135707]

  (2) if he will set out in respect of each general practitioner practice within the Christchurch Primary Care Group (a) the prescribing budget, (b) the indicative amount for prescribing under section 18(1) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and (c) the target budget for prescribing calculated in accordance with the prescribing incentive schemes directions 1998 and 2000 for the years (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–00 and (iii) 2000–01; [135705]

  (3) what payments have been made to practices within the Christchurch and North East Dorset primary care groups under prescribing incentive schemes. [135704]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected by the Department. The hon. Member may wish to contact Major General Richard Keightley CB, Chair of Dorset Health Authority for information on this subject.

  Primary Care Investment Plans
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the current primary care investment plans for each primary care group in Dorset. [135708]
  251W
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested will be placed in the Library.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients were registered in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 with each GP practice within the North East Dorset Primary Care Group; and what proportion of patients are of pensionable age in each case; [135726]

  (2) how many patients were registered in (a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 with each GP practice within the Christchurch Primary Care Group; and what proportion of patients are of pensionable age in each case. [135727]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of patients registered with general practitioner practices in Dorset Health Authority in 1998–99 and in Christchurch and North East Dorset Primary Care Groups in 2000 is shown in the table. It is not possible to provide the information on an individual partnership basis or to identify the number of female patients aged 60 to 65.

  Patients of Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents1 aged 65 plus within Dorset HA for 1 October 1998 and 1999 and selected Primary Care Groups at 1 October 1999

  Total

  Aged 65 plus

  1998

  Dorset Health Authority

  707,128

  155,219

  Number of partnerships in Dorset HA

  108

  —

  1999

  Dorset Health Authority

  701,763

  153,540

  Number of partnerships in Dorset HA

  110

  —

  1999—Primary Care Groups

  Christchurch PCG

  50,985

  14,409

  North East Dorset PCG

  64,389

  16,398

  Number of partnerships:

  Christchurch PCG

  8

  —

  North East Dorset PCG

  10

  —

  1UPEs include Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of TB have been recorded in South Shields in each of the last five years. [135276]

  Yvette Cooper
  Data on the number of cases of tuberculosis, notifiable under the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1988, are recorded under local authority area only. The number of notifications for the period 1995 to 1999 for the South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council area are shown in the table.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Tuberculosis—all reports

  14

  24

  15

  15

  11

  Respiratory

  11

  14

  9

  15

  11

  Non-respiratory

  3

  10

  6

  0

  0

  Cancer Research
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the new NHS Cancer Research Network. [135799]

  Yvette Cooper
  A review of cancer research priorities undertaken by the Department in 1999 identified support for the infrastructure for clinical cancer research as the highest priority. We responded to this need in The National Health Service Plan by committing funds for development of a NHS Cancer Research Network (NCRN) across England. By 2003 we will be investing an additional £20 million each year in this new initiative.

  The NCRN will provide a world class infrastructure for the conduct of clinical trials and other well designed research. Its initial aim is to double the total proportion of adult cancer patients entering trials within three years. It will be a managed research network mapping onto the cancer service networks across the country. It will provide dedicated research nurses, data managers, medical staff sessions and information systems needed for high quality clinical research, together with research support for radiology, pathology, pharmacy and radiotherapy. The quality, speed and co-ordination of clinical research will be enhanced and research will be better integrated with cancer care.

  The first step in establishing the NCRN is to commission a Co-ordinating Centre. This process is well advanced and we hope to make an announcement soon.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent developments there have been in his policy on research into prostate cancer; how much money is being spent by his Department on screening and research programmes targeted at prostate cancer; and how such programmes will benefit the people of the West Midlands and Coventry. [135798]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service Plan and the NHS prostate cancer programme outline our policy of a progressive increase in the resources from the Department devoted to prostate cancer. This will result in the expenditure this year of £1.2 million rising to £4.2 million in 2003–04.

  This year we are investing in a study of the most effective treatment of patients who are screening test positive, a new method of diagnosis and treatment of early prostate cancer, a collection of 300 prostate cancer tumour samples as source material for researchers and a study of the current extent of screening in the United Kingdom. The next meeting of the Cancer Research Funders Forum will discuss the creation of centres of excellence for prostate cancer research in which the Department is ready to invest. The Medical Research Council is currently considering a proposal for a trial of prostate cancer screening and we will know the outcome in four to six weeks. The benefits of all this research and any policies that develop from it will be available to everyone in England.

  Resuscitation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what time scale he has set for chief executives of
  253W
  hospitals to implement local resuscitation policies which take account of patients' rights; and if he will make a statement; [135716]

  (2) what guidance he has issued following recommendations from the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Resuscitation Council (UK) concerning patient involvement in resuscitation decisions; and if he will make a statement. [135717]

  Yvette Cooper
  On 5 September, the Department issued a Health Service Circular Resuscitation Policy (HSC2000/28) to National Health Service trust chief executives which makes clear that patients' rights are central to decision-making on resuscitation.

  The circular asks chief executives to ensure that appropriate resuscitation policies—which respects patients' rights—are in place, understood by all relevant staff, accessible to those who need them, and that such policies are subject to appropriate audit and monitoring arrangements.

  As stated in the NHS Plan, hospitals are to have resuscitation policies in place by April 2001.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department since 1999 in reducing sickness absence; what targets he has agreed with the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [135464]

  Ms Stuart
  The Cabinet Office prepares each year an annual report of sickness absence in the Civil Service which includes information for each department. The report for 1999 is currently being finalised and will be published soon.

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

  Tumour Operations
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was at University Hospital, Birmingham for operations to remove a tumour in each of the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [135071]

  Mr. Denham
  Waiting list statistics are not recorded by specific clinical condition, rather by specialty. It is therefore not feasible to produce statistics for operations to remove tumours. Depending on the nature of the tumour (malignant/benign), the location of the tumour and the size of the tumour, the clinical priority on the waiting list for that patient can be different, with urgent cases treated before non-urgent.

  Generally, the trust is well on target to achieve its end of year in-patient waiting list position.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent contacts his Department has had with University Hospital, Birmingham, over the waiting list for operations for the removal of a tumour; and if he will make a statement. [135070]
  254W
  Mr. Denham
  The West Midlands Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive holds regular review meetings with all acute trusts, including University Hospital Birmingham, where general waiting lists are discussed. The Trust is well on target to achieve its end of year in-patient waiting list position.

  We are committed through the NHS Plan to cutting the maximum waiting time for in-patient treatment from 18 months now to six months by 2005. Latest figures show that around 70 per cent. of in-patients are seen within three months of going on a waiting list.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the ways in which patient groups can play a greater role in explaining the benefits of animal experiments; [134178]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 July 2000, Official Report, column 683W, on labelling, what plans he has to introduce a system of labelling of medicines to indicate they have been tested on animals; and if he will make a statement. [131976]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 October 2000]: My noble Friend, The Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, explained to my hon. Friend on 25 July that we fully support the need to raise public awareness of the benefits of animal testing. The Medical Research Council has recently published a booklet, "Mice and Medicine", on animal experiments and medical advances, copies of which are available in the Library. The joint industry/Government Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force is also considering the wider issue as part of its work on animal research. We also will be examining what enhanced role patient groups can play in raising public awareness in this area.

  In view of these developments, and for reasons explained in the answers given on 8 March 2000, Official Report, column 760W, 5 April 2000, Official Report, column 509W and 3 May 2000, Official Report, column 170W, we have no plans to introduce a labelling system for medicines to indicate they have been tested on animals. Such a system would require an amendment to European law and, even if permitted, there will not be the space on most labels to explain the necessity for animal testing in the interests of protection of public health.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Government Actuary Report
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department asked the Government Actuary for a report on linking benefits to earnings. [135267]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received the Government Actuary's report under section 36 of the Child Support and Social Security Act; when he intends to lay it before Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [135450]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government Actuary is finalising his report under section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. It will be published when it is completed.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have contacted the minimum income guarantee helpline since the new advertising campaign began; how many application forms have been sent out to people who have telephoned the helpline; how many application forms have been returned; how many people have had their minimum income guarantee payments increased after returning a completed application form; how many people are in receipt of minimum income guarantee for the first time as a result of returning a completed application form; and if, pursuant to his written answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), of 14 June 2000,Official Report, column 654W, he will provide this information broken down into five year age bands. [134779]

  Mr. Bayley
  Around 60,000 claim forms have been returned. Around half of the claim forms that have already been processed have been successful and these claimants are now receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of pensioners in Wales who could be entitled to receive the Minimum Income Guarantee have not made a claim; [135152]

  (2) how many pensioners in Wales who could be entitled to receive the Minimum Income Guarantee have not made a claim. [135151]

  Mr. Bayley
  We estimate that about 500,000 pensioners could be missing out on their entitlement within Great Britain. Because of the method a separate figure is not available for Wales.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee have savings below £3,000 which are currently disregarded. [134556]

  Mr. Bayley
  Currently, 1.46 million pensioners in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee have declared they hold capital below £3,000. From next April, the lower capital limit will be increased to £6,000. That will benefit some 70,000 pensioners who will not have any of their savings taken into account.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, for pensioners in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee, the rate of interest assumed on savings of £3,000 to £8,000 in £1,000 bands, incorporating the effect of disregarding the first £3,000 of savings. [134555]

  Mr. Bayley
  The basis for the Department's calculation of tariff income in the income-related benefits, with a system of graduated deductions between lower and higher limits, was established with the introduction of Income Support in 1988. It was not intended to represent any return that could be obtained from investing capital and hence is not based on any particular rate of return. A tariff income of £1 per week is assumed for each £250, or part thereof, held between the appropriate lower and upper limits1.
  1 £3,000 and £8,000 in Income Support, Minimum Income Guarantee and income based Jobseeker's Allowance; except in residential care home and nursing home cases where the limits are
  256W
  £10,000 and £16,000; and Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit where the limits are £3,000 and £16,000. From next April, these limits will be increased to £6,000 and £12.000.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he plans to carry out of(a) the performance of local authorities in the administration of Housing Benefit and (b) the commitments in each authority's Best Value performance plan. [134578]

  Angela Eagle
  We are determined to drive up the standards of Housing Benefit administration and have introduced a number of initiatives, like Best Value and the Verification Framework, which are designed to promote improved performance. We have a number of measures in place to monitor closely the progress authorities are making towards better service delivery.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate has an ongoing programme of inspection of Housing Benefit administration and reports on the performance of each of the local authorities it inspects. As at 27 October 2000, and since its inception in 1998, the Inspectorate has completed and published reports of 72 inspections. A further 47 inspections are in progress or planned.

  With the introduction of Best Value, from April this year, the Inspectorate will also carry out inspections which will consider whether local authorities are complying with the requirements of the Best Value framework. In addition, a number of Best Value performance indicators relating to Housing Benefit have been introduced. These will allow us to assess how well authorities are carrying out their benefit administration and whether they are delivering the continuous improvement which Best Value requires.

  Best Value also requires each local authority to publish an annual performance plan in which they must set themselves realistic, but challenging, targets for improvement. Auditors review whether the plans have been prepared and published in accordance with the statutory guidance and whether the systems in place are adequate for producing accurate information. Where they are concerned about a performance plan, the auditors can recommend that a Best Value inspection is undertaken.

  Further measures will be kept under review.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the deductibles affecting a person's entitlement to Housing Benefit. [134650]

  Angela Eagle
  There are a number of safeguards in place to prevent Housing Benefit from meeting the full contactual rent where it is excessive or includes charges for services that do not relate to the provision of adequate accommodation. In addition Housing Benefit is an income-related benefit, and entitlement therefore takes account of other income available to those claiming it. The principal restrictions on Housing Benefit entitlement are:Ineligible service charges:
  These are any element of rent or compulsory charges, included in the rent, for services that do not relate to the provision of adequate accommodation. They are listed in schedule 1 to the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (as amended).
  257W Rent restrictions:
  Claims received from those in the private rented sector will generally be referred to the local Rent Officer by the local authority for a rental valuation to determine the Housing Benefit claim. The functions to be carried out by the Rent Officer in making and notifying his determination to the local authority are set out in the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997 as amended by the Rent Officer (Housing Benefit Functions) (amendment) Order 2000.Other deductions:
  Excess income: Where a person's income is higher than the applicable amount, benefit is reduced by a fixed taper of 65 pence for every pound of additional income over the applicable amount.
  Non-Dependant deduction: Deductions in respect of non-dependant members of a tenant's household are made at nationally set standard rates, depending on their age, circumstances and income.
  Overpayment deduction: An overpayment of Housing Benefit may be recovered from benefit at a standard rate laid down in legislation.

  Pension-sharing
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate the Government have made of the likely number of pension-sharing orders that will be made(a) in the financial year 2000–01 and (b) the following financial year. [134645]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pension-sharing will provide a fair option for divorcing couples who wish to share their pension rights. However, it is up to the courts and divorcing couples to decide what use they make of this option.

  The number of pension-sharing orders in the current financial year is likely to be negligible. Best estimates for the year 2001–02 are that about 20,000 pension-sharing orders may have been made by the end of that financial year, but this will depend on judicial decisions.
  Notes:

  1. Pension-sharing is available from 1 December. By the end of the financial year 2000–01, it will therefore only have been in place for four months.

  2. The estimate for the year 2001–02 is based on figures contained in Regulatory Impact Assessment for pension-sharing reproduced as part of the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, DSS, 1999.

  3. The original estimate in the Regulatory Impact Assessment has been updated using the latest estimate for divorces in the UK derived from the ONS Statistics (1998) for England and Wales and from the Annual Report of the Registrar (1998) for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Pensions Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on (1) measures for increased co-operation in pensions matters at EU level in the context of Com (2000) 622 which it is his policy to Support; [134801]

  (2) the implications of Com (2000) 622 for UK pensions policy. [134802]

  Mr. Rooker
  We welcome the steps the Commission is taking to encourage co-operative exchange on the sustainability of pension systems. We will take this opportunity to underline the major advantages of the UK pensions model and of our approach to pension reform.

  Pension Credit
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the consultation document on pensioners' credit. [135062]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Pension Credit consultation paper will be published in the next few weeks.

  Private Sector Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of private sector organisations had some form of pension provision in each year since 1990 on the same basis as Table 2.5 of Department of Social Security Research report No. 123. [135266]

  Mr. Rooker
  I regret the information is not available as it was not collected prior to 1996.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action the Financial Services Authority is taking against personal pension schemes that have been labelled stakeholder-friendly that do not conform with the requirements of the scheme. [134647]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Financial Services Authority continues to monitor "stakeholder friendly" advertisements and reviews the selling of personal pensions as part of its ongoing supervision of firms. Clearly it is not right for consumers to be misled into thinking that a personal pension meets all the prospective stakeholder standards if it does not.

  Providers should satisfy themselves that they are acting in compliance with the guidance on the selling of personal pensions issued in October of last year by the Financial Services Authority.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate the Government have made of the likely share of the pension market that will be taken by stakeholder pensions. [134559]

  Mr. Rooker
  What share of the pensions market that will be taken by stakeholder pensions will depend on the marketing of stakeholder pensions by providers and on individual choices by savers.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority will be responsible for checking that the administration of stakeholder pensions meets the conditions laid down in the relevant regulations. [134528]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Authority currently has a small team working full-time on the registration of stakeholder pension schemes and developing regulatory procedures, together with a number of staff who work partly on the stakeholder pensions project alongside other duties. The Authority has not yet determined how many staff will be employed on stakeholder pensions once schemes begin operating. That will depend on the total number of schemes which are registered, the number of reported breaches, and the approach the Authority decides to take in fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities.
  259W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what checks will be made to ensure the stakeholder pension schemes keep to the 1 per cent. administration charge limit; and how frequently these checks will be made. [134529]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Stakeholder Pension Scheme Regulations 2000 (SI 1403) require the trustees or managers of schemes to make a written statement at least once a year, describing the scheme's compliance with the regulations which impose limits on the amount of charges and the manner in which charges may be made. Schemes must also appoint a reporting accountant and obtain the reporting accountant's opinion on the statement. We are in discussions with representatives of the accountancy profession on the form of the reporting accountant's opinion.

  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (Opra) will be responsible for regulating compliance with the conditions for registration as a stakeholder scheme, including the charge limit. The annual compliance statement and reporting accountant's opinion will be available to Opra. Opra will be developing its approach to the regulation of stakeholder schemes in the light of experience, taking into account the overall number of registered stakeholder schemes.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many stakeholder schemes have been registered to date; and on what date each registration took place. [134550]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at 26 October, five stakeholder pension schemes have been registered. Four schemes were placed on the register on 18 October and a further scheme was registered on 20 October.

  The registered schemes, in alphabetical order, are—The Barclays Stakeholder Pension Scheme, Britannic Stakeholder Pension Scheme, Natwest Life Stakeholder Pension Plan, Norwich Union Stakeholder Pension Scheme, and Royal and Sun Alliance Life and Pensions Limited Stakeholder Pension Scheme.

  Details of the stakeholder pension schemes register are available on the Opra website at www.stakeholder.opra.gov.uk.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the stakeholder helpline will begin operation; and what targets the Government will use to determine the success of the helpline. [134547]

  Mr. Rooker
  The stakeholder pensions telephone helpline will begin operation on 2 November. The service will provide impartial information for people who want to know more about stakeholder pensions. Service standards for answering calls have been agreed with the Pensions Advisory Service who will operate the helpline. Evaluation of the quality of the service is expected to include mystery shopping and customer call backs.

  Petrol (Pensioners)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of increases in petrol prices on the living standards of pensioners. [134417]
  260W
  Mr. Rooker
  In 1998–99, 'pensioner households' spent an average of £5.70 a week on petrol, diesel and other motor oils. This represented around 3 per cent. of their disposable income on average. In comparison households where the head was aged under 65 spent an average of £15.50 a week (4 per cent. of disposable income). Therefore the effect of increases in petrol prices would be smaller for pensioners than non-pensioners.

  Given that expenditure on petrol, diesel and motor oils represents a small proportion of disposable income for pensioner households, the effect of price increases on living standards would be even smaller.
  Notes:

  1. Pensioner households are defined as those where the head is aged 65 years or over.

  2. No account is taken of changes in behaviour such as people responding to higher prices by buying smaller amounts.

  3. All money amounts are in 1998–99 prices. Expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest £0.10p; increases in expenditure are rounded to the nearest £0.01p.

  Source:
  Family Expenditure Survey 1998£99.

  Benefits (Publications)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the(a) application forms for benefits, (b) information leaflets about benefits and (c) other publications that are issued for the public by the Benefits Agency. [134554]

  Angela Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents who have found work through the New Deal for Lone Parents have a youngest child aged(a) 14 years and above, (b) 15 years and above and (c) 16 years and above. [134658]

  Angela Eagle
  By the end of July 2000, 63,801 lone parents had found work through the New Deal for Lone Parents. Analysis of this data by the age of the youngest child is not available.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment the Government have made of the proportion of lone parents who have found work under the New Deal for Lone Parents who return to income support within(a) one month, (b) six months and (c) one year. [134656]

  Angela Eagle
  By the end of July 2000, 63,801 lone parents had found work through the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP). The number of lone parents returning to Income Support will form part of the evaluation of NDLP which is currently underway and which will report in 2002.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents work for fewer than 16 hours a week; and how many he estimates will do so after the introduction of the £20 disregard on earnings. [134657]
  261W
  Angela Eagle
  In May 2000, there was 61,000 lone parents on Income Support and 1,600 on income-based Jobseeker's Allowance working fewer than 16 hours a week1.

  The introduction of the £20 disregard on earnings is likely to encourage more lone parents to take-up part-time work. However, it is not possible to quantify such effects.
  1Source: Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2000
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents are on Income Support, broken down into those with a youngest child(a) below secondary school age and (b) of secondary school age. [134587]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table:

  The number of lone parents in Great Britain receiving Income Support shown by age of youngest child

  Thousand

  Number of claimants

  Below secondary school age (under 11)

  751.1

  Secondary school age (over 11)

  159.0

  All cases

  910.10

  Notes:

  1. Lone Parents are defined as single claimants with dependants who are not receiving the disability or pensioner premium.

  2. Below secondary school age is defined as under 11 years, and secondary school age is defined as over 11 years and over.

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

  4. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2000

  Benefits Expenditure
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state the proportion of total benefit expenditure composed of(a) contributory benefits, (b) means-tested benefits and (c) other benefits, in each of the last five years. [134752]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table:

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

  Percentage

  Contributory

  Benefit Means-tested

  Others

  1995–96

  46

  36

  18

  1996–97

  46

  35

  19

  1997–98

  46

  34

  20

  1998–99

  47

  33

  20

  1999–2000

  47

  31

  22

  Notes:

  1. The principal contributory benefits are Retirement Pension, Widow's benefit, Jobseeker's Allowance, Statutory Sick Pay, Incapacity benefit, Maternity Allowance, Statutory Maternity Pay.

  2. The principal means-tested benefits are Income Support, Income-Based Jobseeker's Allowance, Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  3. The Housing and Council Tax Benefits include all local authority spending in addition to the money funded directly from central Government.

  Source:

  Departmental report 2000, Spending Review 2000.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to conclude his consideration as to whether the maximum payment in respect of gross inconvenience in CSA cases should be increased from its present figure; and if he will make a statement. [134353]

  Angela Eagle
  The Child Support Agency, in accordance with the Department's policy on compensation, makes consolatory payments for gross inconvenience. Each case is assessed on its individual merits. The Agency may make consolatory awards for gross inconvenience up to £250. Higher awards may be made, where appropriate, with the authority of the Department. The level of awards is under regular review.

  Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on how the new anti-fraud incentive framework for local authorities, due to be introduced in April 2001, will work; and if he will place in the Library copies of the material on the framework that have been sent to local authorities. [134577]

  Angela Eagle
  A consultation document setting out the details of the proposed new anti-fraud incentive scheme was issued to Local Authority Associations (LAAs) on 4 August 2000. Local authorities had until 15 September 2000 to respond. We are currently considering the responses from the LAAs and will inform them of the outcome shortly.

  I have arranged for a copy of the consultation document to be placed in the Library.

  Pensions and Earnings Link
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ask the Government Actuary to report on(a) the cost of restoring the link between the basic pension and average earnings, for each year up to and including 2005–06, taking into account the actual increase proposed for April 2001, (b) the effect on the balance of the National Insurance Fund at the end of each of those years and (c) what increases in national insurance contributions would be required. [134436]

  Mr. Rooker
  The report will be prepared in the terms of section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes the Government intend to make to policy with regard to the(a) payment and (b) review of Disability Living Allowance arising from the periodic inquiries set up in June 1999; and if he will make a statement. [134570]

  Mr. Bayley
  Periodic inquiry was introduced in June 1999 as part of our response to Reports of the Social Security Select Committee into Disability Living Allowance, which recommended the introduction of afairer, more sensitive method of reviewing entitlement.
  263W
  The inquiry process does not affect the way the benefit is paid; neither has it led to any policy changes to remove entitlement from any group of people with a specific impairment.

  People having their awards considered by periodic inquiry are always informed in advance, and procedures have been developed in regular discussion with groups of those representing disabled people.

  To the end of September, 23,888 people have had their benefit entitlement checked through periodic inquiry. Of these, 17,853 awards have remained unchanged, 4,426 have had awards increased and 1,609 have had their awards removed or reduced.

  As agreed with the Social Security Select Committee, we published an evaluation report of the first six months of the periodic inquiry in August 2000 and a copy is available in the Library. An annual evaluation report is currently being prepared and we intend publishing it before the end of the year.

  Poverty
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the percentage of the United Kingdom population living in poverty; what measures he used in making this calculation; and what measures the Government(a) are implementing and (b) plan to introduce to reduce the numbers living in poverty. [135815]

  Mr. Bayley
  Poverty and social exclusion are multi-faceted problems. Therefore we do not use a single definition of poverty but instead use a range of indicators to monitor the progress of our strategy. Information relating to the indicators can be found in the second Government "Opportunity for all" report on tackling poverty and social exclusion "One year on: making a difference" (Cm 4865). The report also describes and monitors the impact of policies we have already introduced, and sets out our plans for the future.

  Multiple Deprivation Index
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department uses the index of multiple deprivation in the allocation of funds. [134562]

  Angela Eagle
  Social Security benefit expenditure is demand led apart from the cash limited budget of the discretionary Social Fund, which is allocated to Benefits Agency District Offices. However, the index of multiple deprivation is not used for this purpose.

TREASURY

  Income Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1011W, on income tax, if he will estimate the level of personal income tax allowance if the 10 pence band was abolished at a cost of (a) £2.6 billion, (b) £3 billion and (c) £3.5 billion in a full year; and if he will make a statement. [134237]
  264W
  Dawn Primarolo
  If the 10p band was abolished in 2000–01 and income tax personal allowances were increased, by the following amounts, then the revenue effects in a full-year are shown in the table:

  Abolish the 10p rate and increase income tax personal allowances by:

  Revenue effect (£ billion)

  £1,520

  -4.6

  £1,340

  -3.5

  £1,260

  -3.0

  £1,190

  -2.6

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

  The revenue effects provided have not taken account of any consequential effects on the level of National Insurance contributions. All the figures shown are the estimated direct effects of tax changes on tax revenues. In practice, tax changes will themselves effect economic variables, which in turn will have further effects on tax revenues.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 4 September on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Weston. [135787]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 26 October.

  Oil Revenues
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate (1) of the revenues from oil production in the UK assuming the current oil price continues unchanged until the end of the financial year; [135085]

  (2) of the total extra revenue coming to the Government additional to the Budget forecast as a result of higher oil prices, assuming present prices continue unchanged until the end of the financial year. [135087]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Updated revenue forecasts will be published in the Pre-Budget Report on 8 November.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had since July with pensioners' representatives about the impact of fuel prices on the living standards of elderly people. [134653]

  Mr. Timms
  All Treasury Ministers meet with a variety of organisations and interest groups to discuss a wide range of issues. The Government are giving particular help to pensioners this winter by increasing the winter fuel payment from £100 to £150.

  Gaming Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue from the taxation of gaming in each of the last three years. [134826]
  265W
  Mr. Timms
  Information on the revenue from the taxation of gaming can be found in the HM Customs and Excise statistical bulletin "Receipts for Betting, Gaming and Lottery Duties", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Red Diesel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the duty on red diesel. [134654]

  Mr. Timms
  I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to create a central services organisation for credit unions, following the November 1999 report of the Treasury Credit Unions Taskforce. [135821]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government strongly support the establishment of a central services organisation, as recommended by the taskforce.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many credit unions are currently operating in(a) Coventry and (b) the United Kingdom; and what links the Treasury has with them and their representative body. [135819]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are seven credit unions in Coventry, and 688 in Great Britain. I am pleased to be attending the launch event for Coventry Millennium and Phoenix Five credit unions on 14 November. The Treasury has regular contacts with the representative bodies.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to(a) extend the ability of credit unions to borrow and (b) amend the legislation controlling them; and what assessment he has made of how such plans will affect credit unions in Coventry. [135820]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government will extend credit unions' ability to borrow and enhance their supervision following the implementation of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This will improve the growth potential of all credit unions, by giving their members greater confidence about the safety of their savings and allowing them to play a bigger role in tackling the problems of financial exclusion.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average income and wealth are of(a) an urban dweller and (b) a rural dweller. [134497]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 30 October 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on average income and wealth in urban and rural dwellers.
  266W
  Information on income is available from the 1998–99 Family Expenditure Survey which categorises local authority districts by population density. Estimated average income was £458 a week in metropolitan districts and high and medium density non-metropolitan districts, and £454 a week in low density districts. Low density is defined as under 2.2 persons per hectare. About a quarter of households in the UK are in such districts, which include some small towns and their surrounding areas.
  Like all estimates from sample surveys, these are subject to sampling variability. The difference between them is well within the range to be expected from chance variation.
  Information is not available on wealth.

  Euro
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment his Department has made of(a) public support for and (b) public opposition to replacing the pound with the single European currency. [135023]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  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.

  Pension Schemes
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average extra annual payment which a subscriber to a pension scheme must pay to achieve the same return as would have occurred if the tax credit on dividends had not been abolished. [134967]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Our package of corporation tax reforms included not only the withdrawal of payable tax credits on dividends but also cuts in corporation tax rates. These and other measures will help to improve investment performance. The overall effect of these changes on pension schemes will vary depending upon factors such as the type of scheme and the investment policy adopted. So it is not possible to provide a general estimate of the effect on pension schemes' ability to meet specific investment targets.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if data on the number of people in employment are available by Employment Service area. [134736]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Frank Field, dated 30 October 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the availability of employment statistics by Employment Service area.
  The Annual Employment Survey, which is the current source of data on numbers of employee jobs, is no longer analysed by Employment Service Area. The geography was discontinued several years ago. The latest information for the available geographies (e.g. Local Authority districts) is for September 1998 and may be accessed from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were unemployed in the Taunton constituency in each year since 1979 according to the International Labour Organisation definition. [134319]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Jackie Ballard, dated 30 October 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of people unemployed in the Taunton constituency in each year since 1979 according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition.
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the main source of labour market data on individuals used by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). However, estimates for the number of people ILO unemployed are not available for small areas such as the constituency of Taunton.
  The measure of unemployment derived from the LFS is defined on a consistent and Internationally recognised basis set out by the ILO. It counts as unemployed people who are a) without a paid job, b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. This measure has been used in the LFS from 1984 onwards.
  ONS also publishes the monthly numbers of people who are claiming unemployment-related benefits, also known as the Claimant Count. Comparable figures (based on the 1995 boundaries) are available since 1996. The attached table gives the annual average levels of claimants in the Taunton parliamentary constituency since 1996.
  Information on the unadjusted claimant level by parliamentary constituency ward based on the 1981 wards are available monthly from June 1983 to January 1996 and can be obtained from the Nomis database in the House of Commons Library.

  The annual average levels of claimants in the Taunton parliamentary constituency

  Year

  Number

  Rate

  1996

  2,975

  5.2

  1997

  2,195

  3.9

  1998

  1,722

  3.0

  1999

  1,503

  2.5

  Average for the nine months Jan to Sep 2000 is 1,184 (2.0 per cent.).

  European Movement
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is allocated to the European Movement in the Draft EU Budget for 2000. [134126]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My hon. Friend will find this information in the Draft EC Budget and Adopted EC Budget for 2000, copies of which have been deposited in the Library.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent European Central Bank intervention in the currency markets. [135379]
  268W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  After the September 23 meeting in Prague of the G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors the following statement was released:At the initiative of the European Central Bank, the monetary authorities of the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom and Canada joined with the European Central Bank on Friday, September 22, in concerted intervention in exchange markets, because of the shared concern of Finance Ministers and Governors about the potential implications of recent movements in the euro for the world economy. In light of recent developments, we will continue to monitor developments closely and to co-operate in exchange markets as appropriate.

DEFENCE

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in establishing the Defence Logistics Organisation. [132984]

  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in establishing the Defence Logistics Organisation. [133018]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since my last reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 17 April 2000,Official Report, column 365W the Defence Logistics Organisation has made further progress to improve logistics support to our armed forces. Over the past six months, the DLO has successfully provided uninterrupted support to operations in Kosovo, East Timor, Mozambique and Sierra Leone while creating the new joint organisation. The DLO has also launched a number of major business initiatives designed to release resources for reinvestment in front line capability, and to achieve the strategic goal to reduce the DLO's output costs by 20 per cent. by 2005.

  Army Regiments
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many regular army regiments were(a) abolished and (b) amalgamated as a result of (i) "Options for Change" and (ii) the Strategic Defence Review. [132988]

  Mr. Hoon
  As the result of "Options for Change" a total of 12 regular army regiments were disbanded and 26 were amalgamated. No regular army regiments were disbanded or amalgamated as a result of the Strategic Defence Review; indeed two engineer regiments, disbanded following "Options for Change", were reformed.

  Army Operations
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what percentage of the Army is committed to, preparing for, or recovering from operations. [133000]

  Mr. Spellar
  Some 22 per cent. of the trained Army is committed to Operations. This figure includes units preparing for, deployed on and recovering from operations. Of these, 15 per cent. of the trained Army is currently deployed on operations.

  There has been a significant reduction in commitment levels over the past year, particularly since the height of the Kosovo campaign in July 1999 when the commitment

  269W
  level reached a peak of 44 per cent. The current level of commitment is below that inherited from the previous Administration.

  Average unit tour intervals in the Army have also decreased over recent years and while in some specialist areas tour intervals remain at around 12 months, our latest assessment of the average time between unit tours across the Army for this year is around 30 months, the best figure for at least five years.

  Apache Attack Helicopter
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Apache attack helicopter will enter into service. [133003]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Apache attack helicopter is on schedule to enter service in December this year, when the ninth aircraft is delivered. This date has not altered from when the Apache prime contract was placed in 1996 and its achievement will be a significant milestone on the road to the Army achieving the operational availability of the first squadron of Apaches in late 2002.

  C-17 Transport Aircraft
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the in-service date is for the first of the RAF's new C-17 transport aircraft. [133007]

  Mr. Hoon
  On 2 September, we signed a contract for the lease of four C-17 aircraft for a period of seven years. On current plans, the aircraft should be available and working-up from next summer onwards to be ready to support the Joint Rapid Reaction Force by the end of the year. The In Service Date is December 2001.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to improve the condition of married quarters for service personnel. [133008]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence is giving priority to ensuring that Service families are accommodated in good quality, modern houses, not only for the present well being of the families but also as encouragement to retention and recruiting. Through the Defence Housing Executive, the Department has a full programme of refurbishment and rebuilding in place to improve the condition of its core housing stock over the next five years.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total value is of the contracts awarded to date for the design of the future generation of aircraft carriers. [133009]

  Mr. Hoon
  Two contracts, each potentially worth up to £30 million, for work to investigate options for the design of the future aircraft carrier have been awarded to BAE Systems and Thomson-CSF Naval Systems.

  In addition a number of parallel contracts, worth up to a further £3 million, have been placed with DERA and the US Authorities for a variety of support tasks.

  Fitness Levels
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment to discuss the possibility of creating a new deal option to help young unemployed people attain fitness levels required for employment in the armed forces. [133011]

  Mr. Spellar
  The armed forces already contribute to the New Deal scheme and to the personal development of young people. The Services work closely with New Deal personal advisers and the further education colleges, to identify what self-development is required to make young people more confident and self-reliant. The armed forces provide "Taster Days" for those young unemployed people wanting to learn more about service life.

  Each Service also runs personal development courses for young people:

  For the naval service, a typical course includes; fire fighting, boatwork, an assault course, physical recreation, as well as careers presentations and an opportunity to sit the Recruit Test. For 2000–01, the aim is to run 50 of these five-day courses for 750 students.
  The Army runs a "Pathfinder" programme, which includes personal development courses, work experience arrangements and "Look at Life" visits. The "Look at Life" visits enable young people to spend up to two weeks at an Army unit to experience at first hand the realities of Army life, and they include an element of physical fitness training. In the past year, over 100,000 young people have taken part in this programme.
  The RAF, in association with Newham College of Further Education, has recently set up personal development courses as part of its ethnic minority recruiting effort. Students visit Service establishments, and undertake some adventure training.

  In addition, the armed forces launched the "Skill Force" youth initiative on 5 September, as a contribution to the Government's efforts to deal with social exclusion. The services have deployed two teams of trained instructors into a total of six schools in the Newcastle and Norfolk areas, where the initiative is being piloted. The instructors are delivering key skills training to children who have been disapplied from part of the national curriculum and who are in danger of disaffection. There is an element of physical training involved with Skill Force. Although this is not a recruiting initiative, Skill Force will make the 15–16 year old participants fitter than they otherwise would be, and improve their chances of passing basic training if they do decide to join the armed forces.

  Discussions are now being held between departments to determine other ways in which the armed forces can help to deliver the Government's policies on social exclusion.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by each of the three armed services in meeting their targets for recruitment among Britain's ethnic minorities. [133013]

  Mr. Spellar
  The ethnic minority recruiting goal for 2000–01 is 4 per cent. For the period from 1 April to 1 September this year, 2.2 per cent. of the armed forces intake from the British labour market came from the British ethnic minority communities. Although short of the 4 per cent. goal, the figure represents an improvement on achievement levels for the corresponding period for
  271W
  the last financial year, which stood at about 1.8 per cent. If this improvement continues for the rest of the financial year, it would indicate that ethnic minority recruitment into the armed forces is moving in the right direction.

  Ethnic minority recruiting levels broken down for each Service for the period are:

  Naval Service—0.8 per cent.

  Army—2.8 per cent.

  RAF—1.9 per cent.

  Single Living Accommodation
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to improve armed forces single living accommodation. [133014]

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to improve armed forces single living accommodation. [133022]

  Mr. Spellar
  Improving the retention of armed forces personnel is a high priority for the Department. Poor single living accommodation has been identified as a cause of dissatisfaction among Service personnel; improving accommodation could, therefore, have a positive impact in helping to address retention problems.

  Action is being taken, however, to improve single living accommodation. By 2005 over 12,000 bedspaces will have either been built or refurbished.

  Eurocorps
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the United Kingdom to participate in the Eurocorps. [133015]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no plans for UK forces to form a permanent part of the Eurocorps. The UK provides a liaison officer to Headquarters Eurocorps. Additionally, during its successful deployment to Kosovo, where it formed the kernel of the Headquarters commanding the force of around 45,000 troops deployed in KFOR III, the UK provided 62 augmentees to HQ Eurocorps, as did other KFOR nations who are not contributing members of the Eurocorps.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the strength of the Territorial Army. [133016]

  Mr. Spellar
  The latest available official figures give the strength of the Territorial Army as 40,667.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the 100 financially most significant efficiency savings measures for the financial year 1999–2000, with a brief explanation of each measure. [133017]

  Mr. Hoon
  Information held centrally on the financially significant efficiency measures for financial year 1999–2000 has been provided to the House of Commons Defence Committee and is therefore covered by Parliamentary privilege. I have written to the hon.272W
  Member separately to provide what information I can, and a copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  UN Deployments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has made to the UN about improving its defence capability in cases where UN deployments(a) involve and (b) do not involve British troops. [133019]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK worked closely with the UN Secretary-General's expert panel during the preparation of the recently published Brahimi Report on reforming UN Peace Operations. Key proposals in the Report aimed at strengthening the UN's defence capability include enhancing early warning mechanisms and information analysis; creating integrated teams for the planning and execution of peacekeeping missions; and improving deployment times and the training and equipping of troops. The Report recommends many of the reforms for which we have argued for some years. They will be of vital importance for all UN deployments including those involving British troops. We are pressing the UN for their speedy implementation.

  Precision-guided Bombing Capability
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to improve the RAF's precision-guided bombing capability. [133020]

  Mr. Spellar
  The intention to procure an interim precision guided bombing capability for the Royal Air Force as quickly as possible was announced on 24 July. Since then, we have selected Raytheon Systems Corporation to supply the RAF with Enhanced Paveway bombs, subject to the successful completion of contractual negotiations. These bombs will make use of Global Positioning System technology to strike targets accurately in all weather conditions and are expected to be in service with RAF Tornado GR4 aircraft by October next year. This capability will be supplemented by an additional all weather precision guided bombing system that we are currently planning to introduce in 2006.

  Tropical Diseases
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that rapid reaction forces are adequately protected against the common tropical diseases before they leave the UK. [133023]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is the Ministry of Defence's policy that all service personnel should be up to date with routine vaccinations and that members of the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces should be up to date with certain additional vaccinations, depending on their degree of readiness. Personnel deploying to high risk areas should receive further vaccinations specific to the risks they face. Other aspects of medical preparedness will depend on the role of the deploying forces and the geographical location to which they are deploying. The role of commanding officers in maintaining medical and other aspects of preparedness of their personnel for military operations has recently been emphasised through the chain of command.

  Personnel
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed services personnel there were on 1 May 1997; what the current numbers are; and if he will make a statement. [132989]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 1 May 1997 the trained strength of the armed forces was 196,857 although there were plans in hand at that time to reduce the trained requirement.

  Since then the trained requirement of the Naval service and the RAF has been reduced by about 7,800, reflected in the reduction in trained strength. The Army requirement increased by some 3,000 as a result of SDR.

  On 1 September 2000, the trained strength of the armed forces was 189,470.

  We aim to reach broad manning balance in the Naval service in Financial Year 2002–03 and in the Army in Financial Year 2004–05. The RAF is in broad manning balance but this masks surpluses and, more importantly, deficits in a number of branches and trades, e.g. shortfall of fast jet pilots, navigators, engineering and medical officers.

  Procurement
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve the effectiveness of the equipment supplied to the armed forces. [133021]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is vital that our Armed Forces are properly equipped and we are determined to ensure that the right equipment is available at the right time. We have in hand a large equipment programme to radically improve the equipment of the Armed Forces. For example, the new Type 45 destroyer will carry the world-class Principal Anti-Air Missile System; Challenger 2, which is currently being brought into service, will be the best-protected main battle tank on the modern battlefield; and the Meteor missile will allow Eurofighter to engage multiple and manoeuvring targets simultaneously, at greater range than before, in all weathers, day or night, and with a greater level of survivability.

  Since taking office we have radically improved the Ministry of Defence's procurement processes. We have transformed the former Defence Procurement Executive into the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA), and created the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO). The DLO has provided the opportunity to take a new, joint approach to the delivery of logistics support to the Armed Forces. Within the DPA and the DLO we have completed the roll out of 138 Integrated Project Teams (IPTs), to manage specific equipment projects through their procurement and in-service lives, continually searching for ways to improve its operational effectiveness and its efficiency. And within the Ministry of Defence Central Staff we have established an accountable customer who provides, for the first time, a single focus responsible for taking forward planning decisions based on capability need.

  We have introduced a whole life approach to equipment acquisition focused on long-term operational effectiveness and cost, and streamlined our management structures and processes. Incremental acquisition is used where appropriate to keep up with rapidly emerging technologies and reduce risk. We are also investing more, and earlier,
  274W
  to reduce procurement risk. With industry's close involvement, this should result in better project definition (and cost estimating).

  Measures to sustain and maintain the Smart Procurement initiative are being taken forward under the title 'Smart Acquisition', recognising the through-life nature of the business.

  Posthumous Awards
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce a provision for the automatic award of a posthumous medal for British soldiers killed in action; and if he will make a statement. [133010]

  Mr. Hoon
  It has been a long-standing practice in this country that those killed while on campaign or operational service automatically qualify for the relevant campaign medal, which is presented to their next of kin. In this way, the deaths of many of those members of our armed forces who are killed in action are already recognised by the award of a medal.

  The institution of new medals is approved by Her Majesty The Queen, based on the advice submitted to Her by the interdepartmental Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. There are currently no plans to institute a new medal for personnel killed in action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is however considering the whole question of recognition of those who die while serving in the armed forces.

  Site Disposals
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had about site disposals in the Surrey Heath constituency, with special reference to(a) the continuing development of the Alma-Dettingen barracks site in the Surrey Heath constituency, (b) the future of the Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut and (c) the future of the Staff College site, Camberley. [132987]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since the sale of Alma Dettingen Barracks to Barratt Homes there have been no further consultations. There have also been no consultations over the future of Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut or that of the Staff College Camberley.

  Funding (Cadets)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will increase the level of funding for the Army, Air and Sea Cadets. [132999]

  Mr. Spellar
  This year the total budget for the Cadet Organisations is £58.3 million. This direct funding demonstrates our commitment to the cadet organisations. The cadet organisations also benefit from MOD money through non-case support in the form of the use of MOD vehicles and certain facilities within the MOD estate, flight experience in operational aircraft, and the use of sailing craft and small powered craft by the Sea Cadets.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) annual cost and (b) current role of British forces in the Falkland Islands. [134960]
  275W
  Mr. Spellar
  The role of the British Forces in the Falkland Islands is to demonstrate the United Kingdom's continued commitment to the islands and uphold the right of the islanders to self determination.

  In respect of the annual cost of the Falkland Islands Garrison I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 July 2000, Official Report, column 104W to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).

  Accommodation (Service Personnel)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the standard of accommodation for British service men and service women deployed in(a) Kuwait, (b) Kosovo and (c) the Falkland Islands. [134962]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF personnel in Kuwait are accommodated on the Kuwaiti Air Force base at Ali Al Salem. The UK receives extensive Host Nation Support from the Kuwaiti Government which is carrying out a major series of improvements to both the living and working accommodation at the base.

  Living and working accommodation for the vast majority of our personnel in Kosovo is provided at 13 Temporary Field Accommodation Camps. These provide temperature controlled, hard-walled living accommodation, with adjacent toilets and ablution facilities, kitchen and dining facilities; laundries; headquarters; office facilities and specialist workshops and stores. In addition, welfare and recreation facilities have been provided. Temporary Field Accommodation has been welcomed by our troops and we believe it to be the best field accommodation in the Balkans.

  The latest survey of grading for condition of living accommodation in the Falkland Islands shows that all families quarters and the majority of the single living accommodation units are in good condition, with over 15 years of residual life, although improvements to fire prevention and heating systems are necessary in the short-term.

  Kuwait
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military assistance Britain is giving to Kuwait. [134961]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK provides extensive military assistance to Kuwait. Our bilateral co-operation programme covers a wide range of activities across the defence spectrum. The 47 strong British Military Mission (BMM) which is permanently based in Kuwait provides advice and support to the reform of the Kuwaiti armed forces. We are helping to develop the Kuwaiti Flying Training School and continue to lend our support to the Kuwait Staff College. Members of Kuwait's Navy, Army and Air Force are represented on training, including flying training, and staff courses in the UK. We are working hard also to examine proposals to help the Kuwaitis develop their own defence doctrine and continue to explore potential avenues for practical military exercises.

  The British defence industry continues to bid competitively to support the modernisation of the Kuwaiti armed forces. The Kuwait Programme Office is a dedicated integrated team, which is fully funded by the Kuwaitis and is responsible for setting up government to
  276W
  government arrangements covering the procurement of defence equipment from British contractors. Current projects include the Desert Warrior, Sea Skua and servicing of the Hawk as well as the Tucano Training aircraft.

  The UK contributes 11 service personnel to UNIKOM which monitors the UN defined border and demilitarised zone between Iraq and Kuwait.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on KFOR's efforts in preventing ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo. [133096]

  Mr. Spellar
  Currently KFOR estimates that the Serb community in Kosovo numbers between 80,000 and 100,000. Three out of four KFOR soldiers are dedicated to patrolling, manning checkpoints and mounting border controls. Each multinational brigade allocates an average of 400 personnel to tasks specifically linked to the protection of minorities and significant KFOR forces remain assigned throughout Kosovo to the protection of patrimonial sites on a 24 hours a day basis.

  When KFOR arrived in Kosovo in June 1999 there was a weekly murder rate of 50. Now this figure is down to an average of five per week. The KFOR assessment is that the majority of crime is no longer ethnically motivated.

  In the UK controlled sector of central Kosovo, KFOR troops have been doing pioneering work with UNMIK and NGOs to improve conditions of life and work there for the Serb community. Our troops have undertaken initiatives to provide permanent and mobile vehicle check-points in sensitive areas, watch towers to allow farmers to work in fields, random patrolling, raids on the houses of hard-liners and much more. With such initiatives under way, we hope to establish a measure of security both for the Serbs still present in Kosovo and for those who will feel confident enough to return. In addition, we are working to encourage Serb returns to villages in the central area of Kosovo.

  Avro Vulcan B.2 XH558
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is giving assistance to the Return to Flight campaign for Avro Vulcan B.2 XH558. [134337]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is Ministry of Defence policy that public funds should not be used to subsidise private ventures of this kind, however worthy.

  Army Overstretch
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Army overstretch over the past three years. [134415]

  Mr. Spellar
  Two key measures of overstretch in the Army are the percentage of the Army committed and deployed on operations and the time interval between deployments.

  Commitment levels, which include preparation for and recovery from deployments, have fluctuated over the past three years, peaking in June 1999 during the height of the

  277W
  Kosovo campaign at 44 per cent. Since then they have declined steadily to the current level of 22 per cent. 15 per cent. of the Army is deployed.

  Average unit tour intervals in the Army have also improved over recent years. While in some specialist areas these remain at around 12 months, our latest assessment of the average time between unit tours across the Army for this year is around 30 months, the best figure for at least five years.

  Armed Forces (Disabled Recruitment)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the recruitment of disabled people for front-line duty with the armed forces. [134919]

  Mr. Spellar
  The armed forces are required to maintain the highest possible level of combat effectiveness and to be able to undertake military operations anywhere in the world at very short notice. It is not therefore possible to recruit those with a disability into the armed forces which are exempt from the employment provisions (Part 2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  Hunter-killer Submarines
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of when each of the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines will return to sea. [134929]

  Mr. Spellar
  Until the inspection programme currently under way to assess each of our nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines is completed, it is not possible to finalise the repair programme or to quantify the operational implications.

  British Military Communications (Kosovo)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the monitoring of British military communications during the Kosovo campaign by(a) Serb forces and (b) the Kosovo Liberation Army. [134916]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yugoslav armed forces do have an electronic recognition capability, designed primarily for tactical use. This capability has been publicly acknowledged by the Yugoslav armed forces. We assumed that they made use of this capability during the Kosovo campaign. We have no evidence to suggest that the KLA had any such developed capability.

  Sorties (Iraqi Targets)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties have been flown involving the discharge of weaponry against Iraqi targets since the end of the Gulf War. [134926]

  Mr. Spellar
  Between 1 August 1992 and 19 October 2000, UK aircraft released ordnance over Iraq on 50 days.

  Low Flying Aircraft
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review procedures for the regulation of 278W
  low-flying aircraft following the report of the UK Airprox Board into incidents over Northumberland in October 1999. [135126]

  Dr. Moonie
  As the third UK Airprox Board report makes clear, the military low flying adviser to the Board briefed members on a number of trial measures, agreed between military and civil bodies, following three Airprox involving military aircraft over Northumberland in October 1999. These measures aim to enhance flight safety in this area, minimise the risk of recurrence, and will be reviewed towards the end of the year.

  Army Base, Pirbright
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Army base at Pirbright. [134419]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The Army base at Pirbright comprises an Army Training Regiment (ATR), a Recruit Selection Centre (RSC) and a Regular Army Battalion. Although we are currently undertaking several Army-wide reviews, there are currently no plans to dispose of the site.

PRIME MINISTER

  Annual Report
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his answer of 27 July 2000,Official Report, column 809W, on the Common Agricultural Policy, when he was first informed of the drafting errors on page 15 of the Government's Annual Report; what steps he is taking to publish a correction; and when the errors were corrected on the Government's website; [134067]

  (2) if he will list the errors in the Government's Annual Report 1999–2000; when he was informed of each one; and what steps he is taking to make the correct information public; [134031]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 27 July 2000, Official Report, column 809W, on the Common Agricultural Policy, if he will make a statement on how the drafting error on page 15 of the Government's Annual Report occurred. [134068]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 October 2000]: Several factual errors occurred in this year's Annual Report 1999–2000, all of which were the result of oversights in the drafting and editorial process. The errors are as follows:

  p3, column 1, para 6:
  There are nearly 5,000 more doctors and 1,000 more nurses.

  should read:
  There are nearly 5,000 more doctors and 10.000 more nurses.

  p7, column 1, para 1:
  Interest rates were at 6.25 per cent. and mortgage rates at 6.9 per cent.

  should read:
  Interest rates were at 6 per cent. and mortgage rates at 6.9 per cent.
  279W
  p15, column 2, para 2:
  Thanks to the latest EU 'Agenda 2000' budget reforms negotiated this year, the monthly bill for a family of four will fall on average by £50.

  should read:
  Thanks to the latest EU 'Agenda 2000' budget reforms negotiated this year, the annual bill for a family of four will fall on average by £65.

  p37, caption with map:
  The Forensic Science Service has six operational laboratories in England

  should read:
  The Forensic Science Service has six operational laboratories in England and Wales

  p47, column 1, para 4:
  As part of the delivery of this vision, this year saw the opening of the UK Sports Institute, providing world-class facilities, coaching and support in Sheffield and national and regional centres around the UK.

  should read:
  As part of the delivery of this vision, this year saw the opening of the UK Sports Institute, which will provide world-class facilities, coaching and support in Sheffield and national and regional centres around the UK.

  All these errors have been corrected in the internet version of the Report; and an erratum slip included with the printed version wherever possible, including in the bound version held by the House.

  Medical Treatment (Withholding and Withdrawal)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Prime Minister from whom he has received representations on the legality of the British Medical Association's guidelines for the withholding and withdrawal of treatment. [134465]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware I have not received any representations on this issue.

  Euro
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors other than economic ones he would take into account in deciding whether to support the replacement of the pound by the single European currency. [135003]

  The Prime Minister
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on joining the single currency is whether the economic case for UK joining is clear and unambiguous.

  Engagements
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list his official engagements on 17 September; [135018]

  (2) for what reason he did not attend the Battle of Britain Memorial Service at Westminster Abbey on 17 September. [135019]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence represented the Government at the Battle of Britain Memorial Service in Westminster Abbey. I paid my respects at a private church service with my family. I had no public engagements.

  Summer Adjournment (Recall)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he received from hon. Members during the summer adjournment calling for a recall of Parliament because of the fuel crisis. [134571]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with convention, correspondence received by Departments from hon. Members is treated in confidence.

  EU Employment Directive
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received alleging that there was a threat to religious freedom posed by the EU directive on employment agreed between the Governments of the EU on 17 October. [135065]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Iraq Hijack
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will hold discussions with the Iraqi Government concerning the recent hijack of an aircraft in Iraq. [135706]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government welcome the peaceful resolution of the recent hijacking of a Saudi Arabian aircraft and the safe return of all British citizens to the UK. We have no plans to hold discussions with the Iraqi Government on this subject.

WALES

  GDP
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his calculation is of the percentage contribution made in the current financial year by each industry and service to the gross domestic product of Wales after deduction of the subsidies paid from UK Government and European sources. [134498]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No estimates have been made for the current year. In 1997, the most recent year for which figures are available, the contribution to GDP of each major sector was as set out in the table:

  sector

  Percentage of GDP

  Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing

  1.8

  Mining and quarrying, including oil and gas extraction

  0.2

  Other mining and quarrying

  0.3

  Manufacturing

  27.3

  Electricity, gas, and water supply

  2.2

  Construction

  5.3

  Wholesale and retail trade

  10.2

  Hotels and restaurants

  3.4

  Transport and communication

  6.0

  Financial intermediation

  3.5

  Real estate, renting and business activities

  14.2

  Public administration and defence

  6.2

  Education

  6.0

  Health and social work

  8.6

  Other services

  4.7

  There are no readily available estimates of direct subsidies across all sectors.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he visited for official engagements the counties of(a) Gwynedd, (b) Ynys Mön, (c) Conwy, (d) Denbigh, (e) Flint, (f) Wrexham, (g) Powys, (h) Ceredigion, (i) Carmarthenshire and (j) Pembroke, between 1 August and 30 September. [135805]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Between 1 August and 30 September 2000 the Secretary of State for Wales made visits to Conwy, Denbigh and Pembroke.

  Over the same period the Under-Secretary visited Gwynedd, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Carmarthenshire.

  National Assembly Legislation
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the legislation enacted during the present session which has made specific provisions for Wales arising from representations made by the National Assembly for Wales. [135742]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I take very seriously my duty to consult the National Assembly on the Government's legislative programme. In addition to formal participation in an Assembly plenary session each year, this involves ongoing dialogue at both ministerial and official levels. It is largely by this means, rather than through representations, that we are able to take account of the Assembly's interests in current or forthcoming Bills.

  To date, the following Acts have included specific provisions for Wales which emerged from this partnership approach:

  Care Standards Act 2000

  Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000

  Electronic Communications Act 2000

  Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000

  Learning and Skills Act 2000

  Local Government Act 2000.

  Agricultural Workers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the Welsh workforce was engaged in agricultural work in each of previous 10 years. [135235]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information cannot be provided in the form requested. Percentages of civilian employee jobs in agriculture are in the table. These exclude the self employed, for whom an industry-specific breakdown is not available.

  Per cent.

  1989

  2.1

  1990

  2.0

  1991

  2.1

  1992

  2.0

  1993

  2.0

  1994

  1.8

  1995

  1.8

  1996

  1.8

  1997

  1.8

  1998

  2.1

  Since 1 July 1999, this has been the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr.Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average farmer's income by constituency in Wales for the last five years. [135234]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Figures are not available at the constituency level.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the New Deal for Young People in Wales. [134410]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The New Deal for 18–24 year olds continues to make excellent progress in Wales. We are already well past our target of helping 13,000 young unemployed people into work by the end of this Parliament. Latest figures show that more than 15,600 young people in Wales have secured employment.

  A further 6,800 people are currently being helped through the New Deal; receiving advice and guidance or pursuing education, training, or work experience.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what class sizes were for each age group in each year since 1979 in the Taunton constituency. [134317]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information on average class sizes collected in January for the parliamentary constituency of Taunton is shown in the tables. Information on average class sizes by individual ages and by parliamentary constituency is not available prior to 1996.

  The Government are well on course to deliver their pledge to limit infant classes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or below by September 2001. When the Government came to power, there were nearly half a million children in large infant classes. By January 2000, this had been reduced to 177,000–300,000 infants are already benefiting from the initiative. £620 million is available to support the pledge, and allocations to schools in Taunton so far amount to £579,000. This helped Somerset LEA to reduce the average size of Key Stage 1 classes in the constituency to 26.7 in January 2000. In January 1997, the figure was 27.4.

  January 2000 also saw a fall in the size of the average junior class in England; and a continuing fall in the size of the average primary class, after rising for a decade. The size of the average secondary class nationally, at 22, is still five below the average primary class. Secondary headteachers are receiving up to £70,000 in direct grant to spend as they choose. If this were spent on recruiting teachers, the average secondary class size could be reduced by up to 0.8. Information at national and local

  283W
  education authority area level on infant class sizes for September 2000 will be published in a Statistical First Release on the 1st November, copies of which will be

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher by year group in maintained primary schools1 in the parliamentary constituency of Taunton 1996–2000 Position as at January

  Year group

  Reception

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  Mixed

  Overall2

  20003

  Average class size

  25.9

  27.7

  28.7

  29.6

  28.7

  30.9

  30.6

  4—

  —

  28.4

  Pupils

  855

  415

  517

  444

  431

  495

  490

  4—

  4,117

  7,798

  Classes

  33

  15

  18

  15

  15

  16

  16

  4—

  145

  275

  19993

  Average class size

  26.2

  28.1

  28.6

  29.1

  29.5

  28.8

  28.1

  4—

  29.2

  28.9

  Pupils

  1,020

  451

  522

  571

  517

  471

  463

  4—

  4,144

  8,212

  Classes

  39

  16

  18

  19

  17

  15

  15

  4—

  142

  284

  19983

  Average class size

  25.6

  28.7

  29.6

  30.9

  31.1

  30.8

  33.1

  5—

  28.7

  28.8

  Pupils

  920

  516

  533

  433

  436

  370

  397

  5—

  4,340

  8,004

  Classes

  36

  18

  18

  14

  14

  12

  12

  5—

  151

  278

  19973

  Average class size

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  28.4

  Pupils

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  7,773

  Classes

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  274

  19963

  Average class size

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  28.0

  Pupils

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  7,481

  Classes

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  267

  1Classes as taught at a selected time on the census day

  2Includes all year groups and nursery classes

  3Excludes classes taught by two or more teachers. The number of such classes can vary significantly from year to year which may impact on the overall pupil numbers recorded in one teacher classes

  4Not applicable (no classes of this type)

  5Not available

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher by age band in maintained secondary schools1 in the parliamentary constituency of Taunton 1996–2000 Position as at January

  Ages2

  Middle classes

  Mainly under 14s

  Mainly 14 and 15

  16 or older

  Overall

  2000

  Average class size

  17.0

  26.8

  21.8

  3—

  24.5

  Pupils

  102

  3,431

  2,026

  3—

  5,559

  Classes

  6

  128

  93

  3—

  227

  1999

  Average class size

  29.0

  26.0

  21.8

  3—

  24.3

  Pupils

  29

  3,281

  1,965

  3—

  5,275

  Classes

  1

  126

  90

  3—

  217

  1998

  Average class size

  22.3

  25.5

  22.9

  3—

  24.4

  Pupils

  89

  3,188

  2,018

  3—

  5,295

  Classes

  4

  125

  88

  3—

  217

  1997

  Average class size

  18.1

  24.2

  22.7

  3—

  23.4

  Pupils

  127

  3,071

  2,041

  3—

  5,239

  Classes

  7

  127

  90

  3—

  224

  1996

  Average class size

  17.8

  24.9

  22.3

  3—

  23.5

  Pupils

  142

  2,767

  1,982

  3—

  4,891

  Classes

  8

  111

  89

  3—

  208

  1Classes as taught at a selected time on the census day

  2Ages as the start of the academic year (August 31)

  3Not applicable (no classes of this type)

  284W
  placed in the House of Commons Library. The figures will also be available on the Department's statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics.

  Combined Standards Funds
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made in combining the 49 standards funds into six blocks. [134396]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As part of our reforms to make the Standards Fund simpler and more streamlined, from 2001–02 all Standards Fund allocations will be grouped in six categories: School Improvement, Inclusion, Standards and Curriculum, Diversity and Excellence, Teachers and Support, and Capital and Infrastructure. The

  £

  united kingdom

  England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Scotland

  HEFCE funding

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2000–01

  Total teaching

  115,810,756

  121,360,509

  119,496,105

  12,526,559

  Total research

  7,248,003

  6,874,165

  6,888,267

  —

  Special funding

  541,734

  —

  300,000

  235,300

  Total resource

  123,600,493

  128,234,674

  126,684,372

  12,761,859

  The figures in the last year are not directly comparable to the earlier years. Responsibility for funding Open University students in Scotland now lies with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and this funding is shown separately in the table.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his policy with regard to intervention under section 497 of the Education Act 1996 where a local education authority does not specify hours of support in a statement of special educational needs. [134454]

  Jacqui Smith
  Although the Education Act 1996 requires a local education authority to specify the special educational provision for a child, it does not require a local education authority to detail that provision in terms of hours of support. Where parents disagree with the wording or provision set out in their child's statement of special educational needs, it is open for them to appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal. Where parents have complaints about the delivery of their child's provision, they may ask the Secretary of State to intervene. He will consider what action is appropriate in each case.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received from national organisations about the extent to which Essex County Council complies with the SEN Code of Practice. [134455]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Secretary of State has received correspondence from the Independent Panel for Special Educational Advice (IPSEA) questioning the extent to which Essex County Council complies with the SEN Code of Practice. As with all such correspondence, officials are investigating the matter.
  286W
  new arrangements were set out for Local Education Authorities in guidance issued on 22 September.

  Open University
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the funding of the Open University for the past three years. [134409]

  Mr. Wicks
  The following table shows the funding the Open University has received from the Higher Education Funding Council for England in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to what extent local education authorities are required to have regard to the SEN Code of Practice. [134456]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local education authorities are required by law to have regard to the SEN Code of Practice. The Code offers guidance to local education authorities on their responsibilities towards children with special educational needs, and they must not ignore it. Authorities must decide how to fulfil their statutory duties and responsibilities in the light of the Code.

  Police Hotline
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will establish a system in which each school has access to a hotline to the police. [134521]

  Jacqui Smith
  DfEE worked closely with the police and the Home Office on the production of "School Security: Dealing With Troublemakers", which promotes close co-operation between schools and local police to create effective local partnerships. Specifically, it recommends that schools and the local police should ensure that arrangements for calling police help in an emergency have been properly communicated to staff, and are understood.

  We know that local education authorities and schools have established links with their local police forces. If a hotline is needed in addition to existing practices, schools and local education authorities are best placed to discuss this with their local police forces.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities are employed by his Department. [134689]
  287W
  Mr. Wills
  Details of the number of women and members of ethnic minorities employed by DfEE are as set out. The figures for permanent and temporary (casual) staff are shown separately.
  Permanent staff
  As at 1 October 2000 DfEE employed 4,849 permanent staff of whom:
  2,693 (56 per cent.) were women and
  491 (10 per cent.) were members of ethnic minorities Temporary staff
  As at 1 October 2000 DfEE employed 237 temporary staff of whom:
  133 (56 per cent.) were women and
  5 (2 per cent.) were members of ethnic minorities.
  DfEE (in line with the Commission for Racial Equality guidelines) asks staff to voluntarily declare their ethnicity in order to monitor progress against its Equal Opportunities Action Plan. The figures reflect the position for those who have provided this information.

  Circulars and Consultation Documents
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost was to his Department of the publication and distribution of circulars and consultation documents in(a) 1997–98 (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [134711]

  Mr. Wills
  Full information in the form requested is not available. Details of the costs of production of such materials are not specifically categorised as circulars or consultations by the Department and are therefore not collected centrally. Instead information on marketing and publicity products is recorded for each particular marketing campaign and broken down by the type of media employed to deliver the information.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary 'of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the quality of teacher training in England and Wales. [134712]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  All initial teacher training (ITT) providers in England are subject to regular inspection of the quality of their provision by Ofsted. The Teacher Training Agency (TTA) allocates funding to ITT providers, according to the quality of provision, based on Ofsted's judgments.

  A new teacher training curriculum was introduced in England in 1998. The proportion of trainees in high quality primary ITT provision has increased from 56 per cent. in 1997 to 65 per cent. in 1999.

  Teacher training in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Citizenship Classes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for citizenship classes. [134726]

  Jacqui Smith
  Citizenship education will be part of the National Curriculum for secondary schools from August 2002. It follows the recommendation of the all-party 288W
  working party chaired by Prof. Bernard Crick and including Lord Baker in its membership. Citizenship is designed to improve the knowledge and understanding of our democracy among young people, to make them aware of their social and moral responsibilities and to encourage greater community involvement. We have made £12 million available to schools this year through the Standards Fund to assist them in their preparations for Citizenship. This will be sustained next year.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his proposed citizenship classes will be subject to a requirement of political impartiality. [134925]

  Jacqui Smith
  Citizenship education will be subject to the same requirements of political impartiality as other areas of the curriculum. There are safeguards in law to guard against biased or unbalanced teaching. Local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers are required under Section 407 of the Education Act 1996 to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils, they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views. The introduction of citizenship was proposed by the Citizenship Education Working Party that included Lord Baker, the former education secretary.

  Unruly Pupils
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to issue new guidelines for teachers on the legitimate physical restraint of unruly pupils. [134727]

  Jacqui Smith
  DfEE Circular 10/98 makes it clear that teachers may use reasonable force to control or restrain pupils to prevent them from causing injury to themselves or others, and contains guidance on appropriate physical intervention measures.

  We plan to issue complementary guidance shortly, to help schools and local education authorities plan their strategies for managing the behaviour of pupils with severe behavioural difficulties.

  Internet Access
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to reduce the cost of internet access to schools. [134778]

  Mr. Wills
  The cost of providing internet access to school is subject to a number of factors, including the availability of relevant services and competition in the market. My officials are in contact with Oftel regarding the telecommunications costs and tariffs and our Regional Broadband strategy is enabling local education authorities to seek the best possible procurement arrangements for internet service provision on behalf of their schools.

  Resuscitation Policies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department issues to(a) local education authorities, (b) colleges, (c) private schools and (d) other educational establishments concerning the development and application of resuscitation policies; and how compliance with such guidance is monitored. [134843]
  289W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: DfEE's "Guidance on First Aid for Schools: a good practice guide" is freely available to all schools and can be referenced by other educational institutions. It sets out first aid requirements under health and safety legislation, and provides advice for schools on drawing up first aid policies and ensuring that they meet their statutory duties. Specifically, it advises that first aid training should include resuscitation procedures for children. Breaches of health and safety legislation are subject to investigation by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Tutor-student Ratio
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the average tutor to student ratio in(a) sixth-form colleges and (b) further education colleges in each local education authority area. [134901]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not readily available by local education authority areas.

  University Funding (Research)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding each university in England and Wales has received towards research in each of the past five years. [134912]

  Mr. Wicks
  The funding of higher education in Wales is now a matter for the National Assembly. The information requested can be found in the Higher Education Statistics Agency publication "Resources for higher education institutions" copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  GCSEs
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he or his officials have had with representatives of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference concerning their recent assessment of the value of GCSEs. [134924]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department has received no communication either from the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference or from individual members of the Conference about their assessment of the value of GCSEs.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment he has made of the effect on other children at school(a) academically and (b) emotionally of not excluding disruptive pupils. [134933]

  Jacqui Smith
  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools' latest annual report shows a clear link between standards of behaviour and educational achievement.

  We have made clear that Headteachers can permanently exclude pupils who are very disruptive or violent. And our recently issued new guidance for exclusion appeal panels indicates that the Headteacher's decision to exclude should not be overridden in a range of circumstances including where there is violence or the threat of violence.
  290W
  In addition, we are making provision for over 1,000 on-site Learning Support Units by 2002, to ensure that disruptive pupils are removed from the classroom quickly so they do not disrupt other pupils' education.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils in state schools were permanently excluded in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [134707]

  Jacqui Smith
  The latest available data on permanent exclusions are shown in the following table. Data on permanent exclusions in the school year 1999–2000 will be collected in January 2001 and published in May 2001 (provisional date).

  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.

  Numbers of permanent exclusions in schools in England 1996–97 to 1998–991

  Number

  1998–99

  10,438

  1997–98

  12,298

  1996–

  12,668

  1Includes Maintained Primary, Secondary, Special and Non-maintained Special Schools

  Source:

  January Schools' Census

  School Security
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about physical security at(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [134937]

  Jacqui Smith
  DfEE has issued guidance on "Improving School Security" and also makes available a school security grant for local education authorities to allocate on the basis of risk assessments at individual schools. The total amount available, with the assistance of the Government grant (at 75 per cent.), is £22 million a year. The grant is allocated by formula. The grant is to supplement existing expenditure by local education authorities and schools on school security measures. It is for local education authorities to determine local priorities of use of their grant allocation, including distribution to schools and training needs. All maintained schools, including Pupil Referral Units and nursery schools, are eligible to receive funding from the grant. The grant may be used on physical measures to improve the security of school premises and on security related training for staff and governors.

  Teachers (Cannabis)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his policy is towards the employment of teaching staff who have convictions for cannabis consumption. [134941]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Unless the Secretary of State has barred a person from employment as a teacher, it is for the prospective employer to decide on the suitability of an applicant for a teaching post. In reaching those decisions employers will take into account any information about the applicant's previous convictions that is revealed by a criminal record check. The Department's Circular 9/93 (first issued in 1993 and still in effect), which gives guidance about the procedures for obtaining such checks, advises employers that convictions for sexual, violent, or drugs offences will be particularly strong contraindications for work with children, but that they will also need to consider the age and seriousness of the offence.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the abolition of the Assisted Places Scheme on class sizes. [134942]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The annual cost of maintaining infant classes of 30 and below, around £160 million, will be met from savings made as a result of the phasing out of the Assisted Places Scheme. We are well on track to deliver our pledge to limit infant classes to 30 pupils. Allocations so far to Hampshire LEA amount to some £7 million. This has helped the LEA to reduce the size of the average Key Stage 1 class in the New Forest constituency to 26.7. In January 1997 the figure was 27.3.

  Academic Standards
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment his Department has made of the relationship between academic standards in examinations and(a) class sizes and (b) money spent per pupil.[134943]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available evidence, including from Ofsted, indicates that class size is most important at Key Stage 1. That is why we have pledged to reduce the size of infant classes. The pledge will ensure that all children benefit from infant classes of 30 or below, and will help to give young pupils the important start they need. The Department's Value for Money Unit is examining the relationship between school resourcing and academic standards in education.

  School Uniforms
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of schoolchildren wearing school uniforms. [135034]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government believe that school uniforms can make a valuable contribution to the identity and discipline of schools. It is, however, for school governors to decide whether there should be a uniform, and we believe that this should remain the case.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many children in each LEA are in(a) moderate learning difficulty schools, (b) severe learning difficulty schools and (c) educational and behavioural difficulties schools, broken down into (i) primary and (ii) secondary sectors; [135135]

  (2) what percentage of children in each LEA are in (a) moderate learning difficulty schools, (b) severe learning difficulty schools and (c) educational and behavioural difficulties schools, broken down into (i) primary and (ii) secondary sectors, as a proportion of the overall number of children in each sector. [135136]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Some information on special needs was recently published in the statistical volume "Statistics of Education—Schools in England 2000" in September. A copy of this publication is available from the Library and can also be accessed on the Department's statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics. More comprehensive information about special educational needs in schools in England will be published in a statistical bulletin "Special Educational Needs in England 2000" on 22 November.

  "Voices"
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much his Department spent on advertising space in the recent Government publication, "Voices". [135585]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department took advertising space at a cost of £4,662 in "Voices" magazine.

  Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the objectives of the Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund. [135218]

  Ms Hodge
  The main objectives of the Challenge Fund are to help employers from the public, private and voluntary sectors introduce and develop effective flexible working policies and practices which both benefit the business and help their employees achieve a better balance between work and the rest of their lives; and to identify and disseminate best practice widely to other employers.

  Young People (Disadvantage)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements the Government are making for the parliamentary accountability of the Children's Fund and of the Government's strategy to co-ordinate services for tackling disadvantage among children and young people. [135861]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 28 July that he was establishing a new Cabinet Ministerial Group on Children and Young People's Services which would be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with myself as Vice Chair, and which would be supported by a new cross-cutting Children and Young People's Unit to be located in the Department for Education and Employment.
  293W
  He also appointed the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) as Minister for Young People with day to day responsibility for the Unit and the co-ordination of the Government's strategy in England on vulnerable children and young people.

  The Children's Fund will form a major new part of the Government's strategy to tackle child poverty and prevent social exclusion. The Fund will support services to work with children and their families and prevent children and young people falling into drug abuse, truancy, unemployment and crime. It will be worth a total of £450 million over three years.

  The new interdepartmental Children and Young People's Unit, based in my Department, will run the Children's Fund in England at official level. The Unit's remit will be set by the new Cabinet Ministerial Group on Children and Young People's Services. The Unit will have its own Request for Resources within my Department's Estimate. The Head of the Children and Young People's Unit, once appointed, will be an additional Accounting Officer within my Department. As is usual, the appointment as additional Accounting Officer will be made by the Treasury and a copy of the letter of appointment, setting out the respective roles and responsibilities of the additional Accounting Officer and the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Education and Employment as Principal Accounting Officer, will be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Clerk of the Committee of Public Accounts.

  I shall be formally accountable to Parliament for the Children's Fund and the work of the Unit. However, my right hon. Friend, as Minister for Young People, will normally answer Parliamentary Questions on the Children's Fund and the Unit in this House, and in the case of Oral Questions will do so during Department for Education and Employment Question Time. The Government expect that the relevant Select Committees will normally wish to invite him to appear when they examine the Children's Fund and the Government's strategy on services to tackle disadvantage among children and young people. My noble Friend Baroness Blackstone will answer for the Government in another place.

  My right hon. Friend, as Minister for Young People, is writing today to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Chairmen of the Select Committees on Education and Employment, on Health and on Home Affairs, and the Government will liaise as necessary with the House authorities to ensure that these arrangements work well and secure effective accountability for this innovative policy.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if the Appointments Commission will report annually to Parliament on the discharge of its functions. [133715]
  294W
  Mrs. Beckett
  Like all Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs), the Appointments Commission will publish an Annual Report. There is no requirement for this to be laid before Parliament, but the report will of course be placed in the Libraries of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many driving tests were conducted per month since April 1999; how many tests can be carried out in a month; how many cancellations there were in each month since April 1999 and how many such cancellations were reallocated; and what was the average waiting time for driving tests in each month since April 2000 in the Norris Green and Southport Driving Test Centres. [134176]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of tests conducted at the driving test centres each month for the period May 1999 to September 2000 were as follows:

  Month

  Norris Green

  Southport

  May 1999

  567

  402

  June 1999

  652

  408

  July 1999

  672

  442

  August 1999

  692

  351

  September 1999

  706

  304

  October 1999

  790

  359

  November 1999

  796

  406

  December 1999

  635

  408

  January 2000

  880

  437

  February 2000

  723

  375

  March 2000

  921

  388

  April 2000

  709

  363

  May 2000

  795

  314

  June 2000

  878

  384

  July 2000

  742

  327

  August 2000

  885

  363

  September 2000

  683

  444

  Note:

  Figures for April 1999 are not available

  The number of tests that can be conducted in an average month, based on the number of staff currently in post at the test centres, is:

  Norris Green—778

  Southport—516.

  Test cancellation in each month since May 1999

  Month

  Norris Green

  Southport

  May 1999

  1

  20

  June 1999

  3

  30

  July 1999

  2

  6

  August 1999

  2

  3

  September 1999

  2

  23

  October 1999

  4

  4

  November 1999

  23

  4

  December 1999

  11

  21

  January 2000

  14

  14

  February 2000

  3

  12

  March 2000

  6

  3

  April 2000

  2

  20

  May 2000

  6

  24

  June 2000

  36

  26

  295W

  Test cancellation in each month since May 1999

  Month

  Norris Green

  Southport

  July 2000

  1

  9

  August 2000

  8

  13

  September 2000

  26

  7

  Total

  150

  239

  Note:

  Cancellations are reallocated

  Average waiting times for driving tests in each month since April 2000

  Month

  Norris Green

  Southport

  April

  6 weeks

  7 weeks

  May

  6 weeks

  7 weeks

  June

  7 weeks

  8 weeks

  July

  6 weeks

  8 weeks

  August

  7 weeks

  7 weeks

  September

  6 weeks

  6 weeks

  Late Payments
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what performance targets have been set to ensure that small businesses automatically receive interest from local authorities on late payments made after 30 days of being invoiced in line with the Late Payments of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998; [134114]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on compensation for payment by public bodies after 30 days of invoices from small firms. [134115]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, local authorities are required to report annually their performance against specified best value performance indicators. One such indicator is the percentage of undisputed invoices which were paid in 30 days. The Government have specified, in statutory guidance, the following targets for local authorities in respect of that best value indicator:

  Financial year

  Percentage of invoices paid within 30 days

  2000–01

  95.0

  2001–02

  97.5

  2002–03

  100.0

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce on 23 October 2000,Official Report, columns 9–10W, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 October 2000, Official Report, column 109W.

  M6
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the costs of repairs and maintenance to the elevated section of the M6 through Birmingham in each year from 1990 to 1999. [134160]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Gentleman.
  296W
  Letter from David York to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 30 October 2000:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Keith Hill, has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your recent question about the cost of repairs and maintenance to the elevated section of the M6 through Birmingham between 1990 and 1999. I am replying in the absence of Tim Matthews.
  This section of the M6 is part of the Midland Links Motorway Viaducts and I am afraid our records are not kept in a form which allows us to disaggregate costs for individual sections.
  The costs of maintaining the structures on the Midlands Links Motorway Viaducts are set out in the attached table. We estimate that the cost of maintaining the elevated section of M6 through the Greater Birmingham area, roughly between Junction 5 at Castle Bromwich and Junction 9 at Bescot, is about two thirds of the figures shown in the table.
  The costs exclude VAT and do not include for routine maintenance and repair of the road surfaces. Nor do they include costs associated with lighting, environmental works or communication systems. These figures could only be produced at a disproportionate cost.
  If you would like further details, the contact at the Agency is David Cropper. His telephone number is 0121-678 8482.

  Cost of repairing and maintaining structures on the Midland Links Motorway Viaducts

  Financial year

  £ million

  1998–99

  27.4

  1997–98

  19.2

  1996–97

  14.0

  1995–96

  27.7

  1994–95

  26.3

  1993–94

  21.0

  1992–93

  17.7

  1991–92

  20.7

  1990–91

  19.8

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have died as a result of asbestosis in each of the last three years. [134813]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive maintains a register of deaths in Great Britain for which asbestosis is mentioned on the death certificate. The number of asbestosis deaths (excluding death certificates also mentioning mesothelioma) in each of the last three years is as shown.

  Number of death certificates mentioning asbestosis

  1996

  196

  1997

  190

  1998

  165

  Figures for 1999 are not yet available.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many companies have been prosecuted for breaches of health and safety legislation in each of the last three years. [134814]
  297W
  Mr. Meacher
  The number of companies (excluding individuals and others with health and safety duties) prosecuted for breaches of health and safety legislation following investigation by HSE in each of the last three years is as set out.

  HSE

  Number of companies prosecuted

  1999–20001, 2

  748

  1998–991

  716

  1997–981

  643

  1Data from 1 April to 31 March

  2Provisional

  Local authorities enforce health and safety legislation in relation to several kinds of premises. Local authorities provide information on prosecutions, but do not classify this by type of organisation. The number of separate breaches, by all kinds of employers and others, prosecuted following local authority investigation in each of the last three years is as set out.

  Local authorities

  Number of breaches

  1999–2000

  1—

  1998–992

  424

  1997–982

  506

  1Not yet available

  2Data from 1 April to 31 March

  Transatlantic Air Routes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of increasing competition on transatlantic air routes on British consumers and business. [134335]

  Mr. Mullin
  Increased competition on transatlantic air routes will bring benefits to British consumers, to business and to the wider economy. But competition must be fair. We shall continue to press the US to rescind those protectionist measures which, by denying to UK carriers effective access to their domestic market, serve to inhibit fair competition on transatlantic routes.

  Housing Stock Transfers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total amount is(a) of early redemption penalties and (b) overhanging debt paid from central Government funds to enable the transfer of council housing to registered social landlords; and if he will list the advantages of early redemption of debt. [134731]

  Mr. Mullin
  Under the arrangements for dealing with overhanging debt announced to the House by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 250W, local authorities are responsible for meeting the cost of early redemption penalties either from the capital receipt arising from the transfer of housing stock or from within their existing resources. Since the arrangements came into force we have made one-off payments to Burnley Borough Council and Coventry City Council to assist
  298W
  them to repay outstanding principal of their Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) loans. The sum total of both payments was £132.696 million.

  The advantages of early debt redemption are twofold. First, a mechanism to deal with overhanging debt makes housing transfer a realistic option for a wider range of authorities where investment is most needed. I understand that the total capital investment over the next 30 years in the housing stock transferred by Coventry City Council and Burnley Borough Council is estimated to be over £1 billion. Second, a one-off payment to assist an authority to repay outstanding PWLB loans is simpler—for both local and central government—than the alternative of leaving an authority's Housing Revenue Account open, despite the transfer of stock, and for the Exchequer to subsidise the overhanging debt for many years.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to bring about a public sector involvement in the railway industry for safety reasons. [134466]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have always made safety the top priority in the railways. All sections of the industry are under obligations to carry out their operations in a safe manner. We look to the Health and Safety Executive, as the sole regulator for rail safety, to ensure that the railways are operating safely.

  Global Warming
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's assessment is of the causes of global warming. [135030]

  Mr. Meacher
  Recent research at the Hadley Centre, one of the world's leading climate research centres and funded by my Department, has shown that both natural and man made factors have contributed to the global rise in temperature of 0.6 deg C since 1860. The strong warming since the mid 1970s can only be explained by taking into account the effects of human activities on the atmosphere.

  Rail Distribution (Brighton)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action(a) he and (b) regulatory authorities propose following the disruption at Brighton Statin on the evening of 20 October; and if he will make a statement. [134660]

  Mr. Hill
  The incident referred to occurred at 19.43 on Friday 20 October 2000 on the Mainline between Brighton and Preston Park when passengers alighted from trains which had stopped between stations after a traction failure on a Thameslink train, followed by a loss of the infrastructure traction supply. HSE is awaiting an industry report before deciding what further action to take.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make
  299W
  a statement on the applicability of News Release 609, "Recycling Key to Future PFI Waste Applications", to the PFI credits earmarked for use by East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove Council. [134621]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]The project already agreed with East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove Council will not be affected by the revised criteria for PFI waste schemes announced in News Release 609. The PFI contract will need to contribute towards the overall achievement of the statutory performance standards for recycling of household waste which we announced in Waste Strategy 2000. These will require authorities, on average, to double their recycling in three years and nearly triple it in five years.

  Wembley Task Force
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions since April 2000 the Wembley Task Force has met; and if he will list those present at each meeting. [134835]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]Wembley Task Force has met five times since 1 April 2000 and those present at each meeting were:Date of the Meeting: 4 April 2000

  Chairman—Sir Nigel Mobbs

  Deputy Chairman—Councillor Paul Daisley (LBB)

  Acting Chief Executive—Tony Winterbottom (EP)

  David Shelton (EP)

  Geoff Taylor (WNSL)

  Ian Fytche (SE)

  Mariana Spater (WPSRB)

  Observers

  John Sienkeiwicz (GOL)

  Niall Mackenzie (DCMS)

  Jonathan Branson (Sport England)

  Gareth Daniel (LBB)

  Richard Saunders (LBB)

  Kieran McStravick (EP)

  Ann Garrett (EP)

  Date of the Meeting: 12 May 2000

  Chairman—Sir Nigel Mobbs

  Deputy Chairman—Councillor Paul Daisley (LBB)

  Acting Chief Executive—Tony Winterbottom (EP)

  David Shelton (EP)

  Eric Sorensen (LDP)

  Bob Stubbs (WNSL)

  Mariana Spater (WPSRB)

  Jonathan Branson (SE)

  Observers

  John Sienkeiwicz (GOL)

  Ralph Ward (GOL)

  Niall Mackenzie (DCMS)

  Richard Saunders (LBB)

  Chris Walker (LBB)

  300W

  Geoff Taylor (WNSL)

  Kieran McStravick (EP)

  Ann Garrett (EP)

  Wembley plc Presentation Team

  Nigel Potter (Wembley plc)

  John Garside (Wembley plc)

  Andrew Morris (Richard Rogers Partnership)

  Jon Coxeter-Smith (Davis Langdon and Everest)

  Development Framework Presentation Team

  Robin Buckle (LBB)

  Andrew Hiorns (David Lock Associates)

  Date of the Meeting: 29 June 2000

  Chairman—Sir Nigel Mobbs

  Deputy Chairman—Councillor Paul Daisley (LBB)

  Acting Chief Executive—Tony Winterbottom (EP)

  David Shelton (EP)

  Eric Sorensen (LDP)

  Bob Stubbs (WNSL)

  Ian Fytche (SE)

  Observers

  John Sienkeiwicz (GOL)

  Ralph Ward (GOL)

  Niall Mackenzie (DCMS)

  Ian O'Neill (DCMS)

  Richard Saunders (LBB)

  Geoff Taylor (WNSL)

  Jonathan Branson (SE)

  Kieran McStravick (EP)

  Guy Thornett (EP)

  Ann Garrett (EP)

  Date of the Meeting: 27 September 2000

  Chairman—Sir Nigel Mobbs

  Deputy Chairman—Paul Daisley (LBB)

  Acting Chief Executive—Tony Winterbottom (LDA)

  Mike Appleton (EP)

  Mariana Spater (WPSRB)

  Observers

  Ian O'Neill (DCMS)

  Gareth Daniel (LBB)

  Richard Saunders (LBB)

  Jonathan Branson (SE)

  Kieran McStravick (LDA)

  Date of the Meeting: 25 October 2000

  Chairman—Sir Nigel Mobbs

  Deputy Chairman—Councillor Paul Daisley (LBB)

  Acting Chief Executive—Tony Winterbottom (LDA)

  Mike Appleton (EP)

  John Duffy (GLA)

  Derek Casey (Sport England) (?)

  Mariana Spater (WPP)

  Observers

  Niall Mackenzie (DCMS)

  Ian O'Neill (DCMS)

  Ian Fytche or Jonathan Branson (Sport England)

  Geoff Raw (LBB)

  Ralph Ward (LDA) (?)

  Guy Thornett (LDA)

  Kieran McStravick (LDA).

  Airline Passengers (Health)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice his Department gives to airlines concerning the health of passengers on ,(a) short and (b) long-distance flights. [134422]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]We are currently awaiting the results of the inquiry by the House of Lords Science and Technology Sub-Committee on the aircraft cabin environment.

  The focus of existing advice is to inform airline passengers of the possible health risks posed by air travel and to allow them to take any necessary precautions. The "Health Advice for Travellers" booklet, issued by the Department of Health has been recently updated and includes references to the potential health risks of air travel, such as deep vein thrombosis. Approximately 12 million copies of this booklet are printed and made available to long and short haul travellers each year, usually through post offices, and it is also available on the internet and on CEEFAX. The "Health Information for Overseas Travel" booklet issued to all GPs is also being updated and will include advice on the risk of deep vein thrombosis.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent investigations his Department has carried out into the health problems associated with long-distance travel. [135132]

  Mr. Mullin
  In the light of evidence given during the House of Lords Science and Technology Sub-Committee on the aircraft cabin environment, we have commissioned an independent study on passenger health on board aircraft. The study, which should be completed by next spring will cover long and short haul travel. The intention of the study is to bring together existing research with a view to identifying where there are gaps in current knowledge.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce regulations to ensure a minimum requirement of space for seating in aircraft. [135134]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK already has an airworthiness requirement for minimum seat space, and is unique in this respect. The Civil Aviation Authority which is responsible for the safety regulation of UK registered passenger aircraft, has set standards for seat spacing on UK registered aircraft since 1989. There is also a limit on the number of seats in each row which determines the minimum width of seats.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to regulate air transport to ensure that, on long-haul flights, the health of passengers is protected. [135133]

  Mr. Mullin
  The recent inquiry by the House of Lords Science and Technology Sub-Committee on the aircraft cabin environment looked into the health effects of travelling in commercial aircraft. We are currently awaiting the results of the inquiry and will study any recommendations it makes before considering the possibility of regulation.
  302W
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the risks of thrombosis on long-haul flights; and what guidance he plans to issue to the air passenger industry to reduce such risks. [134634]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are currently awaiting the results of the inquiry by the House of Lords Science and Technology Sub-Committee on the aircraft cabin environment.

  In the light of the evidence given during the inquiry, we have commissioned an independent study on passenger health on board aircraft, including the risk of thrombosis. The study, which should be completed by next spring, will bring together existing research with a view to identifying where there are gaps in current knowledge.

  The focus of current guidance on the possible risks of air travel, such as deep vein thrombosis, is to inform passengers of when there may be risks and to allow them to take any necessary precautions. The 'Health Advice for Travellers' booklet, issued by the Department of Health, has been recently updated and includes references to potential risks. The latest version was issued in September and contains advice on deep vein thrombosis. Approximately 12 million copies of this booklet are printed and made available to long and short haul travellers each year, usually through Post Offices, and it is also available on the internet and on CEEFAX. The 'Health Information for Overseas Travel' booklet issued to all GPs is also being updated and will include advice on the risk of deep vein thrombosis.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action is being taken at the EU level to reduce harmful gas and other emissions in the transport sector. [135394]

  Mr. Meacher
  Since 1993 the EU has introduced, a series of increasingly stringent emissions standards for new road vehicles. Further tightening will take effect in 2001 and 2006. EU Directive 98/70/EC requires petrol and diesel fuels to meet cleaner specifications from 1 January 2000. Further reductions in permitted sulphur and aromatics content in petrol and sulphur content in diesel will apply from 2005. Taken together these measures will have a significant role in helping us to meet our national air quality objectives and our legal obligations under the various EU Air Quality Directives.

  The European Commission has put in place a voluntary agreement with motor manufacturers to reduce emissions of CO2 from the average new car by 25 per cent. by 2008–09.

  South Downs National Park
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding the future role of local authority planning powers within the area covered by the proposed South Downs National Park. [134849]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), met with local MPs and a delegation representing local authorities in the South
  303W
  Downs on 12 October 1999, and listened to views expressed about the exercise of planning powers within a possible National Park. Since then Ministers have received a number of representations on this subject.

  The Countryside Agency, which is considering the possible designation of a National Park in the South Downs, has been asked by the Government to look carefully at ways in which town and country planning powers might be exercised. A range of options for planning administration has been identified and the Agency will now consult with the local authorities and other interested local parties before making recommendations to the Secretary of State in due course.

  Cowboy Builders
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what projects his Department is supporting connected with the First Check Point organisation to combat incompetent and dishonest builders. [134632]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]The Department is providing funding for two pilot projects in Birmingham and Somerset for the Quality Mark scheme which badges competent and reliable builders and allied traders and enables consumers to avoid the incompetent and dishonest. The Department welcomes other initiatives which offer some measure of help to consumers to make an informed choice of builder or tradesman, including projects connected with the First Check Point organisation.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding has been made available by his Department to projects concerned with combating incompetent and dishonest builders. [135137]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department is providing funding for two pilot projects in Birmingham and Somerset for the Quality Mark scheme which badges competent and reliable builders and allied traders and enables consumers to avoid the incompetent and dishonest. The Department welcomes other initiatives which offer some measure of help to consumers to make an informed choice of builder or tradesman, including projects connected with the First Check Point organisation.

  Local Government Funding (Transport)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the element of SSA was for each local authority in England for subsidy of public transport services. [135095]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Public transport support is one of the services covered within the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) block of Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs). With a few exceptions (rent allowance payments, housing benefit administration, flood defence, coast protection, and national parks) services are not dealt with on an individual basis within this block of SSAs. Therefore, it is not possible to say what the element for public transport subsidy was.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent consultations he has held with the European Commission regarding the terms of the rebates under the climate change levy; and if he will make a statement. [135053]

  Mr. Meacher
  In October, my officials attended both a multilateral meeting on the revision of the state aid guidelines and a bilateral on the UK's state aids notification, in respect of reductions offered under the Climate Change Levy Agreements. The Government remain optimistic of success for the levy's state aid applications.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to(a) the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme and (b) the European Incoherent Scatter Radar Project, stating in each case the (i) nature, (ii) duration and (iii) purpose of the contribution, including how many staff were attached to the projects and what financial support was given; [134232]

  (2) if he will list the ionospheric research projects in which his Department is involved, stating in each case (a) the number of personnel involved, (b) the duration of the project and (c) the yearly and total project cost to his Department; and if he will make a statement; [134233]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made as to the environmental effects of ionospheric research; and if he will make a statement; [134234]

  (4) if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment Panel's investigation into the local, global and public health risks of ionospheric research. [134236]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department has had no involvement in ionospheric research and has not carried out or contributed to any assessments or investigations of possible environmental and public health effects. My understanding is that the Scientific and Technological Assessment Panel do not currently have a study on this topic.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will change the definition of affordable housing used in planning guidance to ensure that all affordable housing planning policies(a) are consistent between local authorities and (b) enable local authorities to provide benefits and discounts in perpetuity. [135797]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance note 3: "Housing" and Circular 6/98 "Planning and Affordable Housing" provide detailed guidance to local planning authorities on formulating development plan policies on affordable housing. While planning policy should not be expressed in favour of any particular form of tenure, the particular amount and type of affordable housing to be provided in individual developments will be for the local authority to decide based on their own assessment of local needs, and in negotiation with
  305W
  developers. Planning obligations may be used to ensure that affordable housing provided through planning policy is secured, either initially or in perpetuity, for occupation by people in need of such housing. We have no plans at present to revise the guidance.

  Traffic Noise
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what measures his Department has taken to assist the introduction of barriers to reduce traffic noise; [135148]

  (2) what actions his Department has taken to introduce noise attenuation methods where traffic is concerned. [135146]

  Mr. Hill
  One of the main methods of mitigating and attenuating traffic noise is to reduce the noise emitted by new vehicles. The Department has a continuing involvement in negotiating EU directives in this area. These measures have already delivered a substantial reduction in noise levels from new vehicles. A large lorry today makes no more noise than a car of the early 1970s and three modern cars now make less noise than one 1970s model. These measures will bring improvements as the vehicle fleet is renewed. Negotiations on further noise reduction are likely to focus on heavy vehicles such as trucks and buses.

  In addition the Department has recently been involved in negotiating an EU directive to limit tyre noise, the dominant source of noise from traffic at speeds above 40 miles per hour. This directive is expected to be adopted shortly.

  £5 million a year ring-fenced budget is being spent to mitigate and attenuate noise, primarily using barriers, at locations on the national network where detailed studies have confirmed the severity of the problem and shown that barriers are the most effective solution in the short term. As indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 6 December 1999, Official Report, column 427W, studies have been commissioned at a large number of locations. The Highways Agency will be dealing with nearly all of these locations over the next few years. In a number of cases where the road has been reassessed for resurfacing, the use of quieter materials has affected the priority for other measures.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by area those schemes assisted by his Department to introduce noise barriers for traffic, stating his Department's financial contribution in each case. [135149]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 11 November 1999,Official Report, column 681W, which included a letter from the then Chief Executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). The Department will bear the whole cost of the works that it considers necessary.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards traffic noise. [135147]
  306W
  Mr. Hill
  An Integrated Transport White Paper explained that we need to gain a better understanding of the effects of transport noise and expect advances in technology to provide some reductions in the impact of noise from road traffic. It is for local authorities to decide what further measures would be appropriate on their roads. My policies as highway authority for the strategic national road network were set out in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads" which was published along with the White Paper in July 1998. This states that quieter surfaces are to be used for all new trunk road schemes and resurfacing existing roads in an area where noise was a matter of concern. The Ten Year Plan for Transport, published in July, should enable the Highways Agency to install by 2011 quieter surfaces on over 60 per cent. of the national road network including all concrete stretches. In addition, funds are to be ring-fenced to permit the Highways Agency to provide over the next ten years other measures such as noise barriers in some of the worst and most pressing cases where there is no immediate need for the road to be resurfaced.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend regulations concerning local authority powers for compulsory purchase of buildings to facilitate regeneration. [135566]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The final report of the expert Advisory Group set up to undertake a fundamental review of the laws and procedures relating to compulsory purchase and compensation were published on 27 July 2000. Copies of the report were placed in the Library. The Group concluded that new legislation was needed to clarify and modernise CPO powers, procedures and compensation provisions, while retaining the present approach of ensuring that individual rights are protected. Comments on the Advisory Group's conclusions were invited by 13 October. We will now consider the proposals put forward by the Group, the comments made on them and all other suggestions made in the course of the review. I hope that we will be in a position to make an announcement on proposals for reform early in the new year. This will include consideration of local authority powers in relation to regeneration.

  Flood Plains
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given to local planning authorities on development on flood plains. [135131]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced on 13 April 2000,Official Report, columns 249–50W, the publication of a consultation draft of a new Planning Policy Note 25, "Development and flood risk". This set out proposals to strengthen the existing policy, which seeks to avoid inappropriate development in areas of flood risk. The draft is currently being revised in the light of consultation responses as well as any lessons to be learned from the recent flooding incidents. The new guidance is expected to be published in December this year.

  Official Journeys
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many official journeys he has made on London Underground in the last(a) month, (b) three months and (c) six months; [135546]

  (2) what proportion of his official journeys has been made by public transport in the last (a) month, (b) three months and (c) six months; [135545]

  (3) how many official journeys he has made by bus in the last (a) month, (b) three months and (c) six months; [135548]

  (4) how many official journeys he has made by rail in the last (a) month, (b) three months and (c) six months; [135549]

  (5) what proportion of official journeys by his Department's ministers have been made by public transport in the last (a) month, (b) three months and (c) six months; [135550]

  (6) what annual target has been set by his Department for the proportion of (a) Ministerial official journeys that should be taken by public transport and (b) all official journeys undertaken for his Department that should be taken by public transport. [135551]

  Mr. Prescott
  Ministers travel by public transport of all kinds on a regular basis on official visits.

  Ministers are required under the Ministerial Code to always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements.

  "Voices"
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department spent on advertising space in the recent Government publication, "Voices". [135587]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We purchased a page of advertising in support of our 'are you doing your bit?' campaign. The campaign aims to encourage individuals to take actions to save energy and help the environment. As part of this campaign, we have placed advertising in several women's magazines. The cost of advertising in the November issue of "Voices" was £5,477.85 including VAT.

  Railway Crossings
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) reported accidents and (b) accidents resulting in fatalities involving vehicles on railway crossings have occurred in Britain in each of the past five years. [135743]
  308W
  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is shown in the table, supplied by the Health and Safety Executive's HM Railway Inspectorate.

  Year

  Number of trains running into animals, gates or vehicles at level crossings

  Number of fatalities involving road vehicles on level crossings

  1995–96

  37

  5

  1996–97

  33

  0

  1997–98

  34

  3

  1998–99

  37

  3

  1999–2000

  32

  2

  Total

  173

  13

  Comprehensive data and analysis can be found in HM Chief Inspector of Railways Annual Report's on Railway Safety in Great Britain. Copies are available in both House Libraries.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will initiate a general review of the safety of barrier-less crossings of railway lines following the conclusion of inquiries into the fatal accident on the railway crossing at Porthmadog on 23 October. [135806]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Railway Inspectorate Inspector visited the site after the accident and was satisfied that the crossing is working correctly. I understand that an independent check of the crossing lights controls and the audible warning devices was also conducted, and they were found to be in good condition. HSE's Railway Inspectorate are now assisting the British Transport Police (BTP) with their investigation. Once this investigation has been concluded HSE will consider whether any further action for this type of level crossing is required.

  Harrogate-York Rail Service
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct Railtrack to make the necessary infrastructure provision in order to establish a 30-minute service between Harrogate and York. [135073]

  Mr. Hill
  No. The Secretary of State has no powers to instruct Railtrack. The provision of such infrastructure is a matter in the first instance for Railtrack and the train operating company, Northern Spirit. Condition seven of Railtrack's network licence requires it to maintain, renew, replace, improve, enhance and develop the network to meet the reasonable requirements of train operators and funders. The licence is enforced by the Rail Regulator.

  Subsidy may be provided to the train operator through the franchise, and, subject to the Transport Bill currently before Parliament, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) may procure schemes from Railtrack. To qualify for support a scheme would have to meet the SRA's Planning Criteria.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Barristers (Earnings)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will(a) place in the Library a copy of the recent study carried out for his Department comparing the earnings of barristers with other public sector professions and (b) make a statement on the conclusions of the study. [134350]

  Mr. Lock
  Copies of the recent study into the comparison of barristers' income from public funds with other comparable professions in the public sector have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The study indicated that barristers were paid significantly more than members of other professions doing skilled and stressful jobs who were also paid from public funds. The conclusions of the research are being considered, together with other evidence available, in determining the level of rates payable to barristers for both publicly funded family and criminal work. The Lord Chancellor and I are currently considering the responses to proposals which have been made on such fees and will announce our conclusions shortly.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the recent document submitted to him by the Law Society on judicial appointments. [134330]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor welcomes the acknowledgement by the Law Society of the improvements in the judicial appointments system which he has introduced. He notes that the Law Society calls for the creation of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission. He has not ruled out further reform for the future but considers it appropriate to proceed with the implementation and evaluation of the changes recommended by Sir Leonard Peach in his scrutiny. As part of this programme of development, the post of the First Commissioner for Judicial Appointments has now been advertised.

  Court Dress
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent discussions the Lord Chancellor has had with senior members of the judiciary concerning reform of court dress; and if he will make a statement. [134329]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor will discuss court dress with the higher judiciary on 14 November, but it is not a matter to which he attaches a high priority.

  Access to Children (French Initiative)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his policy is towards the Initiative of the French Republic for a draft Council 310W
  Regulation on the mutual enforcement of judgments on rights of access to children; and if he will make a statement. [135730]

  Mr. Lock
  The Government recognise the importance, as well as the difficulty, of enforcing access or contact arrangements in both domestic and international cases. Accordingly, we broadly support this initiative and will take a full part in the negotiations on this proposal, but recognise that further work is needed to ensure that the details are acceptable to the Government.

  Land Registry Projects
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what reports or research or projects have been undertaken for the Land Registry in the last three years by Demograph. [135474]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Land Registry has had no reports, research or projects undertaken on its behalf by Demograph in the last three years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bicycles
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to require bicycles to be fitted with bells. [134523]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department is proposing to make bells on bicycles compulsory on bicycles at the point of sale and will be carrying out a public consultation on the draft regulations shortly.

  Crime Statistics (Taunton)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted in respect of(a) murder, (b) indictable offences and (c)non-indictable offences in each year since 1979 in the Taunton constituency. [134320]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Databases are given in the table. Due to disproportionate cost selected years only are given.

  Number of offenders convicted at Taunton Deane Petty Sessional Division (PSD) or at the Crown court (where the committing magistrates court was Taunton Deane PSD) for certain offences, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1993–19991

  Offence

  Murder

  Indictable offences

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1979

  —

  571

  704

  1984

  —

  724

  924

  1989

  —

  510

  823

  1993

  —

  505

  683

  1994

  —

  497

  688

  1995

  —

  450

  781

  1996

  —

  479

  828

  1997

  —

  566

  792

  1998

  —

  533

  929

  19991

  —

  576

  1,019

  1 Provisional

  Crime and Disorder Act 1998
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what responses he has received to his letter to local authorities and chief constables of 15 October 1999 on the powers included in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; if he plans any amendment to the Act in the light of the responses; if he will place the responses in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [134871]

  Mr. Straw
  My letter of 15 October 1999 was an informal request to chief executives and local authorities asking whether there was anything to be learned from their experiences in using provisions contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and whether any good practice could be shared. I would not normally place copies of routine correspondence of this sort in the Library. As a result of that correspondence the Home Office and the Local Government Association jointly held 10 regional seminars to help spread good practice in using anti-social behaviour orders. The seminars also served as a consultation exercise for the issue of a model agreement, or protocol, for effective local co-operation in tackling anti-social behaviour. I launched this guidance on 28 June. Both the guidance and the seminars were well received, and indicated a widespread willingness to use anti-social behaviour orders.

  We have given a commitment to review the operation of anti-social behaviour orders within two years of implementation. The review will start in the new year and its findings and recommendations will be published. We will decide whether it is necessary to make any amendments to the legislation once we have seen the research report.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to instigate research into the extent to which people with mental health problems are denied access to the criminal justice system. [133810]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are not aware of a need for any such research.

  Police Officers (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many funded police officers there are in the Essex Constabulary; and what is the total number of police officers in the force. [134246]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Chief Constable that the Essex Police have a funded establishment of 2,970 police officers and that on 15 October the force had 2,841 officers. In October Essex Police had 35 more officers than it had in March.

  The Essex Police expect to recruit around 190 police officers this year which should allow them broadly to reach their target by the end of the financial year.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many animals, broken down by 312W
  species, were used in experiments in the United Kingdom during each of the last five years for which figures are available; [134281]

  (2) how many primates have been (a) used in scientific procedures and (b) killed during their use in scientific procedures during the last 10 years for which figures are available; [134278]

  (3) how many experiments were conducted on animals in the United Kingdom during each of the last five years for which figures are available. [134280]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of animals, listed by species, used in scientific procedures in the United Kingdom for each of the last five years for which figures are available, is given in Table 1a in each of the publications Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, and Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Northern Ireland, copies of which are in the Library. The same table for Great Britain also shows the number of primates used in scientific procedures each year (primates are not separately identified in the Northern Ireland statistics) but the statistics do not give any information on the number of primates killed during their use in scientific procedures.

  The number of scientific procedures performed on living animals in the United Kingdom for each of the last five years for which figures are available, is given in Table 1 in each of the publications Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain, and Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Northern Ireland, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compliance of Imutran with the terms of the special dispensation licensing their use of primates in scientific procedures in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [134279]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Section 5(6) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 provides that a project licence authorising the use of cats, dogs, primates or equidae shall not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that no other species are suitable. I am aware of concerns about the use of primates in xenotransplantation research carried out under authorities granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and I am considering the issues raised. I am not in a position to comment further at this stage.

  Race Relations (Walsall)
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding has been given by his Department in the last 12 months for which figures are available to organisations in Walsall, including the local authority, to improve race relations and to enhance ethnic minority businesses and employment. [134259]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A total of £119,208 was paid to Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council in March 2000 under the former section 11 grant programme. This was to enable the Council to employ additional staff to help members of minority ethnic communities in Walsall overcome disadvantages of language, culture and religion
  313W
  and to play a full part in the economic and social life of the local community. No other payments have been made during the past 12 months.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special advisers were on his Department's pay roll in each of the past three years; and what the cost to public funds was. [134643]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There have been two special advisers on the Home Office payroll in the three financial years since the 1997 General Election. The annual cost to the Department in each of those years was:

  £

  1997–981

  108,065

  1998–99

  108,933

  1999–2000

  114,704

  1From 6 May 1997

  Police force

  Basic command unit

  Avon and Somerset

  Central Bristol, North Bristol, South Bristol

  Bedfordshire

  Luton

  Cambridgeshire

  Northern

  Cleveland

  All

  Derbyshire

  Derby (D Division)

  Devon and Cornwall

  Torbay

  Durham

  Darlington

  Gloucestershire

  Cheltenham and Tewkesbury, Forest and Gloucester

  Greater Manchester

  All

  Hampshire

  Southampton

  Humberside

  Kingston upon Hull, North Lincolnshire, North-East Lincolnshire

  Lancashire

  Central, Pennine

  Leicestershire

  Central, West

  Lincolnshire

  West

  London, City of

  Bishopsgate

  Merseyside

  City and Kirkdale, South Liverpool, St. Helens, Walton and Croxteth, Wavertree and Riverside, West Derby and Tuebrook

  Metropolitan Police

  Barnet, Brent, Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Westminster

  North Yorkshire

  Central

  Northamptonshire

  Eastern, Northampton

  Northumbria

  Gateshead East, Newcastle Central, Newcastle East, Newcastle West, South Tyneside, Sunderland City, Washington

  Nottinghamshire

  Carlton and West Bridgeford, City and Beeston, Mansfield and Ashfield, Radford Road, Hucknall and Arnold

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley, Doncaster Central, Doncaster West, Rotherham East, Sheffield Attercliffe, Sheffield City Centre, Sheffield North, Sheffield South, Wombwell

  Staffordshire

  Stoke on Trent

  Sussex

  Brighton, Senlac

  Thames Valley

  Milton Keynes, Oxford, Reading and Wokingham, Slough and District

  West Midlands

  Erdington, Aston, Nechells, Saltley, Ward End, Sutton Coldfield, Castle Vale, Kingstanding, Stechford, Shard End, Bordesley Green, Bromford, Sheldon, Bournville, Bartley Green, Longbridge, Selly Oak, Frankley, Northfield, Kings Heath, Billesley, Kings Norton, Acocks Green, Sparkhill, Sparkbrook, Edgbaston, Balsall Heath, Selly Park, Moseley, F1—Birmingham City Centre, Digbeth, Soho, Winson Green, Harbourne, Ladywood, Quinton, Handsworth, Sandwell, Perry Barr, Aston (part), Wolverhampton Town Centre, Wolverhampton West, Whitmoreanes, Tettenhall, Penn, Wednesfield, Bilston, Walsall North and South, Walsall Town Centre, Aldridge, Willenhall, Bloxwich, Brownhills, Darlaston, Brierley Hill, Dudley, Sedgeley, Gornal, Halesowen, Stourbridge, Lye, Cradley, Kingswinford, West Bromwich, Wednesbury, Tipton, Great Barr, Smethwick, Oldbury, Old Hill, Langley, Warley, Coundon, Hillfields, Tile Hill, Coventry City Centre, Fletchamstead, Stivichall, Willenhall-Coventry, Stoke, Radford, Foleshill, Bell Green, Wyken

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford Central, Chapeltown, Dewsbury, Eccleshill, Halifax, Holbeck, Huddersfield, Killingbeck, Millgarth, Odsal, Pontefract, Pudsey, Toller Lane, Wakefield, Weetwood

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which areas have been determined as having sufficiently high burglary rates to be eligible to participate in the extended home energy efficiency scheme for the provision of safety equipment; and what the threshold is for inclusion. [135818]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The eligible areas are all those police Basic Command Units in England that, according to the recorded crime figures published in January 2000, had a domestic burglary rate above the English average—i.e. at least 11 burglaries per 1,000 households in the six months between April and September 1999. Between them, these Basic Command Units account for almost 40 per cent. of all the households in England.

  For Wales, separate arrangements are being made by the National Assembly.

  The eligible Basic Command Units are as listed:
  315W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations were consulted about proposals to extend the home energy efficiency scheme to include safety equipment; and how many organisations were invited to tender for the new elements of the scheme(a) in the Coventry area and (b) nationally. [135817]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following organisations were consulted:

  The McCarthy Foundation (which co-ordinates a number of Bobby Van Services—schemes that provide home security up-grades for elderly and other vulnerable people);

  Help the Aged (who also operate similar schemes in a number of areas around the country);

  Bexley Victim Support;

  the Association of Chief Police Officers;

  the British Security Industry Association;

  the Association of British Insurers;

  the Master Locksmiths Association;

  the Association of Builders Hardware;

  Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate;

  Safer Merthyr Tydfil;

  the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which is responsible for the New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme;

  The Buying Agency; and

  Eaga Partnership Ltd. and Eastern Energy Ltd., who were appointed by the DETR as Scheme Managers.

  Responsibility for appointing installers to fit the locks and other home security hardware lay with the Scheme Managers. They published an advertisement in the European Journal, in response to which 250 organisations expressed an interest in tendering. Of these, we understand that 206 were formally Invited to Tender, 184 responded and 54 were appointed. For the Coventry area, 19 companies expressed an interest and two were appointed.

  In addition, The Buying Agency published, on our behalf, an advertisement in the European Journal concerning the supply of the security hardware, in response to which seven organisations expressed an interest in tendering. All seven were formally invited to tender. None was based in Coventry.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the Standing Committee on the Evaluation and Implementation of Schengen as concerns UK participation. [134811]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Standing Committee on the Evaluation and Implementation of Schengen is a working group of the Council which was established to ensure that countries such as the United Kingdom meet the pre-conditions for bringing the Schengen acquis into force. The Standing Committee produces evaluation reports based on the preparations for implementation in those countries, identifies problems and proposes 316W
  solutions. The Committee also ensures the proper application of the Schengen acquis in existing Schengen countries. The evaluation of the United Kingdom's implementation of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in which we are participating is likely to begin in spring 2001.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Schengen(a) handbooks and (b) manuals, stating which (i) remain classified, with grading, and (ii) his Department has not yet reviewed. [134807]

  Mrs. Roche
  On 23 June 1998 the Schengen Executive Committee decided that the following documents relating to the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement should remain confidential:

  Annexes 5, 9 and 10 to the Common Consular Instructions on Visas;

  the Common Manual;

  the Sirene Manual;

  three documents covered by the decision on narcotic drugs (tightening controls at external borders (SCH/Stup (92) 45 latest version), controlled deliveries (SCH/Stup (92) 46 latest version) and measures on combating the illicit exportation of drugs (SCH/Stup (92) 72 latest version)).

  The Home Office has received copies of all of these documents.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the UK share of the Schengen operational budget. [134805]

  Mrs. Roche
  As those parts of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom applied to participate have not yet been implemented in the United Kingdom, our only commitment to the Schengen operational budget is towards SIS operating costs. This amounts to £400,000 for the current financial year.

  Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has assigned(a) members and (b) observers to the Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority. [134684]

  Mrs. Roche
  In accordance with Article 115 of the Schengen Implementing Convention, the Schengen Joint Supervisory Authority oversees the technical support function of the Schengen Information System. The Data Protection Commissioner has been assigned as the United Kingdom's national supervisory authority representative to the Joint Supervisory Authority. The Commissioner is currently represented at the Joint Supervisory Authority in an observer status and when Schengen is fully operational in the United Kingdom will assign full members to the Authority. Article 115 provides for each member state to have two representatives on the Joint Supervisory Authority.

  Parish Polls
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the holding of parish polls; [135145]
  317W
  (2) what advice his Department has given to returning officers on the holding of parish polls. [135144]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Parish polls are held under the provisions of schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Community Meetings (Polls) Rules 1987. Returning Officers are responsible for observing and interpreting those rules and my department has not issued any guidance on their application.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug dealers have been(a) sent to and (b) released from prison in each of the last three years. [134536]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to identify "drug dealers" on the central prison database as it is not a standard coded item. The available information on receptions into and discharges from prisons in England and Wales for all coded drug offences is given in the table.

  Receptions into and discharges from Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for drug offences 1997–99

  Year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  1. Receptions

  Drug production

  171

  145

  150

  Drug supply

  2,210

  2,334

  2,506

  Drug possession with intent

  2,535

  2,576

  2,521

  Drug possession

  1,139

  1,259

  1,347

  Drug unlawful import/export

  958

  1,016

  1,072

  Other drugs offences

  61

  70

  80

  Total

  7,074

  7,400

  7,676

  2. Discharges

  Drug production

  143

  159

  80

  Drug supply

  1,585

  2,043

  1,428

  Drug possession with intent

  2,076

  2,475

  1,547

  Drug possession

  964

  1,129

  962

  Drug unlawful import/export

  637

  719

  700

  Other drugs offences

  60

  75

  54

  Total

  5,465

  6,600

  4,771

  New Year (Licensing Regulations)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take regarding the availability of late night opening of pubs nationally on new year's eve. [135130]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, columns 203–04W.

  Immigration Policy
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what his policy is on the balance 318W
  of responsibilities between the EU and the UK Government, and the method of voting in the Council of Ministers, on immigration policy; [135692]

  (2) what his policy is on the balance of responsibilities between the EU and the UK Government, and the method of voting in the Council of Ministers, on measures setting out conditions for freedom of travel for nationals of third countries; [135693]

  (3) what his policy is on the balance of responsibilities between the EU and the UK Government, and the method of voting in the Council of Ministers, on asylum measures; [135694]

  (4) what his policy is on the balance of responsibilities between the EU and the UK Government, and the method of voting in the Council of Ministers, on measures on refugees and displaced persons; [135695]

  (5) what his policy is on the balance of responsibilities between the EU and the UK Government, and the method of voting in the Council of Ministers, on rules on visas; [135696]

  (6) what his policy is on the balance of responsibilities between the EU and the UK Government, and the method of voting in the Council of Ministers, on rules and arrangements for border checks. [135697]

  Mrs. Roche
  The United Kingdom has, by way of its Protocols to the Treaty establishing the European Community, reserved the right not to be bound by Community law unless it decides to opt into the adoption of measures falling within Title IV of the Treaty (visas, asylum and immigration). We have indicated our general intention to participate in all measures which do not adversely affect the United Kingdom's ability to maintain our frontier and immigration controls.

  On 12 March 1999, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the basis on which the United Kingdom would participate in the adoption of measures under Title IV. On that basis, the United Kingdom has opted into: the Eurodac Regulation, setting up the exchange of fingerprints of asylum seekers and some illegal entrants; the draft temporary protection Directive; the negotiating mandate for an agreement with Norway and Iceland parallel to the Dublin Convention; the Council Decision establishing the European Refugee Fund; and measures aimed at combating illegal immigration and trafficking. The latter measures include: a draft Council Directive defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, movement and residence; and a draft Council Directive about harmonisation of financial penalties imposed on carriers transporting into the territory of the member states third-country nationals not having the documents necessary for admission.

  Article 67 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community provides that, during a transitional period of five years following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council of Ministers shall act unanimously on measures adopted under Title IV.

  Firearms
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving firearms were recorded in each of the last five years; how many involved use of a firearm; how many resulted in a death; and if he will make a statement. [135810]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of firearms (excluding air weapons) used in offences, the number of occasions fired or used as a blunt instrument, and the number of homicides resulting from the use of these firearms, are given in the following table.

  Year

  Total number of offences in which air weapons were used

  Number of occasions fired/used as blunt instrument1

  Number of homicides

  1994

  6,002

  1,040

  66

  1995

  5,866

  929

  69

  1996

  6,063

  896

  49

  1997

  4,904

  1,103

  59

  1998–99

  5,209

  1,203

  49

  1Figures of firearms fired or used as a blunt instrument in 1994, 1995 and 1996 are on the basis of returns made in those years. Because the totals of firearm offences for those years were revised upwards due to late returns by one force, figures of firearms fired or used as a blunt instrument are slight underestimates.

  The details for air weapons are as follows:

  Year

  Total number of offences in which air weapons were used

  Number of occasions fired/used as blunt instrument1

  Number of homicides

  1994

  7,165

  6,896

  0

  1995

  7,568

  7,272

  1

  1996

  7,813

  7,449

  0

  1997

  7,506

  7,207

  0

  1998–99

  8,665

  8,230

  0

  1Figures of firearms fired or used as a blunt instrument in 1994, 1995 and 1996 are on the basis of returns made in those years. Because the totals of firearm offences for those years were revised upwards due to late returns by one force, figures of firearms fired or used as a blunt instrument are slight underestimates.

  Authorised firearms officers: England and Wales

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  England and Wales

  6,554

  6,738

  6,355

  6,411

  6,262

  Avon and Somerset

  157

  165

  161

  153

  150

  Bedfordshire

  48

  46

  42

  50

  46

  Cambridgeshire

  92

  90

  80

  80

  77

  Cheshire

  84

  70

  82

  70

  75

  City of London

  120

  88

  81

  55

  73

  Cleveland

  65

  86

  84

  78

  80

  Cumbria

  100

  108

  122

  98

  98

  Derbyshire

  130

  110

  100

  87

  77

  Devon and Cornwall

  140

  151

  147

  82

  119

  Dorset

  75

  74

  72

  72

  66

  Durham

  103

  138

  144

  96

  101

  Dyfed-Powys

  57

  70

  71

  67

  65

  Essex

  203

  228

  217

  235

  228

  Gloucestershire

  85

  82

  84

  79

  77

  Greater Manchester

  186

  209

  182

  217

  218

  Gwent

  55

  70

  59

  64

  68

  Hampshire

  104

  106

  112

  110

  111

  Hertfordshire

  43

  42

  41

  43

  52

  Humberside

  104

  90

  102

  205

  97

  Blantyre Prison
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was of the raid by prison officers on Blantyre Prison; and if he will give the cost of damage caused during the raid. [134633]

  Mr. Boateng
  The total cost of the search operation at Blantyre House on 5 May was £22,784.85,of which £2,242.20 represents the cost of the materials needed to repair damage that occurred during the search.

  Armed Police
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of armed police officers on foot patrols; whether police authorities have to be consulted before armed police are used on routine patrols; how many forces use armed police officers for routine patrols; what assessment has been made by his Department of the effectiveness of the use of armed patrol officers; what guidance has been issued by(a) his Department and (b) the Association of Chief Police Officers; and if he will make a statement. [135807]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The issue and use of firearms is an operational decision for chief officers of police, working within the legal framework and operational guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers. (The guidance has not been published as it could be of assistance to armed criminals.) Firearms operations do not require the agreement of Police Authorities. The Home Office monitors the police use of firearms through annual statistical returns, which are published. The guidance does not permit the use of armed officers on routine foot patrols as opposed to specific operations, and there has therefore been no assessment of effectiveness.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many specially trained firearms police officers there were(a) in each force and (b) in total (i) at the latest available date and (ii) in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [135811]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested information is given in the table.
  321W

  Authorised firearms officers: England and Wales

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Kent

  144

  150

  150

  130

  136

  Lancashire

  138

  132

  125

  132

  143

  Leicestershire

  105

  104

  94

  90

  90

  Lincolnshire

  81

  82

  85

  75

  78

  Merseyside

  119

  147

  165

  121

  96

  Metropolitan Police

  1,915

  2,035

  1,741

  1,951

  1,977

  Norfolk

  99

  98

  102

  109

  110

  North Wales

  70

  72

  90

  97

  92

  North Yorkshire

  134

  108

  95

  83

  59

  Northamptonshire

  95

  92

  92

  92

  75

  Northumbria

  160

  173

  126

  123

  114

  Nottinghamshire

  126

  128

  129

  120

  116

  South Wales

  154

  134

  176

  169

  155

  South Yorkshire

  125

  110

  108

  90

  100

  Staffordshire

  80

  78

  86

  92

  81

  Suffolk

  70

  82

  96

  101

  98

  Surrey

  79

  76

  61

  69

  71

  Sussex

  149

  180

  146

  156

  131

  Thames Valley

  175

  185

  194

  179

  187

  Warwickshire

  50

  41

  38

  44

  54

  West Mercia

  153

  155

  159

  139

  129

  West Midlands

  87

  88

  95

  92

  93

  West Yorkshire

  150

  131

  114

  128

  110

  Wiltshire

  145

  134

  105

  88

  89

  Cowboy Builders
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what projects his Department is supporting connected with the First Check Point organisation to combat incompetent and dishonest builders. [135138]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 October 2000,Official Report, columns 216–17W.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 1 September on behalf of his constituent Miss Merchant. [135788]

  Mrs. Roche
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 25 October.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to offer increased remuneration to attract new recruits to those police forces which have been unable to meet their recruitment targets. [134451]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Police Negotiating Board is the body which, under the Police Act 1996, makes recommendations to me on issues relating to the pay and allowances of police officers.

  The Metropolitan Police Service has been having particular recruitment difficulties. Following the recommendation of the Police Negotiating Board, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House on 23 June 2000, Official Report, column 562, an increase of £3,327 in the London Allowance of all officers
  322W
  in the Metropolitan Police Service and the City of London Police who joined on or after 1 September 1994 and receive no housing allowance.

  I understand that the Police Negotiating Board is currently looking at the recruitment and retention situation in other forces and that it is also setting up a working party to examine the remuneration of the federated ranks with the objective of ensuring a cohesive national pay structure which meets the current and future needs of the police service. I will take into consideration any recommendation from the PNB.

  Police Officers (Overtime Payments)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reform police overtime payments. [134525]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. member for Maidstone and the Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 217–18W.

  Vacant Prison Land, Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has for bringing into use the vacant prison land opposite Wandsworth Prison in Heathfield Road, Wandsworth, London SW18; and if he will make a statement. [134815]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is a plot of vacant land in front of Wandsworth prison known as Dobbin's field. The Prison Service is currently discussing with the local planning authority, Wandsworth Borough Council, the possibility of the area becoming a public open space to form an extension to Wandsworth Common, as part of a proposal to develop Prison Service owned land at the rear of the prison for residential development.

  Prisoners (Staffordshire Residents)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many South Staffordshire Health District residents are currently serving sentences of imprisonment in the UK; in which prisons they are held; and how many are in each; [134405]

  (2) how many residents of Stafford constituency are prisoners in the UK; [134393]

  (3) what proportion of prisoners of HM Prison Stafford are residents of Stafford constituency. [134392]

  Mr. Boateng
  No information is available centrally regarding the principal address of those committed to custody in England and Wales. HMP Stafford however has indicated that at present less than five per cent. of their current population come from the Stafford constituency.

  Prisons (Suicide and Self-harm)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has made based on the trends in the incidence of suicide and self-harm in prisons in England in the last five years. [134386]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of self-inflicted deaths in prison in England and Wales has risen in the last five years from 64 in 1996 to 91 in 1999 (116 and 91 per 100,000 respectively). The current figure for this year is 72. Total incidents of self-harm have risen from 6,670 in 1995–96 to 7,397 in 1998–99.

  The majority of these deaths occurred in local prisons among prisoners who are unsentenced and within the first two months in custody. Other particularly vulnerable groups of prisoners are those who have previously suffered from mental health problems or from drug/alcohol abuse.

  The number of self-inflicted deaths among women prisoners and young offenders are relatively low, but are rising this year. Rates of self-harm among women and young offenders are higher than adult male prisoners. Many of those who self-harm experienced similar problems to those who took their own lives.

  These trends reinforce the need to give a high priority to measures to combat the incidence of suicide and self-harm. The Prison Service is reviewing its suicide/ self-harm prevention strategy and will report to Ministers shortly.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Creative and Cultural Education
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made towards implementing the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education; and if he will make a statement. [134613]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: My Department, in close collaboration with the Department for Education and Employment, has made significant progress in implementing the commitments given in the Government's response to the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education
  324W
  report which was published in January. We published an update of this progress in September, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House. It is also available on our website at www.culture.gov.uk. Since then the DfEE have also confirmed that Government funding for music will increase to £60 million a year from 2001–02, and that level of funding will be sustained until at least 2003£04, ensuring that every LEA in the country offers children the chance to learn to play musical instruments.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will report progress on applications for free television licences for people aged 75 years and over and the timetable for issuing licences and refunds. [135912]

  Janet Anderson
  On the progress of applications, the British Broadcasting Corporation has reported that, by 20 October 2000, TV Licensing had received 3 million applications for free licences. Of these, 220,000 are not yet eligible. All the complete, and accurate, applications made before the 1 October 2000 closing date will result in a licence being issued by early November. People aged 75 or over who are currently beneficiaries of the £5 Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) licence will receive a free licence when their "scheme" television licence next falls to be renewed.

  Of the 2.78 million applications being processed:
  2.35 million have been completely processed and accepted as eligible for a free licence.
  200,000 people have yet to return requests for additional information regarding their application. Provided the information is returned, the application will be processed and, if eligible, a licence will be issued.
  170,000 people have recently returned additional information or made a new application, and the information is still being processed. These will be processed by 1 November 2000.
  50,000 people have either been unable to provide a National Insurance number, or the BBC has been unable to verify their information against data provided by the Department of Social Security after a second check. These people have been sent a form to take to their Post Office with proof of their age, after which they will be issued with a free licence, if eligible. Each applicant will be issued a receipt by the Post Office as evidence of their application in the period before they receive a free licence. Where people are unable to prove their age at the Post Office, they will be able to show secondary, alternative evidence to TV Licensing, whose officers will visit the applicant at home if necessary.
  11,000 people have been recorded as deceased since making their application.

  Applicants who have been asked for further information have been urged to respond quickly, as TV Licensing is unable to proceed further without a reply. Applications which raise problems, such as illegible contact information and current television licences having been cancelled since applying, will be processed as quickly as possible, though this may take until the middle or end of November. The BBC estimates these are about 2 per cent. of the total so far received.

  New applications are continuing to be made to the BBC. Accurate and complete applications received between 1 and 31 October 2000 will result in a licence being issued by the

  325W
  end of November. Similarly, applications received between 1 and 30 November 2000 will result in a licence being issued at the end of December.

  On the timetable for issuing licences and refunds, the BBC has said that the mailing of the free licences, and any refunds associated with unused portions of a previous licence, started on 23 October 2000. In order to manage the response to the licence mailing, which inevitably includes people telephoning TV Licensing with queries and changes of address, the licences are being mailed in the following volumes:

  100,000 on 23 October 2000.

  300,000 a day each working day and Saturday after that, until the main volume has been completed.

  Daily dependent on volumes thereafter until mid-November.

  As required after mid-November.

  The licences are being sent out using Manson 2 (the equivalent of 2nd class post) with Royal Mail, and so will arrive with the applicant between two and four days after posting. The majority of licences will, therefore, reach applicants between 25 October and 6 November 2000. The number of licences still to be sent in November could be as high as 430,000 depending on the level, timeliness and accuracy of the responses from applicants. These will be sent out at an even rate through the remainder of the month.

  Synchronised Swimming
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the training facilities available for synchronised swimming. [134705]

  Kate Hoey
  The Amateur Swimming Federation of Great Britain and the Amateur Swimming Association have produced a National Facilities Strategy for Swimming which is in final draft form and should be published by the end of the year. The National Strategy considers the needs of various swimming disciplines and includes identification of the requirements for synchronised swimming.

  The £120 million Lottery investment in the English Institute of Sport (part of the United Kingdom Sports Institute) includes over £10 million on swimming and diving projects, to add to previous investment of over £20 million in 50 metre pools at the Manchester Aquatics Centre and the University of Bath.

  A number of swimming pools which are being developed as part of the Institute will be suitable for synchronised swimming training at the elite level, but there will also be refurbished or new community facilities suitable for synchronised swimming use by the wider community.

  National Lottery Commission
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans his Department has to change the role of the National Lottery Commission. [135401]

  Kate Hoey
  None.

  Athletics Facilities
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the seats at the proposed Lee Valley Stadium would be provided on a temporary basis for the World Athletics Championships in 2005. [134845]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: According to the current design concept developed by Drivers Jonas as part of the feasibility study for the Lee Valley Stadium, between 15,000 and 20,000 of the 40,000–45,000 seats available for the World Championships will not be included in the long-term legacy stadium.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has received from the British Olympic Association of the suitability of the proposed Lee Valley Stadium as a venue for track and field athletics and the opening and closing ceremonies of a London Olympic Games; and if he will make a statement. [134841]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: I have received no such assessment. The British Olympic Association are involved in discussions about the possible future uses of the stadium and attend meetings of the Lee Valley Stadium Forum.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is his policy that the proposed Lee Valley Stadium should be capable of being upgraded to act as the venue for track and field athletics and the opening and closing ceremonies of a London Olympic Games. [134839]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The main priority for the project partners involved with the development of the new National Athletics Stadium is to provide a world class facility capable of hosting the World Athletics Championships in 2005 which is also capable of ensuring that athletics have a national centre for the future development of the sport. No decisions have been taken which would rule out the possibility of the stadium being used as a venue for a future Olympic Games.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the meeting of the Lee Valley Stadium Forum on 2 October. [134836]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The Lee Valley Forum meeting on 2 October 2000 discussed a number of matters including the emerging conclusions of the business and technical feasibility studies commissioned by the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and UK Athletics, an update on the plans for staging the 2005 World Championships and a progress report on the provision of accommodation for competitors.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions(a) he and (b) the Minister for Sport have had with (i) members and (ii) representatives of the International Amateur Athletics Federation about the development of a venue for the 2005 World Athletic Championships since the award of those championships to London; and if he will make a statement. [134838]
  327W
  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: No formal discussions have been held with the International Amateur Athletic Federation to discuss the successful London bid for the 2005 World Championships, since the award of the Championships in April. UK Athletics are required to give the IAAF a progress report on the staging arrangements, including the development of the venue, by the middle of next year.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his assessment is of the impact of the proposed development of a national athletics stadium at Picketts Lock on the long term viability of athletics facilities in(a) Gateshead, (b) Birmingham, (c) Sheffield and (d) Edinburgh. [134840]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The new national athletics stadium will provide a new, world class venue for athletics which will enhance the profile of the sport across the United Kingdom. UK Athletics are currently looking at the impact of the new stadium on athletics but have made it clear that any effects on large scale events currently staged outside London should be minimised.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what advice he has received from Sport England regarding the suitability of Picketts Lock as the site of an athletics facility; and if he will make a statement. [134602]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: UK Athletics selected Picketts Lock as the site on which to base their bid for the 2005 World Athletics Championships following extensive discussions with Sport England, UK Sport, the Government Office for London, a number of local authorities and with my Department. Since the success of the bid, the Lee Valley Stadium project team comprising the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and UK Athletics have commissioned consultants to advise on the optimum design for the stadium and on business planning options.

  Sports Stands
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is his policy that all new sports stands or seating funded from the National Lottery should be covered. [134837]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: No, neither my Department nor Sport England have a specific policy on whether stands funded by the Sports Lottery Fund should be covered.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which representatives from his Department were present at the most recent meeting of the Wembley Task Force. [134833]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The Department sends an observer to meetings of the Wembley Task Force. The official who attended the most recent meeting held on 25 October 2000 was Ian O'Neill of the Sport and Recreation Division.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by what date he expects Sport England to have received the repayment of 328W
  £20 million of National Lottery money due as a result of the decision to exclude athletics from the redeveloped Wembley Stadium. [135701]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. have now applied to Sport England to vary the lottery funding agreement for Wembley Stadium, and the final agreement on the terms of the return of the £20 million will be concluded shortly.

  Spoliation Advisory Panel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on progress of the work of the Spoliation Panel. [135386]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I expect the Spoliation Advisory Panel to offer its advice early in November.

  Visitor Attractions
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from members of the visitor attraction industry concerning the impact on their businesses of Lottery-funded competitors. [134490]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: My Department has received a number of representations from members of the visitor attraction industry concerning this issue. The National Lottery Act 1998 requires distributors to submit strategic plans; this helps to ensure that Lottery funding responds to need and that recipients complement existing attractions rather than compete with them.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the public statements issued by his Department since 1 July on the award of the next licence to operate the National Lottery. [134600]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: My Department issued press releases on 23 August 2000 (on the National Lottery Commission's announcement of its decisions about the new licence); on 5 October 2000 (on the resignation of Dame Helena Shovelton from the National Lottery Commission); and on 12 October 2000 (about the appointment of Lord Burns to the Commission).

  In addition, I and colleagues answered a number of parliamentary questions and have given a number of interviews to the media on this subject.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the cost to National Lottery funds of extending the licence of the existing operators for(a) two months, (b) six months and (c) one year. [135699]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Decisions on a possible interim licence are a matter for agreement between the National Lottery Commission and the current operator.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what statutory requirements would need to be fulfilled in order to extend the funding life of the Millennium Commission. [134611]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: An Order extending the Millennium Commission's funding life (by setting a later date on which its funding will stop) has to be laid and approved by each House of Parliament before 31 December 2000.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to extend the funding life of the Millennium Commission; and if he will make a statement. [134612]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: I intend to lay an Order and have it approved by each House of Parliament before 31 December 2000. This is consistent with the previous administration's announced intention to extend the Millennium Commission's funding life to enable it to meet its commitments.

  Further details of the Order will be published in due course.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the costs of decommissioning the Millennium Dome. [134492]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: Decommissioning costs will depend on the future use of the Dome site and are currently commercially confidential while negotiations are taking place with contractors.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from the New Millennium Experience Company regarding a prime ministerial visit to the Dome. [134604]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: I have not received any representations from the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) regarding a prime ministerial visit to the Dome.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the Lazards report on the Dome. [134487]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: Lazards have not produced a report. They, and other professional advisers, have contributed to work being carried out by English Partnerships on the review of options for the Millennium Experience site. This is work in progress, which remains commercially sensitive and confidential while discussions with Legacy plc are continuing.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to use the(a) building and (b) site of the Millennium Dome for sporting activity. [134360]

  Janet Anderson
  There are no present plans to use(a) the building or (b) the site of the Millennium Dome for sporting activity.

  Special Advisers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the duties of his Department's special advisers include the drafting of answers to parliamentary questions. [134830]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The duties and responsibilities of Special Advisers are set out in Schedule 1 (Part 1) of the Model Contract for Special Advisers, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Within the terms of their contracts, Special Advisers may draft answers to Parliamentary Questions.

  Deaf Viewers (Subtitles)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on subtitling for the deaf on satellite and other digital channels. [134823]

  Janet Anderson
  We are reviewing the statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling, signing and audio description services on digital terrestrial television. We issued a consultation paper in July, and are considering the responses. As part of the review, we are also considering other aspects of the provision and reception of these services, including on cable and satellite television channels. We expect to announce our conclusions later this year.

  Charities
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the effect on the direct income of charities of the National Lottery. [134831]

  Kate Hoey
  My Department has made no such assessment. However, in 1997 the Institute for Fiscal Studies conducted a statistical analysis of charitable donations, which found no independent effect of the National Lottery on donations to charities.

  Steroids
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the extent of the use of steroids in sport in the United Kingdom. [134702]

  Kate Hoey
  There has been no formal assessment of the extent of the use of steroids in competitive sport in the United Kingdom. The UK Sport Testing Programme focuses on elite competitive sports. While this programme includes tests for anabolic agents (including anabolic steroids), its findings may include UK and non-UK athletes.

  The most recent research undertaken into the use of steroids in the UK was published in 1993 and indicated that 35 per cent. of athletes attending weight training gymnasiums were found to be using anabolic steroids. This Government firmly believe that there is no place for drugs in sport and we will continue to work through UK Sport and the national governing bodies of sport to reduce doping in sport through the implementation of an effective testing programme and a comprehensive education programme.
  331W
  The Government spend over £1 million a year on ensuring the quality of an out of competition drug testing programme in the UK.

  Art Exports
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the members of the

  Dates

  Chairman

  Sir John Guinness CB

  First appointment

  1 December 1995–30 November 1998

  Second appointment

  1 December 1998–30 November 2001

  Members

  Sir Jack Baer

  First appointment

  1 June 1992–31 May 1995

  Second appointment

  1 June 1995–31 May 1998

  Final appointment

  1 June 1998–31 May 2001

  Professor Rosemary Cramp

  First appointment

  1 March 1994–28 February 1997

  Second appointment

  1 March 1997–28 February 2000

  Final appointment

  1 March 2000–28 February 2003

  Dr. Richard Dorment

  First appointment

  1 August 1996–31 July 1999

  Second appointment

  1 August 1999–31 July 2002

  Mr. Ian Gow

  First appointment

  1 December 1994–30 November 1997

  Second appointment

  1 December 1997–30 November 2000

  Final appointment

  1 December 2000–30 November 2003

  Mr. Alastair Laing

  First appointment

  1 February 1996–31 January 1999

  Second appointment

  1 February 1999–31 January 2002

  Mr. Martin Levy

  First appointment

  1 March 1997–29 February 2000

  Second appointment

  1 March 2000–28 February 2003

  The hon. Georgina Stonor

  First appointment

  1 February 1993–31 January 1996

  Second appointment

  1 February 1996–31 January 1999

  Final appointment

  1 February 1999–31 January 2002

  Olympic Games
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to support a British bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games. [134482]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: We are committed to supporting a viable Olympic bid but the decision on whether or not to bid is for the National Olympic Committee—the British Olympic Association (BOA). The BOA have been carrying out extensive studies on the viability of a London bid for 2012 and have promised to submit their conclusions to the Government by the end of the year.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the engagements that were accepted by the Minister for the Arts with non-Governmental bodies over the past year; and if he will list in each case(a) if he fulfilled the engagement, (b) if the engagement was cancelled and by whom and (c) if he was represented by another person. [134635]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  For legitimate reasons of confidentiality, it is not the practice of Ministers to publish details of their schedule of engagements.

  Television Violence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department about the possible impact of violence on television on the level of violent crime. [134703]
  332W
  Committee on the Export of Works of Art and the dates of their appointment. [134367]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Reviewing Committee on the Exports of Works of Art consists of eight permanent members who have expertise in one or more fields of art. The current membership and the dates of their appointments are as follows:

  Janet Anderson
  None. Under the United Kingdom's arrangements for broadcasting, it is the responsibility of broadcasters and broadcasting regulators to set and enforce standards. In doing so, they must reflect the codes of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which are informed by its research into public attitudes towards the portrayal of violence in broadcast programmes.

  British Sportsmen
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans his Department has to encourage distinguished British sportsmen actively to serve as role models for young people. [134369]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government Strategy for Sport "A Sporting Future for All" recognises the importance of good leaders and role models to help encourage young people to participate in sport and physical education. The Implementation Group established to focus on Sporting Excellence has been asked to look at the role elite performers might play in such an initiative.

  Boxing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the trends in the number of people participating in boxing in the last three years. [134362]

  Kate Hoey
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not keep detailed records of participation in individual sports. Such information is usually kept by governing bodies.
  333W
  The Amateur Boxing Association of England has kindly provided the following figures:

  Number

  1997–98

  6,493

  1998–99

  7,208

  1999–2000

  6,991

  These figures cover junior and senior registered boxers.

  Lacrosse and Hockey
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) lacrosse, (b) ice hockey and (c) field hockey matches he has attended in an official capacity since May 1997. [134361]
  334W
  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not attended any of these events. I have accepted an invitation to attend the Women's Lacrosse World Cup to be held in High Wycombe next July. I have also attended the women's Olympic qualifying field hockey match between Great Britain and New Zealand on 28 March 2000 and the women's match between Great Britain and Argentina at the Sydney Olympics on 18 September 2000.

  BBC News
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the BBC's decision to move the BBC One evening news to 10 pm, together with consequent changes to the BBC One schedule, represents a material change under the terms set out in his Department's paper, 'BBC Public Services: Approvals'. [135700]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  No. Under the Charter and Agreement, the BBC is not required to seek my approval before it makes such scheduling changes.

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

Business
The Clerk of the Parliaments: My Lords, I am required to inform your Lordships that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, will not ask his Starred Question.

The British Council
Lord Watson of Richmond Lord Watson of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, and if so why, they are encouraging the British Council to redirect the balance of its future resources away from Europe.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, in our strategic guidance to the British Council we invited it to focus on countries where it can achieve most impact, particularly those in transition to democracy. In its current strategic review the council has decided to increase resources for central and eastern Europe. Spending in western Europe will decline initially as the council reduces expenditure on premises and other fixed costs, but that will permit investment in new IT-based programmes and services that exploit new technology and are designed to reach wider audiences, which in turn will benefit Europe. The council will continue to spend much the same proportion of its grant-in-aid as before—nearly 40 per cent—on Europe.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer and understand the purpose behind it. If it is the avowed purpose of the Government that Great Britain should be as important to France and Germany as both are to each other, how can it possibly be justified in the case of Germany to reduce the total expenditure by nearly half and close many offices, including the one in Cologne, and to make substantial reductions in France and other European countries, for example Spain and Italy? Does the Minister agree that this is not the right time to take such action?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord slightly misunderstands the thrust of the review. The council's plans for Germany, for example, do not reflect the council's waning interest in that country but a mature judgment as to its capabilities and the opportunities to make an impact there. Infrastructure costs at present absorb 80 per cent of available funding and, at the same time, there
658
are tremendous possibilities to exploit the advanced state of IT and national media infrastructure in Germany. Accordingly, the council chooses to focus its physical presence in Berlin. As the noble Lord rightly said, the offices in Cologne, Hamburg, Leipzig and Munich are to close. However, the council has just opened a highly acclaimed showcase office in Berlin and has decided to devote the bulk of its resources to programmes and services, not buildings.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, if I heard my noble friend correctly, I believe that she referred to a new strategy for the British Council. Can my noble friend provide a little more detail of new strategy?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords. I referred to the strategic review which has just been undertaken by the British Council. The aim of the council in deciding on the new strategy is to ensure that it maximises its impact so that the resources at its disposal bring optimal benefits in term of improved perceptions of Britain. A major aim of the council's new strategy is to exploit the enormous potential of new media by offering new IT-based services. Their advantage is that they can reach much wider audiences, thus multiplying the impact, and allow the council to shift resources from infrastructure to programming activity.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, while I sympathise with the implications behind the noble Lord's Question, does the Minister agree that it is still very important that the British Council should devote a high proportion of its resources particularly to English language teaching in those countries which were formerly francophone and whose second language was French but have, often as a matter of policy, decided that English should become their second language?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the British Council is very active in the realm of English language teaching. To its great credit, the council also earns money by so doing and thereby augments its overall spending activities. That will remain a high priority for the British Council.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that how the British Council spends its resources and directs its input is best left to that body in view of its past record? Does the Minister also agree that, although it is open to investigation, at the moment the council in no way warrants any form of criticism?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I assume from what has already been said this afternoon, and is frequently said in this House, that the British Council is not subject to great criticism; on the contrary, it is usually much praised in your Lordships' House. The council undertook a review of its activities over the

659
next five years on its own initiative, not at the prompting of the FCO; nor was it an exercise about saving money.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend take steps to ensure that the British Council is thoroughly aware of the prevailing mood in the United Kingdom, which is fundamentally against any further tampering with the British passport?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I make two points in response: first, I am not sure that that is one of the responsibilities of the British Council; secondly, I know of no plans to tamper with the British passport.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by sending my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for early recovery from her current indisposition.
On these Benches we have over the years strongly supported the work of the British Council. Given that the interests of this country are to be reflected in the fact that more than half our earnings come from outside the European Union and that the vast proportion of our investment income is outside western Europe, we are happy to see the British Council reflect those interests in the pattern of its work. Will she do nothing at all to discourage the British Council from building up its work in Asia, eastern Europe and the Latin American area, and ensure that the balance is maintained between our proper interests in Europe and our even greater interests on the global scene?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his good wishes to my noble friend Lady Scotland. We hope very much that the noble Baroness will be back with us shortly, if not tomorrow, perhaps the next day.
I welcome the good things that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the British Council. While it is for the British Council to make decisions as to how it is best advised to use its resources over the next five years, I believe it has taken wise decisions, very much along the lines indicated the noble Lord, Lord Howell. For example, it will expand its activities in both Russia and China. The British Council has a very good record for being very realistic and adjusting to the new demands of the world order. I have no reason to suppose that that position will change in the future.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind explanation of the British Council's review. I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for her chairmanship of the British Council and for the way in which she has carried out the review. Nonetheless, although the Government have done better by the British Council than the previous government, I believe that the Government should put further funding into the British Council.
660
I welcome the Government's commitment to central and eastern Europe. I have seen the Government's work in Romania. However, I beg the Government to put more finance behind the all essential work in western Europe, as my noble friend Lord Watson mentioned.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as a result of this year's spending review, the Council will receive a £25 million increase in its grant in aid over the next three years. I believe the Government are doing as much as they can for the British Council for the moment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British Council has done some excellent work in central and eastern Europe, not just in terms of English language training, but also in arranging conferences and seminars dealing with the needs of the European Union accession countries? Will she ensure that the Government give their encouragement to that work?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, that is an important part of the work of the British Council. It will look, especially in Europe, at helping countries which are in their transition to democracy, including many of the European Union applicant countries.

War Graves: Gardeners' Allowances
2.46 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees Lord Merlyn-Rees asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reverse the decision to reduce the allowance paid to gardeners in the Commonwealth war cemeteries in European countries.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government understand the concerns which have been raised about the allowances paid to gardeners employed by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. As your Lordships know, it is the commission's responsibility to set these allowances.
As many of your Lordships also know, the commission has decided to suspend any changes in these allowances pending the outcome of an independent review by my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Flylde.
Maintenance of war graves and memorials to the highest standards remains the central concern of the commission, with the complete support of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the standards in the cemeteries which are looked after by the commission in all parts of the world are to its credit? To those who have members of their family or old comrades buried there it matters a great deal.

661
I am interested in this independent report. I am not sure why one needs an independent report; I should have thought it could be independent in the first instance. Can we be assured that the policy change came from the commission itself and not from the Treasury or from the Minister's own department? Perhaps she will explain why the change was made? Will she also assure us that no one will be worse off? If our allowances in the House were cut there would soon be a row.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the state in which the war graves cemeteries and the memorials are kept is an enonnous credit to those who care for them—the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the expatriate gardeners and indeed the gardeners of other nationalities who give their support.
The review will be independent. It will be carried out by my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, who, I am sure, will act as expeditiously as she can.
My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees also asked about the change of policy. The commission announced the review as an act of good faith, to overcome the present impasse, to reassure the staff and, very importantly, to reassure the public—particularly those who have loved ones in the cemeteries—of the commitment to fair awards and to demonstrate its desire to maintain high standards in the cemeteries, to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that because the cemeteries are so well-cared for—I have to visit some of them from time to time, as the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, knows—no act ion should be taken which would reduce the very high standards maintained over many years?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree. But, more importantly, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission agrees that the maintenance of the very high standards of the cemeteries and of the memorials to the missing dead who do not have individual graves must not be jeopardised.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the decision as to whether to reduce these allowances is to be taken by the commission and not by the Government, we are entitled to express a view on the issue? It is, I should have thought, the unanimous opinion of noble Lords on both sides of the House, especially those of us who are ex-service people, that no step should be taken which would reduce in any way the excellence of the manner in which the cemeteries are looked after. To reduce the allowance of the gardeners appears on the face of it to be a form of insensitive meanness which would be unworthy of the commission or of this country.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may explain the genesis of what has happened without expressing a view as to whether
662
what has happened is right. Changes were made in 1998 to the allowances paid to those serving overseas. Similar reviews have been undertaken in, for example, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the British Council, which your Lordships discussed a few moments ago. This is part of the same review, although it is undertaken differently by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Of course your Lordships are entitled to express a view; so are the many others who have expressed a view. It is Her Majesty's Government's position that it is a privilege as well as a duty to look after the sites which commemorate our war dead.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, did the Minister read the letter in the Mail on Sunday a week ago from Dr Moonie, the Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Defence, in which he said that not only the allowances but the salaries of these men are tax free? Surely that is not true, is it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may try to explain the position as I know that it has caused some difficulty elsewhere. The actual sums paid to the individuals concerned are tax free. They do not pay tax on the sums they have received. What happens is that there is a discount in lieu of tax before the sums are paid. So my honourable friend was right when he said that the sums received, both salaries and allowances, are not taxed. I hope that that explains the position to the noble Lord.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that the Government are not responsible for the dreadful decision to look into the allowances, does my noble friend agree that the people who will be commemorated on Sunday week and those whom they left behind in graves never had the luxury of waiting for an independent inquiry into such a matter? Does she not further agree that if the matter is not settled before Remembrance Day those responsible should hang their heads in shame?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government and, I am sure, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission—my noble friend is quite right to say that it is independent of the Government in this respect: the Government do not control the way in which it deals with its staff—seek to maintain the highest standards of maintenance and give the care, attention and respect which this country rightly owes our war dead. I have said that I do not believe that the commission will take any action that jeopardises those very high standards. But I cannot give an undertaking to my noble friend that my noble friend Lady Dean will have completed her work by 11th November. I am sure that she will proceed as expeditiously as possible, and I am sure that no one is more seized than she of the urgency of so doing.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness said in her first reply about the survey being undertaken by her noble friend Lady Dean. But why

663
has there been this change in the method of negotiation which has given rise to the justifiable concerns expressed by noble Lords and by so many people outside? I have a totally separate question. Will the noble Baroness try to persuade the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to take on the maintenance of graves from campaigns which took place before 1914, particularly those in South Africa and the Crimea? I know from personal knowledge that the graves in South Africa are in a very poor condition.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in 1998 the central system for calculating overseas allowances of a number of public servants—not only those in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission but public servants in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and elsewhere—was changed. Each individual department then had to devise a system of its own. Such systems have already been devised in some of the large departments, such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. What we are discussing is the Commonwealth War Graves Commission going through its own revision of allowances. There is also a twice yearly updating of how the money that will be paid in the United Kingdom is paid to people locally to take into account currency fluctuations. I hope that that explains why this has happened.
The noble Lord asked about the graves from pre-1914 campaigns. As I am sure he knows, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was set up in 1917. It looks after some graves from before that date. South Africa is one of the countries where the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is involved. I shall raise the noble Lord's question with my colleagues in the commission and write to the noble Lord about any views it may have.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister says that this issue is very much one for the commission and that the rationale for the present review is the activities of the commission. But the noble Baroness also says that the decision in 1998 to review overseas allowances was made by Her Majesty's Government. Does that mean that at the end of the day the genesis was indeed the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in 1998 and that the only reason there is a review today is directly as a result of the action of Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that does not follow. The action taken in 1998 has not resulted in the same kind of difficulty in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. It is the way in which this has happened that has caused the difficulty. Although allowances have moved up and down, there are a number of parts of the allowances. There are additions for accommodation and schooling overseas. These are very complicated arrangements, as I know from a former incarnation as a Civil Service union official. The fact is that the changes have taken place relatively peacefully—not
664
without difficulty, I have to say—in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in the Ministry of Defence. However, on this occasion they have caused difficulty and for that reason, and as an act of good faith, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has decided to set up the review, a decision which I hope your Lordships can welcome.

Jubilee Line: Westminster Station
2.58 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much public money was invested in the Jubilee Line extension generally and Westminster Tube station in particular.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the estimated final cost of the Jubilee Line extension is in the order of £3.5 billion. It is not possible to give separate figures for Westminster or any other station, as many of the construction contracts are priced across the whole of the Jubilee Line extension.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, in view of the considerable expenditure that must have been incurred at Westminster Tube station, does he find it satisfactory that at that station only one ticket machine accepts notes? Is he aware that that machine was out of order at 12.45 this afternoon? Finally, is he confident that his honourable friend Mr Livingstone will be able to sort out London Underground?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, noble Lords will be interested to know that a PFI known as Prestige has been working with London Underground. New ticket machines have already been provided for all London buses. The company has also gated 96 per cent of the Tube network. The PFI will provide new ticket machines at Underground stations, including the installation of 317 new touchscreen machines by March 2001. In addition, 50 "Queuebuster" machines will be installed in the busiest stations by the summer of next year.
One multi-fare machine operates at Westminster Underground station, along with half a dozen of the simpler and more basic machines. Furthermore, ticket windows are staffed by three people at peak times and two at all other times of the day. I am sure that Mr Livingstone is looking forward to taking on the challenge of running London Underground, just as we have done over recent times.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, has my noble friend had an opportunity to visit some of the stations on the new Jubilee Line extension? Does my noble friend agree that, along with Westminster itself, stations such as Canary Wharf and Canada Water provide wonderful

665
examples of British architecture? Any extra money that has been invested in them has proved to be money well spent.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, after the problems we faced towards the end of last year in driving the Jubilee Line extension to its conclusion, I have been delighted to note that a great deal of extremely positive comment has since been made about the Jubilee Line. Indeed, as my noble friend has suggested, the stations have already garnered many design awards. In addition, the PPP we have planned for the Underground should increase by up to one-quarter and perhaps even one-third the frequency of the trains travelling on that line.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, although Westminster Tube station may have taken longer to build and cost a little more than was intended, the end result is a worthy structure that will serve well the travelling public in this important area of London? Can we take it that this good example will be followed in the improvements to be carried out on the rest of the Tube system?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I confidently anticipate that the PPPs we intend to put in place by the middle of next year will bring in £8 billion in investment which will help to upgrade the entire Tube system, along with the £5 billion that is to be invested in maintenance. I look forward to the Tube system benefiting considerably from the biggest financial boost that it will have received for a long time.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend is right to emphasise the engineering triumph of the Jubilee Line and of the stations, which are a credit to our country, but as regards a more primitive level of engineering, is there any hope that the roadworks being undertaken outside the Palace of Westminster will be finished during our lifetime, so that one can walk safely from here to there?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, with some trepidation I should tell the House that we have been promised an early conclusion to some of the roadworks outside the Palace of Westminster. I look forward to some of the amendments that we intend to introduce in the Transport Bill, which will be considered by noble Lords later. It is hoped that progress can be made on all roadworks, but in particular those that affect London.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I took through its stages the Private Member's Bill for the Jubilee Line extension and, to that extent, I should declare an interest? I strongly support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel; namely, that the individual stations of the Jubilee Line, each designed by a different and highly skilled architect, are tributes to British architecture. However, can the Minister tell the House
666
whether there is any suggestion of returning to the private Bill procedure? At least the Jubilee Line has been built, whereas projects like the Heathrow fifth terminal are still far from completion because of the changed procedures on transport issues. Are the Government considering a review of this matter?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am not aware of any intention to review this procedure. However, if I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Baroness. What I can say is that in our 10-year plan, drawn up in consultation with our colleagues at the DETR, we looked at the length of time generally taken to realise projects in the UK, and in particular at extremely large ones. We concluded that, once more elegant procurement systems are put in place, along with better planning, we should be able to advance the time taken, if not by one-half, then by one-third of the current length of time.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is the Minister not being rather too kind here? Is not the truth that we have suffered from years of under-investment as a result of the failure of the previous Conservative government to address the problems of the London Underground? The reason the service is so poor and is not universally of the standard demonstrated at Westminster is that the Conservative government neglected the whole system.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, there is no doubt that the Underground has suffered from under-investment in the past. We believe that the route that we are taking through the PPP will help over the next 30 years by, initially, pumping in an additional £8 billion in investment and £5 billion for maintenance. We believe, too, that the private sector expertise that will be brought in to work alongside public sector operational management will ensure that we put in place the kind of system that a capital city such as London deserves.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether he has resolved his differences with his honourable friend the mayor of London as regards the ownership of, and methods of dealing with, London Underground? Does the Minister have any fears about whether such differences may delay the implementation of the various programmes that we all desire?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, only last week I held an amicable meeting with Mr. Kiley and Mr Livingstone to discuss transport in London. I am sure that they left that meeting assured that the Government are just as concerned as they are to ensure that London has in place the best possible public transport system. Noble Lords may know that the PPP is well on course. Best and final offers have now been invited for the two deep Tube contracts, while bids for the sub-surface railway contract were received in September. The next stage of that competition is about to commence. The mayor is fully aware of our determination to push ahead with that process.

Transport Bill
3.7 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 116 [Postponement of scheme]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 71, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) The authority or authorities in question shall compensate any operator of a local service for any losses incurred by it as a result of such postponement.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a certain irony in the fact that we are meeting this afternoon to discuss a transport Bill when we have encountered a degree of disruption to the transport system across the country which has reached quite unprecedented levels. Some of that disruption is due, unfortunately, to what I would refer to as human intervention. For that reason, perhaps this afternoon we should draw a veil over that particular subject because, to a certain extent, points have already been made about it. More important, however, is that it would not now be appropriate to embark on that kind of discussion. Other occasions will arise, in particular when more is known about the detailed effects of the storm and the railway engineering works. It will be more appropriate to deal with the subject at that point.
Everyone in the House today will be aware of the difficulties faced by the transport sector as a result of last night's most extraordinary storm. However, the damage and disruption has not been confined to the transport sector. The storm has caused immense personal damage to many ordinary citizens. I am sure that we all wish them a speedy return to what can only be described as the status quo ante. I say that because I believe that, once a little time has elapsed, the disruption that has been caused both to property and to personal health will be seen to be even more damaging than the present disruption to the transport system.
This small group of amendments deals with quality partnership schemes and quality contracts. Amendment No. 105 addresses a small point. Where a quality partnership scheme is brought into being, the authority bringing forward such a partnership scheme has the power to delay its implementation. Having arrived at all the agreements and having set it up, it can at that point unilaterally delay matters. We do not think that that is likely to be fair to the contractor or contractors with whom the transport authority has made the agreement. The amendment therefore seeks to insert additional wording into the Bill which would provide that if costs are incurred as a result of any disruption or delay to the introduction of a scheme, the relevant contractors should be compensated for any financial loss they suffer.
Amendment No. 110 concerns quality contract schemes, which are different from quality partnership schemes in that they set out to create a local monopoly in bus services. We do not like the idea of creating monopolies at all and we do not think this is an appropriate way forward. However, we recognise that the Government are determined to go down this particular route. One also has to recognise that occasionally the problems of providing a bus service are so difficult that such arrangements may appear to be the only way to proceed.
Amendment No. 110 deals with one of the two particular problems that we have in relation to the Bill at the moment. The Bill provides that a scheme may be made if it is the only practical way to implement the policies of the transport authority's bus strategy and if it is economic, efficient and effective. Those words are a well-known mantra with which we all try to work—but they are a mantra. Bearing in mind that a quality contract scheme can last for up to 10 years, we do not believe that that should be allowed to stand.
It is perfectly conceivable that, over the period of a quality contract scheme, circumstances may change before the scheme is due to cease. They could change for a whole host of reasons—developments in the community, new employment moving into an area and so on. Amendment No. 110 seeks to refer back the length of the scheme to the purposes for which it was originally created and, if those purposes are no longer being fulfilled, the quality contract scheme should cease. That is not an unreasonable argument and I ask the Government to consider the issue carefully.
Amendment No. 111 refers back to the question of delay. The same power of unilateral delay exists for quality contract schemes as for quality partnership schemes, where the transport authority can devise a quality contract scheme and then delay its implementation. The amendment seeks compensation for losses as a result of a postponement. These are matters of justice and good practice. I commend the amendments to the Government. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of what lies behind the amendments. I hope that I can persuade him that they are unnecessary. I note his position in relation to quality contracts but, within that, we have to make sure that they operate fairly.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 105 and 111, both of which require a local authority to compensate bus operators if they suffer loss because the local authority has postponed a quality partnership or a quality contract. We must first recognise that the probability of any loss to a bus operator may not be very great. Indeed, the main reason for the postponement provisions is exactly so that bus operators should not suffer loss. The provisions are there, for example, to cover cases such as where a local authority is not able to proceed as

669
quickly as it had hoped and, therefore, postponing the scheme cart also postpone the need for a bus operator to spend money.
It must be stressed also that both postponement provisions have attached to them a requirement to consult bus operators who would be affected by the scheme. Therefore, operators can make their views firmly known. The extent of a postponement is in any case limited to 12 months in the case of a quality partnership and to a period to be specified in regulations in the case of a quality contract.
Moreover, in the very rare case where a loss may arise, a bus operator may also be able to seek judicial review, with the possibility that the court may direct the local authority to proceed. It is even possible in extreme cases that damages may be payable in such circumstances. Such legal rights exist already without the need for a special provision in the Bill.
On Amendment No. 110, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord. I can see that it may well be appropriate to end a quality contract scheme if circumstances change in a way in which the essential criteria for such a scheme—as set out in pursuance of Clause 123(1)(a) and (b)—no longer applied. But I should draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 131(4)(a), which provides already for a local authority to revoke a scheme if the conditions in Clause 123(1),
"are no longer met with respect to it".
I do not think that Amendment No. 110 is necessary. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will feel that his objectives have been met already and that he will not pursue these amendments.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In regard to Amendments Nos. 105 and 110, I note what the Minister said about the possibility of a judicial review in the peculiar circumstances—it is to be hoped that they will be peculiar— where someone may suffer a financial loss. The reason for getting this provision onto the face of the Bill is that it would obviate the need for a judicial review. The process of litigation is inevitably and always greatly expensive, and I had hoped to avoid that necessity.
In relation to Amendment No. 110, I heard what the Minister said about Clause 131(4)(a), which I shall check and cross reference. I shall study the noble Lord's reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 118 [Regulations about schemes involving existing facilities]:
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Clause 123 [Quality contracts schemes]:
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Clause 124 [Notice and consultation requirements]:
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clause 126 [Making of scheme]:
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 76, line 36, leave out ("earlier than 21") and insert ("later than 6").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 109, which is tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord Bradshaw and Lady Thomas.
Amendment No. 109 seeks to reduce the period required to introduce a quality contract from the 21 months proposed in the Bill to a period of six months. From these Benches we argued in Committee that a shorter period is necessary to preserve the interests of passengers, given that consideration will be given to quality contracts only where there is deemed to be some failing in the bus network.
At that time the Minister said that 21 months represented a reasonable time for the operators to wind down existing operations, to create new networks and to make their preparations. However, since we were in Committee, the Transport (Scotland) Bill has been considered in the Scottish Parliament and a six months introductory period has been agreed there. We touched on the Scottish question in our discussions last week on the inclusion of fares and frequencies in quality partnerships. At that time, the Minister said that it was a matter of policy and therefore For the Scottish Parliament to decide.
I do not disagree with that. But the question of the introductory period is different in that it is a purely operational matter for the bus companies. If operators in Scotland can make these preparations in six months, then operators in England and Wales should be able to make them in the same period. They certainly should not require 21 months, especially when many of them are the same companies. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when he replies, will the Minister tell us precisely why it would take so much longer in England and Wales to do the work than it would in Scotland. Obviously, the Scots Parliament has the ability to make a separate decision, but is this a sign that in Scotland arrangements are more efficient?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I have said previously, this is a matter for Edinburgh. Our decisions do not bind the Scottish Parliament, just as its decisions do not bind us. Arrangements in England and Wales for the introduction of the changes may be different from those in Scotland. Our judgement is that the provision for at least 21 months is an appropriate one.
Of course, we cannot be absolutely sure. The Government do not always get matters right first time. That is why we have taken a power under Clause 126(10) to give ourselves the ability to vary the period by regulation if experience shows that to be desirable. We must start somewhere. We believe that the time periods are reasonable in the circumstances. The transition to a quality partnership will be a significant step. Operators who are unsuccessful in winning a "quality contract" contract will need time to adjust

671
their business operations and to redeploy their assets. That is why Clause 126(2)(b) provides for a period of time to elapse between the point when a QC scheme is made and the point when it can be brought into force.
Some local authorities consider this period too lengthy; certain bus operators may feel that it is too short. That indicates that we are in the right ball park. The maximum period suggested in the amendment seems unduly constrained. We continue to believe that a 21-month period—which may only be 18 months after tenders are invited—is not unduly generous. As I said, authorities will need time to go through the tendering and contracting process.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. He says that this is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide. He is entirely right; and we need not do precisely what the Scots do. However, the variation between the English situation and that in Scotland will surely be so sharp that some fuller explanation is required. There is a substantial discrepancy. Did the noble Lord's officials discuss the matter with officials in Edinburgh to find out why the Scots believe that a shorter period is appropriate in the circumstances described?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there has been some discussion between ourselves and Scottish Executive officials on this matter. As I understand it, the Scottish provisions will allow for some variation if in due course the Scottish figure proves too low. We are both making a stab at this. Scotland is starting at one end of the scale, and we are starting at the other. At the end of the day, we may well end up somewhere around the 15-month period when the system has been running for five or six years. We believe that we need to provide some degree of stability and reassurance to operators, and 21 months seems about right, working backwards from that to the time that it takes not only to complete the tendering process, but also for an operator to withdraw from existing routes and redeploy resources if that operator is not successful in terms of the quality contracts scheme. I am not being dogmatic; it is just that a longer period seems appropriate and would provide a degree of smooth transition as distinct from a potentially precipitate transition from one operator to another in certain circumstances which might be envisaged by a six-month figure. Our Scottish colleagues take a slightly different judgment. That, for now, is our judgment. As I say, we would take powers, under the subsequent subsection, to vary the period should experience prove us wrong.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's exposition of the difference. Nevertheless, this place would not be doing its duty if it did not probe further the factors behind this division. I appreciate that the noble Lord does not bring a departmental view to the matter. But, for example, could the Public Accounts Committee be given the chance to carry out an investigation? We are talking about a substantial factor in terms of the length of contract and it has caused a great deal of public interest.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that this is Report stage. Once the Minister has finished replying, it is not possible for noble Lords to intervene. Perhaps it would be helpful to the House if my noble friend were to offer to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, I am more than happy to receive a reply in writing. I apologise for my mistake.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply—although I am slightly disappointed. To those on these Benches, as longstanding advocates of devolution, the principle of the devolved assemblies making their own decisions is the right one. However, I remain firmly of the view that this is an operational matter. Since many of the contractors will be the same bus companies, I am surprised that they will require six months in Scotland and 21 months here. Twenty-one months is a long period of time. I am reminded that we had three transport Ministers in less time than that at the start of the Parliament. Nevertheless, for the present I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 127 [Postponement of scheme]:
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 128 [Effect of scheme]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 78, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals largely with the problems of quality contracts, which create a local monopoly. The amendment seems to me a reasonable one. Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the clause states that,
"no local service shall be provided in that area"—
namely, the area of a quality contract—
"unless it is provided under a quality contract"
for the duration of the contract.
The contract might be in place for up to 10 years. Circumstances can change dramatically over that time. It is possible to conceive of situations where community developments so change circumstances that an operator might come along and wish to run a service that simply had not been a consideration at the planning stage of the quality contract scheme. Even though the operator might be willing to take a purely commercial decision, because of the existence of a quality contract scheme that would not be possible under the Bill as it stands. We do not believe that to be a reasonable way forward.
Amendment No. 113 has been tabled to provide a greater degree of flexibility. It refers to,
"local services which are additional to the local services to be provided under the quality contract".

673
In other words, it envisages the consequences of just those kinds of changes which can and do take place from time to time in communities. We do not believe that it is right that additions to services within an area of quality contracts should necessarily be prevented. The amendment seeks to prevent an absolute monopoly being created.
Amendment No. 114 deals with a slightly different situation—where a contractor or service provider is in default for a period of time. It will allow a person who is prejudiced as a result to,
"apply to the appropriate national authority for a declaration that such default has occurred and, upon the making of such declaration, subsection (1) shall no longer apply".
In other words, the contract would come to an end. Once again, we believe that that safeguard ought to be on the face of the Bill. The Minister will undoubtedly have some explanation as to why it is not, but it seems peculiar to me. Such provisions, which are meant to deal with a certain situation, ought to be on the face of the Bill so that everyone can understand them. Indeed, not only should they be in some part of the Bill; they should also be on the face of the Bill in relation to the actual part with which one is dealing so that both pieces of legislation can be read together, thus making everything clear.
Amendment No. 115 deals with a different matter; namely, terms and conditions of employment in respect of a contractor. It says that such terms and conditions should not be part of a an invitation to tender. That phraseology was, more or less, in the original draft of the Bill, but has since been withdrawn. There is unfortunate experience as regards what happens when local authorities intervene in this regard. We do not believe that to be appropriate. The Government have said that the clause is redundant because it represents the current position at law. That may well be so, but I understand that the law is about to change. If that is the case, we need to know that the position is, none the less, secure. We do not believe it to be appropriate that transport authorities should become involved in matters such as the conditions of employment of their contractors. That is why the amendment has been tabled.
Amendment No. 116 has been tabled because we believe that the suggested wording—we love to help the Government in this way—is helpful. It would make the wording of the Bill both clearer and briefer. That is a worthwhile ambition to which we should all aspire. Amendment No. 117 deals with a provision for the termination of a scheme in default. Amendment No. 178 seeks to include quality contracts schemes in the effects of the Competition Act. As I understand it, they are more or less excluded at present. The Government may well argue that, by making these contracts subject to the Competition Act, we are nullifying them. That would be a highly beneficial effect. However, as I said, we object to the creation of artificial monopolies. We believe this to be an appropriate amendment.
674
This is a slightly diverse group of amendments. I hope that I have worked through them with a degree of clarity, though I suspect that I may have failed. I have no doubt that the Minister will put me right if that is the case. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, there are two amendments in this group tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland. These amendments were originally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. Unfortunately, the noble Lord is not present in the Chamber, and my noble friend is unable to reach us today due to the current weather conditions, living as he does in the far North West. Rather than attempt to put forward the arguments, I ask the Minister to be good enough to supply us with the answers to these amendments that he will have had prepared for him. I believe that to be the best that we can do in the circumstances.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may begin by dealing with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness and her noble friend explaining our understanding of why those amendments are unnecessary, and shall do so as rapidly as possible.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. There were occasions during his remarks when he could not disguise the fact that he would rather like to delete quality contracts from the Bill. Therefore, even in his eyes, these amendments would be second best. They are, to a significant degree, directed at diluting the principle of exclusivity in relation to quality contracts situations—a discussion that we have had on at least one occasion, though probably more, during the passage of the Bill.
The Government believe that the whole point of quality contracts is the fact that the exclusivity principle is crucial as regards the services coveted by them. If, for example, it were possible for other operators to have freedom to continue to run services in competition with quality contracts services, that would undermine the quality contracts arrangements. Frankly, that would be the direct and obvious effect of Amendments Nos. 112 and 113. It is simply not practical to run a quality contracts operation in parallel with a deregulated system for buses for those same services. Therefore, I cannot accept the principle of these amendments.
Amendment No. 114 seeks to provide a more limited mechanism for disapplying the exclusivity provisions. This would apply where there has been a declaration by the national authority that a QC contractor has persistently and materially defaulted on the terms of a contract. Such a declaration could he sought by a person who has been prejudicially affected by the default. The procedure being proposed here is slightly odd. I do not believe that it is an appropriate or a necessary remedy. Like any other contract, a quality contract imposes contractual operations on the operator. As with any contract, the remedy for default

675
rests with the contracting authority—in this case, the local authority—rather than anyone else. Therefore, I do not believe that amendment to be appropriate.
Amendment No. 115 would reintroduce a provision that was, at one point, included in the Bill. It would replicate the provisions of the 1985 Act. As the noble Lord said, it is also true that this amendment is unnecessary under the law as it stands. However, he is also right to say that the law is about to change, although I suspect that the noble Lord and I disagree rather profoundly on the matter. The law is about to change in what I would regard as a positive way: where employees' conditions may be relevant to the achievement of best value, the decision as to whether or not that is written into the contract should be left to the discretion of the local authority. An order is due to be made under the Local Government Act 1998. It will remove the blanket ban that the previous government imposed in relation to transport legislation, as regards when such matters are taken into account by local authorities. While I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, I am coming from almost diametrically the opposite direction. Therefore, the amendment would be contrary to current policy.
If I understand the noble Lord correctly, the general intention behind Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 is that quality contracts schemes must be terminated in various circumstances, including a need for urgent action to keep the services going or to meet unexpected need. This would also include cases where there is no tender, or no acceptable tender, for a quality contract.
Clause 130 is only about exemptions from the requirement to go out to competitive tender; it is not about ending the quality contract altogether. Thus the purpose of Clause 130(1) is to ensure that local authorities can take urgent steps to keep bus services going or to meet urgent needs. Such steps might be accepted if an operator were to go bankrupt or if, for example, a special case arose where something even more disastrous than the weather that we have seen of late were to arise. To cover such cases, we envisage that regulations referred to in Clause 130(3) would fix a limit on the length of such a special contract, after which the local authority would have to go out to tender, as originally intended. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord's intended amendment of the clause is appropriate here.
Amendment No. 178 amends Clause 152. The clause provides for the competition test set out in Schedule 10 to apply to the exercise of a local authority's functions under the Bill with regard to quality partnerships, ticketing schemes, subsidised services and so on. The amendment would add quality contracts to that list making them subject to the competition test. There is no obvious need for quality contracts to be brought under the terms of Clause 152. Quality contracts are by definition awarded only after a competitive tendering process. The Bill provides adequate safeguards to ensure that the procedure for making quality contracts is open, subject to consultation and transparent in its
676
proceedings. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will give the House the answer that he would have given to my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland on Amendment No. 182. It is a straightforward amendment. It provides that when an operator fails substantially, the traffic commissioner may disqualify that operator from further operations. A response would be helpful to the House. There is a relatively short period between this stage and Third Reading during which my noble friend may wish to consider what to do.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my note says that the Liberal Democrats need a reply in writing and orally. There is a slight difficulty about the references in her noble friend's amendment. I understand that the noble Baroness needs reassurance—I can give it to her—that the traffic commissioners will have exactly the same powers to enforce against breach of registered details by what is referred to as an exempted operator under the quality contract scheme as they would in respect of a bus operator outside that area. I believe that that is the assurance the noble Baroness and her noble friend seek.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As he rightly says, we come to this part of the Bill from reciprocal positions. I suspect that there will never be a meeting of minds on these issues. I shall study the noble Lord's explanations with care. While I may understand them, I do not believe that I shall ever agree with them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 114 not moved.]
Clause 129 [Tendering for quality contracts]:
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 117 not moved.]
Clause 135 [Notice and consultation requirements]:
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Clause 136 [Making of scheme]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 83, line 26, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this part of the Bill relates to joint ticketing schemes and so on. The amendment relates to that part of the Bill which deals with variations to the scheme.
Any ticketing scheme requires a deal of public notice and public consultation. The public are made well aware, and rightly so, of what is going on and, in so far as that can be done, their views will be taken into consideration during that process. Clause 136(6)—it seems an oddity—provides that,
"The authority or authorities may vary or revoke the scheme; and the variation or revocation is subject to the same procedure as the making of the scheme".

677
I go along with the Bill to that point. That seems eminently sensible. If one has a scheme which is brought into being with a great deal of public participation and consultation, one should go through the same process to vary or revoke it.
However, the Bill then states,
"except to the extent that that procedure is modified by regulations made by the appropriate national authority".
I have the greatest difficulty in deciding why the appropriate national authority—it may be the Minister or the Welsh Assembly—should wish to vary those conditions.
The Government say that they may need that power in case they have the procedure wrong. If we have the procedure wrong, the whole Bill is wrong. I cannot seriously believe that the Government think that this part of the Bill is flawed. I do not understand the need for those words. They should be struck from the Bill. The amendment gives effect to that.
Amendment No. 120 deals with a small matter of practicality. Clause 137 states:
"During any period in which a ticketing scheme is in operation, operators of local services to which the scheme relates must make and implement the arrangements required by the scheme".
We have simply added—the Minister may say that they are unnecessary—the words,
"provided that it is practicable for it to do so at a cost that is not disproportionate".
Despite my eternal championing of the good sense of local authorities, it is not unknown for them occasionally to make illogical and rash decisions, in particular when they trespass into what I call the commercial field. I believe that the words in the amendment are useful in ensuring that the schemes are sensible, practicable and not too expensive.
These are small amendments. Their effect is not massive I hope that the Minister will consider them. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in this context we are dealing with the procedure for revoking or varying a scheme, not making a scheme, although some of the provisions read across. The noble Lord seeks to remove the power to make regulations in regard to revoking or modifying the procedures.
As drafted, Clause 136(6) recognises that it would be appropriate to have some degree of flexibility in order to change by regulation the variation or revocation procedure in the light of experience. In Committee I gave an example of where experience may change circumstances. We would want to vary the scheme, for example, by bringing in other operators or transport modes. That may mean that the procedure would have to be modified in order to do so when, for example, the scheme had been established for one mode or one relatively narrow group of operators. In those circumstances——there may well be others—regulations would be a perfectly reasonable way to modify the procedure. It is with that in mind that we have sought to build in the flexibility in this clause.
678
Amendment No. 120 could present a serious inhibition on using the powers in the Bill. It would add the proviso that the requirement on operators to make and implement arrangements under the scheme would apply only if those arrangements were practicable and involved a cost which was not disproportionate. In all these cases, the authority is bound to act reasonably. This wording, as in other fields of law, would lead the way for endless and unproductive disputes as to what was practicable and what was disproportionate. Local authorities are already required to consult operators before making the scheme. They would need to take sensible account of any representations. They have a general obligation to act reasonably in using these powers. I believe that that is sufficient safeguard against such schemes leading to disproportionate or totally unreasonable provisions and impositions on the operators and others.
So both amendments would be detrimental. The first deals with a situation that is unlikely to arise frequently, but we need the flexibility to deal with it if it should arise, and I believe that the second could seriously undermine the scheme by potentially giving specious grounds for challenge. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. However, I had some difficulty in following what he said on Amendment No. 119. I understand the need to modify the schemes—the Bill provides for consultation and for schemes to be modified—but I do not believe that the Minister has answered why what is set out on the face of the Bill may need to be varied. The Minister says that such a situation would be a rare occurrence with which I agree—I do not believe that such a situation should exist—but I do not understand why, if there is need to vary a scheme, the existing procedures cannot be complied with.
We can continue to have fundamental disagreements, but at some point the matter must be made plain. Therefore, I believe that it is worth testing the opinion of the House on this issue.
3.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 119) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Buscombe, B.

Ackner, L.

Caithness, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Campbell of Allowav, L

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Attlee, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Biffen, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blatch, B.

Colwyn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Brightman, L.

Cuckney, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Elles, B.

679

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Noakes, B.

Freeman, L.

Northesk, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Glentoran, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hanham, B.

Rees, L.

Haslam, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Seccombe, B.

Hooper, B.

Selborne, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharples, B.

Liverpool, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Waddington, L.

Naseby, L.

Warnock, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Alderdice, L.

Alli, L.

Layard, L.

Amos, B.

Levy, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lipsey, L.

Avebury, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bach, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Berkeley, L.

Blackstone, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Blease, L.

McNally, L.

Borrie, L.

Marsh, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brett, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Brookman, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Newby, L.

Burlison, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Peston, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Richard, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Dubs, L.

Roper, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Russell, E.

Ezra, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sandberg, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goudie, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Greengross, B.

Thornton, B.

Hamwee, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turnberg, L.

Haskel, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hayman, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Islwyn, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Jacobs, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.1 p.m.
Clause 137 [Effect of scheme]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Clause 138 [Information about bus services]:
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 84, line 13, after ("area,") insert—
("(aa) the fares for such local services,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shutt, who is not able to be here. This particular baton was passed from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to my noble friend Lord Shutt, and now to me. I hope that, in transferring it to the Minister, we can arrive quickly at a satisfactory end to this particular race.
The amendment would simply add "fares" to the list of information on a service about which a transport authority is able to inform the public. We all know that, when people make inquiries, they want to know what fare they will be expected to pay. Fares are a complex and important issue, and this amendment would make arrangements for a local authority to pass on information about them. It has nothing to do with setting fares. Amendment No. 124 would allow an authority to collect from the operators a reasonable contribution towards the cost of publicity, including that relating to fares. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, our Amendment No. 123 is in this group and is directed to the same aim. I am happy to support the principles that have just been enunciated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been and remains our view that this amendment is technically unnecessary. Fares are part of the information which could and would come under,
"other matters of value to the public",
which already appears in the clause. However, in view of what has been said, I am prepared to accept Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 in principle and to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading. That is simply so that the technical drafting can be checked by parliamentary counsel.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did not speak to Amendment No. 124 in the same group.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I did not. That was remiss of me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I replied to that amendment in order to avoid it coming up again at Third Reading.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister is optimistic if he believes that that will avoid the need for the issue to arise again at Third Reading. However, he may succeed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may try because we believe that this amendment is also

681
unnecessary. It seeks to make failure to agree satisfactory arrangements with bus operators as to the apportionment of costs a matter which can trigger the exercise of t he default powers in Clause 139. However, Clause 139(1) already states clearly that the local authority can step in where it is,
"unable to make satisfactory arrangements with one or more … operators".
The word "satisfactory" is not qualified. In our view, the provision would include arrangements that are unsatisfactory in terms of the apportionment of costs as between the authority and the operators. However, it does not seem necessary to spell that out on the face of the Bill. In the light of that, I hope that none of the amendments will be pressed.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 139 [Duty of authority to make information available]:
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 142 [Power to obtain information about local services]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 85, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) If information is disclosed in contravention of subsection (4) the local transport authority which required its provision shall be liable to compensate the operator which provided it for any loss suffered by that operator as a result of its disclosure.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when transport authorities release information about such schemes, not least of the problems is that occasionally and unfortunately through inadvertence they may release information which causes commercial damage to an operator. This amendment seeks to add words to the clause in order to provide for compensation should that prove to he the case.
I do not doubt that in his response the Minister will say something about the opportunities of judicial review. But that, of course, exposes the operator to considerable costs. A matter that has always caused me concern in relation to justice is that occasionally one feels that the system works extremely well provided that one can afford it. This amendment seeks to ensure that it is not necessary to be able to afford it. The Bill should provide that matters are properly compensated if, through inadvertence, commercially sensitive information is released and subsequently it is shown that it has caused commercial damage. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking the House to decide whether disclosure in such circumstances should be a matter for criminal or civil law, although I believe that he is making it a matter for both. However, my question relates to how that ties in with subsection (4), which deals with disclosures about particular businesses and about the affairs of an
682
individual. The noble Lord seems to be more concerned about compensating businesses than individuals. I wonder where the right balance should lie.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, some reassurance in the sense that I was not intending to and shall not refer to the need for judicial review. I believe that the matter is somewhat simpler than that.
This issue was considered in Committee and I am afraid that I am no more convinced now of the necessity or appropriateness of this amendment than I was then. Clause 142(6) already provides that an unlawful disclosure of information is a criminal offence. However, I must make it clear that the subsection does not remove any existing rights under common law. There is a well established right of action at common law in cases where information which is known to be confidential comes into the possession of a person who then unlawfully discloses it to a third party.
Therefore, it would be open to an operator to take action in the courts, either to restrain wrongful disclosure or to obtain compensation. It would be for the courts to decide whether to grant an injunction or whether compensation, if any, should be paid.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, justifiably may say that action in the court, using the common law, involves expense. Of course, I am sympathetic to the idea that justice should be available without discrimination of means. However, unfortunately in addition the amendment goes too far. It would appear to make all cases of disclosure actionable unless covered by the specific exceptions covered in Clause 142(5). In some instances, the court may consider that it is in the public interest for the information to be disclosed. Under those circumstances, it is preferable that the common law rules and remedies, which give the court flexibility to decide on the public interest in particular cases, should continue to apply. There is no need for an amendment to the Bill to ensure that that is so. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her comment, but I always make the blithe assumption that if I do have a somewhat inadequate amendment someone will show me what is wrong with it. She tends to improve my amendments enormously before bringing them back at Third Reading. However, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have obviated the need for that in his remarks that I will study with care. I am grateful to him for those comments. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 143 [Civil penalties for bus lane contraventions]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 85, line 43, leave out ("by approved local authorities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 126 standing in the name of my noble friend, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, and to speak to the other amendments in this group in his name.
The Government amendments would allow the Secretary of State to repeal the existing legislation that provides for bus lane enforcement in London and to apply instead Clause 143 in its place. This clause, as drafted, provides local authorities outside London with camera enforcement powers to enforce moving bus lane offences. The Secretary of State or the National Assembly will have the powers to make regulations specifying the person by whom a penalty charge in respect of a contravention is to be paid. At the Committee stage we indicated that we intend, at least initially, to make regulations for areas outside London on the basis of driver liability while keeping the matter under review. In London the current system operates on the basis of owner liability. As this is specified in the London Local Authorities Act 1996 it can only be changed by primary legislation.
These amendments will enable existing legislation to be repealed and Clause 143 to be applied in London with the flexibility to impose the basis of liability for charges by regulation, and subsequently to change this basis also by regulation.
We consider it prudent to allow owner liability to continue to apply in London for the foreseeable future, but this will be kept under review.
Transport for London and the London local authorities would be the enforcement authorities for London under the new regime. In fixing penalty charges for bus lane enforcement, Transport for London and the London local authorities will be required to obtain the approval of the mayor before setting penalty charges. The Secretary of State also has a power of objection.
Finally, our amendment also extends the scope of the provision in Clause 143 so that local authorities would have the powers to enforce moving vehicle contraventions that affect the movement of tramcars and trolley buses.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has an amendment down in this group. We will listen to what he says before commenting on that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 134 is grouped with these and it is very simple. It deals with the issue of who should pay the penalty charge for someone who offends against a bus lane. We feel very strongly that it is the driver who is the person committing the offence and is the one who should pay the penalty charge. I accept that all too often, particularly with camera equipment, computers and everything else in this day and age, the owner of the vehicle is the person who can be caught. The fact of the matter is that it is the driver of the vehicle who commits the offence and it is only the driver. It is never the owner if the owner is not the driver. There is a difficulty here and one has to accept that. If the driver happens to be an employee of the owner, the matter becomes even more complicated, but at least the owner knows exactly who to tackle.
684
We think that this ought to be explicit within the Bill: that it is the person who commits the offence who actually pays the penalty. I accept that this may on occasions cause problems. I do not think that the principle is wrong. I hope that the Minister may be prepared to consider it. If the wording of the amendment is not adequate, perhaps he may be able to bring forward a more acceptable way of dealing with this situation.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I ask whether the Government are absolutely satisfied that it will be possible to hold someone responsible—driver or owner—without any doubt in the law. We need to have a clear position if we are to go forward.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Opposition are entirely wrong. If the driver is self-employed it follows that he will be liable. If the driver is employed by someone else it follows that that person will be responsible for the fine. It may be that that person will, if he is not lacking in responsibility, take the appropriate moves against the employee. The Government are entirely right about that and the Opposition are, as usual, entirely wrong.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I ask my noble friend for a little clarification on his introduction. Am I correct in thinking that in London it is still proposed that the owner is liable? If he could identify someone else as being the driver, that driver would become liable. If that is not the case outside London, how is it intended to identify the driver? From a camera or some other device?
The second question is: have the Government sorted out the problem of the Scottish case heard at the European Court of Human Rights and the defence that one does not have to divulge the name of the driver?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Berkeley—in a slightly more subtle way than my noble friend Lord Bradshaw—in connection with whether we were entirely bomb-proof in relation to various proceedings arising in this area under the Human Rights Act. The answer is that time will tell. The reality is that although these cases, including the one referred to in Scotland, have been widely reported as relating to camera enforcement and road traffic offences where the owner is required to identify the driver—where driver and owner are the same, self-incrimination therefore arises—in fact none of those case where the courts have so far ruled, whether in England or in Scotland, relates to camera enforcement in this context. Nevertheless, there may be developments in that area.
That is one of the reasons, but only one, where we require some degree of flexibility. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would impose driver liability for penalty charges imposed by any local authority. We wish to have flexibility to be able to

685
change the basis of liability for payment by secondary legislation. That would be on the basis of experience and practice, both inside London and outside, and if necessary make any changes in the implications of the law. The noble Lord's amendment would remove flexibility.
I hope that the noble Lords will understand why we are unable to support that amendment and that they will agree to withdraw it.
In response to the question from my noble friend, Lord Berkeley, where owner liability applies, already in many areas of the Road Traffic Acts the requirement is on the keeper. The owner, strictly speaking, should identify who was driving the car at that time. That is not altered in this context or in other Road Traffic Act contexts by this amendment or this Bill because it would remove what might prove to be necessary flexibility. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will not press this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 85, line 44, leave out ("bus lane").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason this amendment was tabled is that it is apparent that bus operation in some of our major cities is in crisis. The Minister may know that the traffic commissioners have been pressing bus companies to improve their performance and to ensure that buses run within narrow time parameters of one minute before time and up to four or five minutes late but no more. At a recent hearing in Bristol, where bus operation is in crisis, evidence given by Colin Buchanan and Partners, who are leading consultants in this field, showed conclusively that it is impossible to operate a bus service reliably in that city. Even if extra buses were added to the service, they could not keep within the timetable because of the unpredictability of traffic flows.
I went through the evidence carefully with a senior partner of the firm. He showed me evidence from Birmingham where the bus service is completely breaking down and what is operating bears no resemblance whatever to the timetable. The traffic commissioners, as they are empowered to do under the law, are threatening to withdraw the licence of the operators and ban them operating. If they did that, it is difficult to believe that any other operator would want to enter a market to operate a bus service which, in time, would give rise to complaint and to their finding themselves in court also answering charges of running an unreliable bus service.
The only way to deal with this situation is to manage the highway more effectively. A number of authorities have not taken up the special parking arrangements now available under the law; they do not properly enforce parking restrictions; and we know that the police do not do so because they believe they have other priorities. We need active traffic management.
No doubt camera enforcement of bus lanes will be effective in helping to restore punctuality to bus services. However, when I spoke to local authorities
686
and to bus companies they said that the enforcement of box junctions—many bus lanes end in box junctions—is also of great importance. When we raised this matter at earlier stages of the Bill, we asked from these Benches for more camera enforcement. Ministers said that they were not willing to take powers which they had no immediate intention of using.
The purpose of tabling Amendment No. 127 is to ask Ministers to think again about taking powers in respect of box junctions to enhance the efficiency of bus operation. It was moved solely to help local authorities to carry out the responsibilities placed on them by the Government in the consultation paper From Workhorse to Thoroughbred, and other documents published by the Government. I hope that the Government will take the amendment seriously. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his amendment. I too had details of the problems arising in Bristol. It is always a surprise to me that we have bus lanes in many places, some enforced better than others, but in many cases the junctions allow cars in or consist of a box junction.
It has been my belief for many years that the only viable way to get buses running on time and to schedule is to have a continuous lane, be it bus lane, box junction or whatever. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right in relation to the lack of enforcement in that regard. People contravene box junctions with great frequency. If it was possible to have camera enforcement of those regulations alongside those for bus lanes, we might actually get the buses to run on time and therefore more people using them, which is the objective, I believe, of government policy.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I too should like to express a few words in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
In this country, we seem to have a talent for introducing sensible rules; but the more sensible they are, the less we seem to enforce them. That is truly ridiculous. If an amendment such as this could nudge some of the relevant authorities into something approaching action and stir them out of their habitual lethargy and inertia, it would be a good thing.
Box junctions are not the only example. Parts of London are festooned with notices saying, "No delivery and no collection between 7 a.m. and 7 p m.". But one cannot see the notices for the crowds of vehicles around them collecting and delivering.
When governments take powers, introduce legislation and make sensible rules, they should do so with the determination that they should be enforced, instead of which they tend to walk away—I refer to all governments, not just this one—leave the powers on the statute book and do nothing. Once rules are made, if anyone is to respect the law they must be enforced,

687
and time and again they are not. Motorists are driven mad by that failure to enforce sensible rules. Therefore I support Amendment No. 127.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, our provisions in this context considerably extend the powers of local authorities in relation to camera enforcement in bus lanes. Were we to extend that further into the area of yellow box junctions, we should need to be clear about what we were doing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, indicated, yellow box junctions are perhaps not the only area where camera enforcement might be helpful in the longer term. However, bus lanes seem to us to be the priority. As I understand it, we have only one limited experiment in which cameras have been used by the Metropolitan Police in Euston Road to enforce yellow box markings at two junctions. At this time that cannot be the basis for moving forward to local authority enforcement as proposed in the amendment.
We are aware of the difficulties generally in relation to bus lanes, and sometimes that can be complicated by yellow box junctions. But in general it is the continuous bus lanes which need to be more effectively enforced. We are aware of problems such as those identified by the Buchanan report in Bristol, which we shall clearly have to consider and are looking into.
I am further advised that the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, are in any case defective. Amendment No. 132 defines a "box junction" by reference to a traffic order, but the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 revoked the 1981 version, whereby the requirement for box junctions had to be backed by an order. Therefore it is not in the appropriate form in any case.
The amendment also attempts to define "box junction" in primary legislation by reference to the use of road markings prescribed in specific diagrams in secondary legislation. That secondary legislation is expected to be superseded next year and that may well occur again in the future. Primary legislation therefore needs to be more flexible so that it is not overtaken by changes in secondary legislation on the definition of the areas or the traffic signs to which it is expected to apply.
I hope therefore that, in regard to both the rather technical deficiencies of the drafting and the need to approach reasonably cautiously what is a major expansion of powers in relation to bus lanes, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will not press his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept that the amendment may be subject to technical drafting difficulties. I hope the noble Lord accepts that in such a technical area it is extremely difficult to draft amendments of this kind. However, before we finish our consideration of the Bill, I urge the Minister to consider whether the Secretary of State should take powers. From the evidence that I have seen, in many cities bus operations are at the point of
688
breaking down and, unless something is done, there will be a real problem. It will be impossible to operate bus services economically and to time, and I do not see how that can in any way further the Government's strategy. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 129 to 131:
Page 86, line 1, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide for the imposition of penalty charges—

(a) by approved local authorities, or

(b) both by approved local authorities and by Transport for London or London local authorities or both.").

Page 86, line 16, leave out from ("buses") to end of line 18 and insert ("(or a particular description of bus), or
(b) only by buses (or a particular description of bus) and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic.").
Page 86, line 18, at end insert—
("(4A) The roads in relation to which regulations under subsection (1) may authorise the imposition of penalty charges are—

(a) in the case of an approved local authority, roads in its area,

(b) in the case of Transport for London, roads in Greater London of a description prescribed by such regulations or all roads in Greater London, and

(c) in the case of a London local authority, roads in its area of a description prescribed by such regulations or all roads in its area.

(4B) Before making any regulations by virtue of subsection (4A)(b) or (c) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) Transport for London, and

(b) the London local authorities affected by the regulations.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 86, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 135 to 140:
Page 86, line 30, leave out from first ("the") to ("and") in line 32 and insert ("conduct constituting the contravention is the subject of criminal proceedings or where a fixed penalty notice has been given in respect of that conduct").
Page 86, line 33, leave out ("by approved local authorities").
Page 86, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under subsection (1) shall include provision for the level of penalty charges in the case of approved local authorities to be set by the authorities subject to the approval of the relevant national authority; and sections 74 and 74A of the Road Traffic Act 1991 apply to penalty charges in the case of Transport for London and London local authorities as they apply to additional parking charges.").

689
Page 86, line 36, after ("charges,") insert—
("( ) make provision for discounts or surcharges (or both),").
Page 87, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section made by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor may make provision in respect of Greater London different from that in respect of the rest of England.").
Page 87, line 8, at end insert—
(""bus" includes a tramcar (within the meaning of section 141A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) and a trolley vehicle (within the meaning of that section),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 135 to 140 with Amendment No. 126. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 142 to 145:
Page 87, line 9, leave out ("the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984") and insert ("that Act").
Page 87, line 12, at end insert—
(""London local authority" means a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London,").
Page 87, line 23, leave out ("outside Greater London").
Page 87, line 30, after ("1") insert ("or 6").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 126. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 142 to 145 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 144 [Mandatory concessions outside Greater London]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, I must advise the House that if Amendment No. 146 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 147 to 149.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 87, line 32, leave out from ("Any") to ("subsection") in line 43 and insert ("person to whom a current statutory travel concession permit has been issued by a travel concession authority and who travels on an eligible service on a journey—

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

(b) beginning at a relevant time,

is entitled, on production of the permit, to be provided with a half-price travel concession by the operator of the service.
(2) A travel concession authority must, on an application made to it by any person who appears to the authority to be an elderly or disabled person residing in its area, issue to the person free of charge a permit, in such form and for such period as the authority considers appropriate, indicating that he is entitled to the concession specified in subsection (1).
(2A) In this section "statutory travel concession permit" means a permit issued pursuant to subsection (2).
(2B) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may issue guidance to travel concession authorities to which they must have regard in determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether a person is a disabled person.
690
(2C) Before issuing guidance under subsection (2B) the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales shall consult—

(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee,

(b) associations representative of travel concession authorities, and

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

(2D) A person entitled to be issued with a statutory travel concession permit by a travel concession authority may agree with the authority that he is not to be entitled to the concession specified in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the important question of concessionary fares for disabled people. Your Lordships' House amended the Bill in Grand Committee so that the statutory minimum concessionary bus fare scheme, which the Bill al ready provided for elderly people, should apply also to people with disabilities. That change was widely and warmly welcomed. Certainly, these amendments do not change the important principle. However, it was subsequently represented to us that in a practical sense the new provisions could be improved in the interests of clarity and to help those who had to implement the legislation on a day-to-day basis. We have listened to those representations, which came initially from local government but have also been supported by members of the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC).
Accordingly, the amendments do two things. First, they provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on eligibility for concessionary fares to which local authorities must have regard. The amendments require consultation on that guidance. Secondly, associated with the guidance provision, the amendments clarify the definitions of the various categories of disability on the face of the Bill so that all concerned can have greater certainty about eligibility and be clearer as to exactly what the guidance is to relate to. Perhaps I may give one example. The Bill as at present drafted refers to people who are "deal". The amendments clarify that by referring on the face of the Bill to "profoundly or severely deaf", those being two recognised terms for describing degrees of deafness. We envisage that the guidance would speak in terns of people who are, or could be, registered as profoundly or severely deaf.
I stress that we have tabled these amendments only after discussion not only with representatives of local government but with members of DPTAC. The amendments respond to what all those people have said to us. Our objective is to make the Bill a more workable and effective piece of legislation for disabled people and local authorities, and on that basis I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accept these amendments.
I should also refer to the amendments in this group tabled by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. There are always different ways to express similar ideas in law, but I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord who have tabled these amendments accept that much the same objectives have been achieved by the government amendments. I note that the noble Baroness seeks to provide that

691
the Secretary of State "shall", rather than "may", issue guidance. I understand that "may" is the usual formulation in such cases, but I assure the noble Baroness that guidance will be issued. In view of what I hope will be seen as a large amount of common ground between us, perhaps those amendments will be withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for replying to my amendments before I speak to them. Amendments Nos. 162 and 168 in this group, which raise an important issue, are both slightly controversial, particularly the latter. Do the Government envisage that when a driving licence is withdrawn on account of disability, which is one of the reasons why an individual is granted a concessionary fare, it shall be done permanently on the grounds of permanent disability? Alternatively, if a person has been unable to obtain a licence because of a disability which can he alleviated—therefore, the loss may be only temporary—will the individual be able to have a concessionary fare while he or she is without a licence? I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will have something to say about this complicated matter because it is something about which disability groups are quite concerned. I put forward this matter, with which the noble Lord may not agree, in order to have the Government's views on the record.
Lord Swinfen: I deal first with government Amendment No. 171. That amendment requires that local authorities should only "have regard to" the issues. I am advised that originally the Government intended to insert the words "must act in accordance with". Guidance is purely advice. No matter how often one gives advice, one cannot make the person take it. The Government may wish to strengthen that particular amendment at the next stage of the Bill.
At the same time, I welcome government Amendment No. 190. However, does it include the aspect that is referred to in my Amendment No. 170, which mainly achieves the same object? My amendment includes,
"persons who have used in-patient mental health services and require continuing support".
As I read it, the Government's amendment does not cover such people. Further, given that the Greater London Authority Act is now in force, does the government amendment include London?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 168 would cover a person who had been refused a driving licence permanently. The government amendments do not echo that. It is possible for a person to be refused a driving licence on medical grounds but to be issued with one if the medical condition improves: epilepsy is one example and blindness through cataracts which are subsequently operated on is another.
The noble Baroness asked whether I believed that a temporary licence would be issued. I believe that that would be the case. But if I am wrong I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and try to sort out the problem.
692
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the question of "having regard to" as opposed to "must act in accordance with", I am advised that the wording, which has been strengthened slightly, is that it "must have regard to". I hope that that added emphasis may be of some use to him there.
Mental health in-patients will not be included as such on the face of the Bill but may be subject to regulation later on. London is indeed covered by the government amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 147 to 149 not moved.]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 88, leave out line 8 and insert ("the concession specified in subsection (1)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 145 [Mandatory concessions: supplementary]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 151 to 155:
Page 88, line 11, leave out from first ("blind") to end of line 15 and insert ("or partially sighted,").
Page 88, line 16, after ("is") insert ("profoundly or severely").
Page 88, line 18, leave out ("seriously impairs") and insert ("has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on").
Page 88, line 20, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
("(f) does not have arms or has long-term loss of the use of both arms,").
Page 88, line 28, at end insert ("otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 156:
Page 88, line 28, at end insert—

("( ) is a specified companion of an eligible person who, in the opinion of the authority responsible for the administration of the scheme, requires the assistance of a companion to be able to travel on public transport, or

( ) is a person who has used in-patient mental health services and requires continuing support.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we seem to have moved suddenly from Amendment No. 146 to Amendment No. 156. I have a group of amendments which starts with Amendment No. 148 which was originally grouped with Amendment No. 147 standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I was waiting for that to be called.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I told the House that if Amendment No. 146 was agreed to, I could not call Amendments Nos. 147 to 149 because they were pre-empted by Amendment No. 146.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall not move Amendment No. 156 but come back to it at a later stage if necessary.
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 89, line 9, leave out from ("Wales") to end of line 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 158 with Amendment No. 146. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
Clause 146 [Variation of mandatory concessions]:
[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
Clause 148 [Reinbursement of operators]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 89, line 46, leave out ("for") and insert ("the full cost to the operator of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 148 provides that:
"Where an operator provides concessions under section 144(1)"—
that is concessionary fares—
"for persons who reside in a travel concession authority's area, the authority shall reimburse the operator for providing the concessions".
On these Benches we are not clear whether that means providing the operator not just with the actual cost of the concessions but also the administrative costs involved. The administrative costs could be a burden—not an unreasonable one—on anyone obliged to operate the concessions because they must account for the number of concessionary clients they have and for whom they provide services. That cannot be done for nothing. Therefore, we thought it was appropriate to table the amendment which says that the full cost should be reimbursed to the operator. It is a small but not unreasonable point which I hope the Minister will consider. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that our firm intention is to maintain the present principle. That principle is underlined in the regulations. It provides for the reimbursement to operators of concessionary fares. That principle is that each operator should be left no better and no worse off by virtue of participation in the concessionary fare scheme.
The difference between being reimbursed for providing the concessions and reimbursed the full cost is perhaps a little obscure. But the basic principle makes it absolutely clear. That is embodied in the existing regulations. It is fair to say that on the whole these arrangements have worked reasonably well and they are fairly well understood. It would not therefore be our intention to change that basis. But it does seem right to have the regulation-making power available for future flexibility. In the light of that I hope the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. The amendment was tabled with a desire not to upset anything but to make sure
694
that stability would continue. I think the Minister answered the point when he said that the operator should be no worse off. That seems to cover the point quite adequately. I am grateful for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 150 [Concessions in Greater London]:
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 163 to 167:
Page 91, line 36, after ("(5),") insert ("for "are persons, or any description of persons," substitute "by an authority are persons appearing to the authority to be persons" and").
Page 91, line 36, leave out from ("for") to end of line 39 and insert ("paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute—

"(b) who are blind;

(c) who are partially sighted;").

Page 91, line 40, after ("are") insert ("profoundly or severely").
Page 91, line 43, leave out ("seriously impairs") and insert ("has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on").
Page 91, line 44, leave out from ("who") to end of line 45 and insert ("do not have arms or have long-term loss of the use of both arms;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments No. 163 to 167 with Amendment No. 146. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 92, line 7, at end insert ("otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 92, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) After that subsection insert—
"(5A) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local authorities to which they must have regard in determining whether a person falls within subsection (5)(b) to (i) above.
(5B) Before issuing guidance under subsection (5A) above, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee;

(b) associations representative of local authorities; and

(c) such other persons as he thinks fit."").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 171, Amendment No. 172:
Line 3, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Amendment No. 171. It is the famous "shall" rather than "may" amendment—"shall issue guidance" rather than "may issue guidance". Perhaps we may have an assurance of the Government's firm intention to issue this guidance on the rather complicated subject of who does and who does not

695
qualify for a concessionary fare on grounds of disability and old age. I shall be grateful if the Minister can do that. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can indeed give that assurance to the noble Baroness. I hope that meets her requirements in her amendment to my amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 172, as an amendment to Amendment No. 171, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 171 agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 92, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) After that subsection insert—
"(5A) Where a disabled person's impairment prevents them making use of mainstream public transport services concessionary fares shall apply to services operated under sections 19 or 22 of the Transport Act 1985 that are fully accessible to people who travel in their wheelchairs."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 173, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 174 and 175. Amendment No. 173 seeks to extend the eligibility for concessionary fares to all eligible English and Welsh residents.
Amendment No. 174 seeks to delete the provision that concessionary fare passes may not be used between 4.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m.
I am concerned that the national concessionary scheme fails to recognise that travel patterns are often independent of local administrative boundaries. Many people from outside London must visit the capital. The voluntary national concessionary scheme for free travel for blind people in Scotland provides concessions throughout the country and across different modes of travel. The proposed scheme would benefit from similar provisions relating to area of operation and integration across modes. I do not see why the same should not apply to people in Wales and England.
I am also concerned that the scheme is limited by the expression "relevant time", meaning that it will not be available between 4.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. The scheme should apply to all journeys in the local area regardless of the time. The restrictions could, for example, mean that someone returning from a night out in town no longer received the concession, making the evening out impossible. More importantly, the provision also means that if the scheme extended to disabled people of working age, they would be unable to benefit from the concessions if working at these unreasonable hours.
As a minimum alternative, I should like to have the start time brought forward to 9 a.m. A 9 a.m. start time applies to the scheme currently running in London and any reserve scheme introduced in future if the boroughs and Transport for London fail to reach
696
agreement. The 9 a.m. start time also applied to the minimum half-price scheme prior to an amendment agreed in the other place.
There are unlikely to be congestion problems in peak periods as people who do not need to travel at those times will not choose to do so, ensuring that they are more likely to be able to travel in comfort. However, removing the restriction will allow people to undertake necessary journeys. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I warmly support the amendments, particularly the amendment which seeks to remove the time restriction. I very much support the amendment which would publicise the eligibility criteria. There are problems. Many people do not know whether they are entitled. Some people miss out. If those people knew the criteria, they might find that they were able to make use of the concession.
Lord Addington: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words in support of the amendment. It is a good aim that the concession should be available when people want to use it. To say that there is a concessionary fare but that at certain times people are not allowed to use it is merely giving half a loaf rather begrudgingly as opposed to giving the whole loaf, to which they are surely entitled.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not too clear that the issue of timing arises on any of the amendments to which the noble Lord referred. As I understand it, he is speaking to Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. He also referred to Amendment No. 175. I do not think that those amendments directly deal with the time issue. Perhaps the noble Lord can offer clarification. He is looking as puzzled as I was when he was speaking. There is an issue of timing and I am quite happy to talk about it. We have discussed the matter before; but it does not seem to arise on these amendments.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am sorry if I muddled the noble Lord. I was speaking also, and should have said so, to Amendment No. 176, which does deal with the issue of timing. I must apologise to the noble Lord because I know that it is not his fault. I gave my preferred groupings some 10 days ago to the Government Whips' Office and I faxed them through again on Friday evening. But I am told that they never arrived, which I find extraordinary because my fax machine told me that they had gone through satisfactorily.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall not quarrel with the noble Lord on the efficacy or otherwise of his technology or the Whips' Office technology. Clearly, there has been some confusion. That was compounded by the fact that he did not refer to Amendment No. 176 in his opening remarks.
Perhaps I may deal first with the question of the time restriction and the effect of the 9.30 a.m. cut-off, to which other noble Lords have referred. As with many concessionary fare schemes up and down the country, the provisions in the Bill are relatively generous. It is

697
not a matter of the Government looking for economies. When we first proposed that the restrictions should start earlier, the view was expressed by local authorities that that would impose too great a strain on transport resources at the morning peak—at the busiest time of day. At that point we were dealing specifically with the concessions for pensioners. Those have since been extended to the disabled. If the question is being raised in relation to those disabled who are travelling to work, there is no overwhelming reason why those disabled who are employed should receive a concessionary fare. They are clearly in a different position from pensioners who are covered by a concessionary fare scheme. I am not convinced—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I do not normally interrupt Ministers when they are in full flow but I think that we are missing a beat here. People who are disabled are for one reason or another often not able to drive themselves to work or anywhere else. It is for that reason, and not because they are receiving a pension or are poor, that they are being offered this concession, which is greatly valued by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will consider this point. There is an important difference between concessions for people because they are disabled and concessions for people because they are elderly.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, but if one looks at the issue from the point of view of the operator, it is difficult to see why there should be a concessionary scheme for one group of people with the same scheme operating for different hours for another group of people benefiting from the concession. It is admittedly the case that when we first discussed the issue we were discussing it in relation to pensioners. I still do not believe that if we extended it to the disabled, which everyone has welcomed, we should necessarily alter the time of day at which the concession applies on the ground that it enables a particular group of workers to get to work. Were it to be opened up, I suspect that other groups of workers besides the disabled might well find a special case for having concessionary fares. I admit that different arguments apply to the disabled from those that apply to pensioners, but the case is not so overwhelming that I would wish to confuse the operation of the scheme by having different times. I therefore hope that the House will not be persuaded by the noble Lord's amendment in that respect.
Amendment No. 174 would place an obligation on each London authority to make and review criteria about impaired ability to walk, in consultation with disability groups and taking account of guidance by a joint concessionary fare body. I suggest that the amendment is now overtaken by the government amendment, which provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on eligibility. All local authorities will be required to have regard to that guidance. The amendment also provides for the Secretary of State to consult DPTAC and others in preparing the guidance. What lies behind the amendment is the fact that there
698
are different interpretations by different local authorities. The government amendment already meets that point.
Amendment No. 175 relates to a national scheme. The noble Lord mentioned the amendment but he did not speak in any great detail on it. I assume that he wishes for a reply from me. It advocates a national scheme rather than one based on individual local authorites. The principle of local authority discretion is important. It is open to local authorities to add to the statutory minimum, which would make it even more complicated to provide for national transfer of eligibility. Under the amendment, a bus pass issued by one local authority would provide reduced-fare travel anywhere in the country. I see the attractions but if we were to allow local authorities to be more generous than the statutory minimum, it is difficult to envisage how the scheme could operate. Would a pensioner living in Birmingham, which has a free travel scheme, be entitled to free travel in Cornwall? It is difficult to see how one could transfer differential provisions and eligibility to another local authority area.
As to administration and finance, bus operators are reimbursed by local authorities for carrying bus card holders at reduced fares. If a lot of West Midlands pensioners went to Cornwall for their holiday, who would reimburse who? This straightforward amendment does not address that complex issue and although it may be attractive, I ask the noble Lord not to press it.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether the government amendment would cover my point about publicising the eligibility criteria to make sure they are known by anyone who might be able to apply?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the regulations would not necessarily cover publicity but guidance would be given to local authorities.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: That they should publicise the scheme well?
Lord Whitty: Yes.
Lord Swinfen: The Minister has given a full answer, which I shall study with care. If necessary, I shall return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 174 to 176 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 177:
After Clause 150, insert the following new clause—

Transport Bill

  REVIEW OF COSTS OF CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL PROVISIONS
  (" . Pursuant to the operation of the concessionary travel provisions set out in this Act, the Secretary of State shall, at the end of the first full year of operation and thereafter at reasonable intervals, undertake a review of the costs incurred.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we wholeheartedly welcome the creation of a national concessionary scheme for pensioners and disabled people, which we believe will make a significant contribution to their quality of life. As with all new schemes, there is a significant number of unknown factors. Although every effort is made to produce accurate estimates, they are only estimates.
  The Government believe that the scheme's half fare for pensioners will cost in the region of £25 million; the extension to disabled people a further £8 million; and eliminating the pass charge will cost £14 million.
  The Local Government Association has received many representations from its members suggesting that those are under-estimates and questioning that adequate financial provision has been made. Given the sad history of central government passing on commitments to local government without sufficient financing and the opaque nature of local government finance, we should sympathise with local authorities. Underfunding will put pressure on other parts of their budgets, with the result that communities will see service reduction or council tax increases. The amendment merely seeks to ensure that costs are quantified and understood once the scheme has been in operation—so that we will be dealing with real figures, not estimates. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I acknowledge the basis of the noble Baroness's points. The Government have said that they will reimburse local authorities the extra cost of running the new statutory minimum scheme and provision is being made in the revenue support grant accordingly. We will clearly have to review the figures because some local authorities have expressed doubts about them. We shall do so in light of experience and any extension of the statutory minimum to new categories of people, different hours of the day or whatever.
  The amendment raises some technical issues, such as what is meant by the words "undertake a review". Nor does it describe what would be done in light of such a review—although I am not necessarily tempting the noble Baroness to provide a more complex amendment. The Government recognise what is behind the amendment and are committed to reviewing the scheme in light of circumstances.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that local authorities may undertake a review in any event in light of any unfair provision and that other parties may give a clear indication if a scheme is not working out? The amendment adds nothing to existing practice among individual local authorities.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention. As he says, the Government and local authorities would review expenditure in any case. The anxiety behind the amendment is because some local authorities do not quite understand how the scheme will operate and over whether sufficient provision has been made in the revenue support grant.
  700
  The Government will review the adequacy of that provision in light of the circumstances, much as the amendment seeks.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, the Minister will be glad to know that he has not tempted me down the road of a more complicated amendment next time around. I am obliged for the Minister's reassurance and know that local authorities also will be grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 152 [Competition test for exercise of bus functions]:
  [Amendments No. 178 not moved.]
  Schedule 10 [Competition test for exercie of bus functions]:
  [Amendment No. 179 not moved]:
  Clause 153 [Grants to bus service operators]:
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 180:
  Page 93, line 42, after ("operating") insert ("and improving accessibility to").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 181, 185 and 186.
  Amendment No. 180 extends the provisions for which grants may be made to bus operators for improvements to accessibility. The Bill allows bus operators or authorities to improve the services provided to the public. The cost of introducing bus accessibility across the United Kingdom fleet would be approximately £444 million, yet it is estimated that the additional revenue would be between £26 million and £52 million a year—which roughly equates to 19 or 18 years' purchase. Disability organisations believe that the Government could and should find a funding mechanism to ensure an accessible bus fleet well before the end date of 2017 under the proposed Disability (Discrimination) Act 1977 regulations. That is entirely consistent with the Government's objective of delivering high-quality bus networks. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 181, 185 and 186 are in the group. Amendment No. 181 relates to fuel duty concessions. Clause 153 makes provision for the payment of grants by the Secretary of State and proposes that the fuel duty concession, which is established to assist bus services, must come to an end at the same time. Until we know how the system and operators work, it must be questionable whether one will equal the other. The problem is that if one does not equal the other, the operator will have to make adjustment to his services.
  The purpose of our amendment is to delay the end of the fuel duty concession until six months after the quality partnership schemes come into operation. An operator will therefore have time to discover whether the grant is appropriate. If not, he will be able to make adjustments to the service before he loses too much money.

  701
  Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 simply require that the schemes are brought into being by way of competitive tendering. I dare say that the Minister will assure me that that is covered in other parts of the Bill and if he does I shall be content.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will find my reply all too repetitive of the points I made in Committee. Although we sympathise with what he says about accessibility to buses and with all the objectives behind the amendment, we do not see it as being necessary or appropriate.
  Clause 153 provides for new arrangements for grants of bus operators towards the running costs of their services. The clause will replace the current legislative basis for the existing fuel duty rebate scheme by more flexible powers to make grants. The clause provides for the making of regulations about eligibility for new grants and for the method of their calculation.
  We have asked the Commission for Integrated Transport to consider all aspects of public funding of bus services, including possible changes to the fuel duty rebate. Clause 153 provides flexibility for any future changes to the grant arrangements. But I want to emphasise, as I did in Committee, that we recognise the value of fuel duty rebate as financial support for all local bus services. Et off-sets part—currently, more than 70 per cent—of the fuel duty incurred in running those services. But we also need to consider whether changes to the rebate, or even a new form of grant, would represent better value for money and better serve our wider objectives.
  I would also again stress that we have no intention of removing or changing fuel duty rebate before we are fully satisfied that change will be of benefit in terms of policy objectives, or before alternative arrangements are in place. I will say more about Amendment No. 181 but I noticed that that was the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
  Amendment No. 180 would add to the broad terms of the clause the specific point that any new grant paid under the clause may be towards the cost of improving the accessibility to services. I took careful note of the point made the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in Committee and again today and I understand that he wants to provide funding to hasten the process of buses becoming accessible. That process is subject to the mandatory requirements established under the Disability Discrimination Act.
  However, Clause 153 is deliberately broadly drawn to provide a flexible grant-making power; that is its strength. It makes amendments such as this unnecessary. In addition to accessibility, one could think of many worthwhile issues relating to bus accessibility which one could add, but I hope to show that there is no point in doing so. Any new grant could be—as FDR is at present—a general payment to operators in support of operating costs without any specific conditions as to what the grant has to be spent on, though even so the effect might be to hasten progress to accessibility.
  702
  However, if it were thought appropriate, it would be possible to make regulations which specified particular costs which would be taken into account in the calculation of grant, which entailed a higher rate of grant to services which met certain criteria or had certain characteristics. That could include accessibility requirements.
  That is why I believe that Clause 153 as drafted combines the virtues of a general grant with the possibility, through regulation, of the kind of specific grant proposed in Amendment No. 180.
  Amendment No. 181 appears to link the new powers to make grants to bus operators with the introduction of quality partnerships. Clause 153(6), which the amendment seeks to change, concerns the replacement of the existing powers to pay fuel duty rebate by the new powers to pay grants for bus operators under Clause 153 as a whole. Subsection (6) merely provides that once the new powers are brought into effect, the old FDR powers—including the old powers to levy a penalty based on FDR for the unregistered or unreliable running of a service—shall cease to have effect.
  I am not persuaded that there is good reason for linking Clause 153(6) with the introduction of quality partnerships in an area. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, spoke of a general need to delay until it was certain that everything was in place, but he did not refer specifically to quality partnerships. It does not seem to me obvious that operators who are involved in a quality partnership should be subject to different arrangements for government grant compared with other operators.
  Clause 153(6) as it currently stands does no more than provide a necessary part of moving from one set of grant arrangements to another. It is separate from provisions about quality partnerships. It would be odd if new grant arrangements came into operation only in places where there was a quality partnership. That is the effect of the amendment.
  As regards Amendments Nos. 185 and 186, I am grateful for advance notice from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that if I can satisfy him that the provision is provided elsewhere he will not press them. They relate to the power to pay grants to local authorities and to the power to pay grants for public passenger services and for new facilities, or new services ancillary to such services.
  I sympathise with the objective but believe that the amendments are not necessary. As regards subsidies for bus services, we must remember that they are already subject to a statutory competitive tendering requirement under the Transport Act 1985. So the amendments add nothing. The same applies to the provision about facilities or ancillary services. Bus service subsidies are subject to competitive tendering and facilities are subject to the usual local authority best value rules. If there were new buildings in facilities—for example, a new bus station—competitive tendering by building contractors would be very much the usual procedure.

  703
  I hope that that persuades the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we have covered the water front, if I may use an inappropriate metaphor.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has succeeded in satisfying my noble friend but he tells me that my amendment is unnecessary. He will appreciate that I am constantly trying to press forward improvements for disabled people and I hope that the Government will keep under review the progress which bus companies are making as regards the accessibility of buses. If the Government feel the progress can be improved perhaps they will alter regulations so that accessibility is improved as quickly as possible. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
  Clause 154 [Penalties]:
  [Amendments Nos. 182 to 186 not moved.]
  Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments about local transport]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 187 to 190:
  Page 219, line 25, leave out from ("for") to end of line 28 and insert ("paragraphs (d) and (e) substitute—

  "(d) persons who are blind;

  (e) persons who are partially sighted;").

  Page 219, line 32, leave out ("seriously impairs") and insert ("has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on").
  Page 219, line 33, leave out from ("who") to end of line 34 and insert ("do not have arms or have long-term loss of the use of both arms;").
  Page 219, line 41, at end insert ("otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol;
  (eg) any person travelling as the companion of a person who—

  (i) is eligible to receive travel concessions by virtue of any other paragraph of this subsection; and

  (ii) requires the assistance of a companion in order to travel on journeys on public passenger transport services;".").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 163 [Local charging schemes]:
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 191:
  Page 99, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(3) Before making a local charging scheme a charging authority which is a metropolitan district council must consult the Passenger Transport Authority for the passenger transport area in which the district is included.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have tabled four simple amendments in this group to ensure that when a metropolitan district council charging authority makes a local charging scheme or a licensing scheme, including joint schemes, it must consult the passenger transport authority for that area. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Baroness and I are running down parallel lines. Amendments
  704
  Nos. 193, 194 and 195 relate to consultation on congestion charging schemes. When such a scheme is introduced, we believe that there must be consultation. The Bill says that there may be consultation. We have dealt with the theme of "may" and "shall" on many occasions and I do not apologise for bringing it back.
  Amendment No. 195 would ensure that any "other persons" who were consulted were interested persons. There is no point in consulting those who are not. It seems odd that an authority could fulfil its legal obligation by consulting someone with no relevance to the issue, even though such consultation would serve no practical purpose.
  Amendments No. 200 and 201 repeat those provisions in relation to London. Amendments Nos. 223, 224 and 225 repeat them in relation to workplace parking licensing schemes. Consultation is a significant issue. The provisions should be explicit and not quasi-voluntary because of the use of the word "may". "Shall" is more appropriate in the circumstances.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, Amendment No. 196 relates to road user charging and Amendment No. 219 relates to the workplace parking levy. Employers and their workforce representatives should be involved in the consultation at company and workplace level before the introduction in a particular area of a road user charge or a workplace parking levy. I am a particularly strong supporter of those important initiatives and the amendments have not been tabled to subtract from them.
  People rely tremendously on the motor car to get to work. Many noble Lords may be surprised that the Labour Force Survey shows that nationally 70 per cent of people go to work by car. That hides the fact that the figure is higher outside London. In London, where journeys to work are very different, the figures are 13 per cent in central London and 43 per cent for the London area as a whole. That has implications when we consider what changes of behaviour are realistic. We must avoid people in most parts of the country being astonished by what we are saying.
  I do not want to make a long speech, but I want to emphasise that we are in favour of the proposed measures and we want to make them more successful, as they are an essential component of the strategy for sustainable development. There is still a good deal of listening as well as educating to be done if we are to get these ideas off the ground successfully.
  I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister has a ballpark figure in mind for the revenue to be recycled by these provisions, but the aim seems to be to take money from the pocket of Peter to pay for improved public provisions for Peter and for Paul. I am sure that my noble friend will correct me if he thinks that I have missed the point. Some of us are unsure how the case will come across to those who are directly affected if there has been no prior discussion in their workplace about the extra charges.
  The TUC and CBI both argue along similar lines on the issue. We must avoid the idea that the charges exist simply to push up the cost of living. We already know

  705
  that, remarkably, transport has moved to top spot in the categories of expenditure governing the retail prices index—above housing, food and many other items that we traditionally thought were at the heart of people's standard of living.
  I make no apology for reminding the House that I made a broader proposal in Committee in July. The dramatic events of September reinforced the conclusions that we need people to be fully involved in dialogue about the purposes being sought before the arrangements come into force. The consultation procedures of local authorities are the operational mechanism. It is highly desirable that primary legislation should spell out that employers and workplace representatives at each workplace in the local authority area should be involved in consultation.
  The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has talked for some time about "green transport plans" as an umbrella process into which the proposals could fit, but the new initiatives in the Bill require a more focused commitment.
  I doubt whether it will be equitable to give exemptions to employers below a certain size or those with a limited number of parking places. I remember meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to talk about the problems of small firms when she was Prime Minister and I was wearing my TUC hat. To illustrate the fallacy of a proposal then on the table, John Monks suggested, tongue in cheek, that the Government should exempt small firms from the speed limit. "Take a note of that", said the Prime Minister to the civil servant at the meeting.
  Innumerable issues will arise, from the staggering of hours of work to the staggering of deliveries. National reporting and monitoring arrangements would be helpful to gauge how the issues are emerging in practice, as opposed to in theory.
  My noble friend the Minister may prefer to say that the issue will be addressed in regulations along the broad lines of the amendment. That would be a second best solution, because there would be uncertainty at the time when local authorities were developing their plans. However, if that is the Minister's answer, we need to know when the regulations are likely to be made, on the assumption of the Bill receiving Royal Assent in the next month; how they will relate to local authorities whose schemes are well advanced by then; and whether they will make provision for worker consultation.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, wish to support Amendments Nos. 196 and 219 as well as to express my support for road user charging and the workplace parking levy. First, however, I apologise to noble Lords for my hoarse voice.
  Whenever the words "tax", "charge" or "levy" are used, they create immediate suspicion, swiftly followed by protective opposition. That is why the involvement of others is so important in discussions. It is vital that both employers and employees understand
  706
  fully what lies behind any proposals relating to charges or levies. Views must be heard at the beginning of the process when local authorities introduce schemes in their areas.
  I wish to concentrate on the effect of the proposals set out in Clauses 169 and 184 on a particular group of workers; namely, women workers. I shall turn first to Clause 169 covering road user charging schemes. These will apply to the registered keeper of a vehicle, who will be responsible for paying the charges. This will therefore impact directly on women workers who rely on their cars to get to and from work and to carry out their family duties, which still lie heavily on women's shoulders.
  Women workers rely on their cars, at least equally and if not more, than their male colleagues. Women tend to need to dash from work to collect their children from school or from their leisure activities. It is usually women who need to dash from work to the shops and/or to make sure that an elderly or disabled relative has his or her needs catered for. Women use cars for these undertakings because, in this hectic world, cars are often quicker and more readily available than public transport. However, we hope that in the future that situation will be different.
  Most women would say that they wish to support actions that are environmentally friendly. Many polls show that the greening of the environment is very high on women's agendas. Women workers are practical people; they have to be, juggling as they do the demands of work, family and the wider obligations of society. Women certainly understand the reasons for the need to reduce congestion on the roads. That is why it is particularly important for their views to be heard at the earliest possible opportunity in discussions on matters which so directly affect them. Hence I declare my support for this amendment.
  I turn now to Clause 184 covering workplace parking levies. The same reasoning as regards women workers applies here. However, unlike Clause 169, under the provisions of this clause, the levy would not apply directly to the user of the vehicle, but would be directed at the occupier of premises where parking is to take place. In this context that would usually be the employer.
  This in itself will raise questions in the minds of employees. For example, will any costs incurred by employers be passed directly or indirectly to the workforce? Women tend to earn less than their male colleagues. Will this be recognised in any discussions on the levy?
  Already some exemptions have been made in connection with these charges. Certain workers—for example NHS hospital employees, who work unsocial hours and thus at times when transport provision is poor—are to be exempted. In today's changing world of work, an increasing number of women work unsocial hours and thus at times when transport provision may not be adequate. The employees of call centres, who tend in the main to be women, come to mind. Will exemptions also be made for such workers?

  707
  Again, the necessity for the views of women workers to be taken into consideration at an early stage in the consultation will enable any proposals by local authorities to have a smoother passage into fruition. This amendment would help that process.
  Lord Brett: My Lords, my name is associated with those of my noble friends Lord Lea of Crondall and Lady Gibson of Market Rasen on these amendments. I endorse entirely the comments they have made in support of them.
  Some 30 years ago it was my misfortune to become the trade union official in the organisation of which my noble friend Lady Gibson was a national official. At the time, the University of Nottingham decided to introduce parking charges. They did not tell anyone and that proved to be a slight problem. During my six years in Nottingham, of all the issues that resulted in the greatest rise in temperatures, along with proposals such as burning down the university and hanging the vice-chancellor, the introduction of parking charges at the university came out on top.
  Rational arguments could be brought forward in support of the charges. However, those rational arguments were put forward after the decision had been made. They did not precede it. Although I endorse entirely the policy here under consideration, it will be a difficult one to render acceptable in most local authority areas, whether the local authority, trade unions or employers are involved in promoting it. The campaign to win over hearts and minds will be extremely important. For that reason, the need to consult employers and workforce representatives will be an absolutely essential prerequisite if local authorities wish successfully to introduce such schemes. If that is not done, they will encounter the kind of backlash I witnessed at Nottingham some 30 years ago and of which I believe I still bear the scars.
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of these proposals. In particular I should like to support Amendment No. 219. I am a great supporter of workplace parking charges. Indeed, I was sorry to read that the Mayor of London appears to have put the proposal on the back burner for the time being. I believe that such charges could make a major contribution to the reduction of congestion in London; indeed, the same could be said of many large towns.
  It is important to consult widely. It is important to consult those who run businesses as well as employees. It will be key to recognise the fact that those who run businesses will probably in any case have their own private parking spaces and will have a rather different view on the need to retain them or to charge for them from those who do not have access to such parking facilities, in particular those women who may be paid less and must rely on a good bus service. It is vital that employees are given an equal say in these matters.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have made a case for
  708
  these amendments. To that end, I am pleased to be able to start our deliberations on Part III of the Bill by agreeing with noble Lords on the need for full and proper consultation on proposals for road user charging and workplace parking levies.
  The amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, would require any charging or licensing scheme brought forward by one or more local authorities in a metropolitan area to consult the local passenger transport authority before the scheme could be introduced. I can assure the noble Baroness that it will not be acceptable for local authorities in a metropolitan area to introduce any new charges without consulting the local passenger transport authority. Consultation at this level will be a fundamental requirement for securing the Secretary of State's approval for any scheme brought forward in a metropolitan area.
  The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would require more general consultation to take place before a road user charging or workplace parking levy scheme could be introduced or varied or—for road user charging—revoked. Again, I can assure the noble Lord that no charging or licensing scheme will be approved by the Secretary of State unless full and effective consultation has taken place on the details of the scheme. I should note in passing that the National Assembly for Wales also attaches similar importance to the need for proper consultation on scheme details.
  The amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lea and other noble Lords emphasise the need for consulting with employers and workforce representatives before a road user charging scheme or workplace parking levy scheme could be introduced. I can assure my noble friend that full and proper consultation on scheme details will, of course, include consultation with local employers and the business community, as well as other interested parties, including workforce representatives. My noble friend further asked me to suggest to some ballpark figures for road user charging schemes or workplace parking levies. Such sums would be extremely small in the context of the £180 billion that we foresee being invested in transport over the coming 10 years. However, it will be important to the hypothecation in local transport plans, in particular as regards the effect that charges of this kind may have on such plans.
  As regards the question of timing, my noble friend asked when the regulations might be made. I understand that such schemes could be put in place from next year, following consultation with interested parties. He further asked how this would relate to schemes presently being brought forward. We are working with interested local authorities in our charging development partnerships to ensure that schemes will be compatible both with the legislation and with regulations.
  Although agreeing in principle with these amendments, I am unable to accept them because they are overly prescriptive. What these amendments seek to put on the face of the Bill, we intend to cover in

  709
  regulations, guidance and through the approval of individual schemes. This will ensure that, for example, statutory consultees are clearly identified and that the appropriate level of consultation is tailored to take account of different schemes and local factors. I emphasise that the regulation-making powers in Clause 167 for road user charging and Clause 182 for the workplace parking levy provide a means for specifying statutory consultees and consultation procedures that must be followed.
  Further, Clause 169 for road user charging and Clause 184 for the workplace parking levy enable the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to direct a charging or licensing authority to undertake further consultation where the charging or licensing authority has not undertaken adequate consultation. This means that there is no possibility that any charging or licensing scheme will be introduced without proper consultation having taken place.
  I am grateful to have had the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the need for full and effective consultation on scheme details, including consultation with businesses, workforces and passenger transport authorities. I suspect that the issue of what should be placed on the face of the Bill and what should be left to regulations, guidance and scheme approval will be a recurring theme as we debate Part III.
  I hope that noble Lords will accept that these amendments are too prescriptive for the primary legislation and that with the assurances I have given they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response. I shall convey it to my noble friend. I suspect that he also will be satisfied with what has happened. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 164 [Joint local charging schemes]:
  [Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
  Clause 169 [Charging schemes: consultation and inquiries]:
  [Amendments Nos. 193 to 196 not moved.]
  Lord Dixon Smith Lord Dixon Smith moved Amendment No. 197:
  Page 101, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 197, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 and to Amendments Nos. 220 to 222. These two groups of amendments both relate to the holding of inquiries—the first group in relation to congestion charging and the second in relation to workplace parking licensing schemes.
  We believe that the maximum amount of study, publicity and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, argued, public education is essential if the schemes are to be introduced with any hope of success—and, more importantly, with any hope of there not being a violent, negative public reaction, which probably will he the likeliest outcome. We think
  710
  that it will help if the holding of an inquiry is obligatory and we therefore seek once again to change the word "may" to "shall".
  It is important that if such an inquiry is held, it should be under the chairmanship of an independent chairman. That is not specified in the Bill and we believe that it would help enormously if it were. As I have said before, no matter what the intention may he, such matters should be explicit on the face of the Bill. That is what we are attempting to achieve with these amendments. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of these amendments. As I made clear only a few moments ago, we all attach great importance to the need for effective consultation on the details of road user charging and workplace parking levy schemes. Amendments Nos. 197, 198, 220 and 221 would place a specific requirement on all charging and licensing authorities to hold a public inquiry for all schemes, any variation to a scheme and on the revocation of any scheme.
  Holding a public inquiry before a charging or licensing scheme is introduced may well be appropriate. It may also be appropriate to hold an inquiry if there is a significant variation to a scheme or a revocation of a scheme. But it cannot be sensible to make public inquiries compulsory in all circumstances, for all schemes and for any changes to each and every scheme. Some small-scale schemes may simply not justify a full-scale public inquiry. In addition, the amendments would remove the ability of charging and licensing authorities to fine tune schemes or to revoke schemes quickly. Consequently, while the noble Lord's amendments are well intended, they would not be helpful or beneficial.
  However, I emphasise again the considerable importance that we attach to the proper scrutiny of the details of individual schemes. Clause 169 for road user charging and Clause 184 for the workplace parking levy give local authorities the power to hold an inquiry when they deem it necessary, and we intend to issue guidance on this matter. We currently envisage that while a public inquiry may not be necessary for the smaller schemes or for minor variations to schemes, it is certainly likely to be appropriate for larger schemes or for more substantial changes to a scheme. Our guidance is currently being drafted and we plan to issue it in draft for consultation in the spring of next year. These clauses also provide the appropriate national authority with the power to cause a public inquiry to be held if it feels this is appropriate.
  I turn now to Amendments Nos. 199 and 222. I am again in agreement with the noble Lord over the need for qualified and independent persons to hold inquiries. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to write this provision onto the face of the Bill. This is because any inquiry that failed to meet that criterion would be vulnerable to a successful challenge in the courts. But I reiterate our belief and intention that inquiries should be run by independent and suitably qualified people.

  711
  Having spelt out why I am unable to accept these amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw them.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I assumed beforehand that his reply would be in line with the spirit of my amendments and—dare I say it? —that, as usual, he would swat me gently over the head and tell me that they were unnecessary.
  I am particularly grateful for the points he made about the independence of chairmen of inquiries, but I always feel vulnerable when someone says, "If "X" happens, "Y" could resort to the law in order to prove that the procedure was inadequate". As I keep saying, resorting to the law is expensive, and it is sometimes difficult for people to do that. None the less, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 198 to 201 not moved.]
  Clause 170 [Matters to be dealt with in charging schemes]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 202:
  Page 102, line 24, after ("vehicles") insert ("(other than powered two wheelers which are excluded)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, despite the remarks that have been made about proposing exemptions for either small vehicles or small numbers of car parking spaces, I do not apologise for bringing forward these amendments. I do not believe that the two exemptions from congestion charges or the exemption from the workplace levy indicated in the amendments are on a par with everyone asking for an exemption or small employers asking for an exemption from the 30 limit.
  Although two-wheeled vehicles may have some disadvantages, they certainly have great congestion advantages. If people could be encouraged to use them rather than cars, congestion may well be reduced. I say "may" because motor-cyclists travelling on roads similar to the appallingly wet ones we suffered this morning could well fall off. If that happened, congestion could be increased as a result of the accident.
  The case for doing everything that we can to encourage the small employer is always worth arguing. I do not apologise for seeking an exemption from the workplace parking levy for small businesses. Small industries, if successful, often go on to become much bigger—in which case the community gains a great deal in terms of employment and general social benefit, and, I dare say, in terms of the additional charges that will then arise. On the other hand, it would be unfortunate if small businesses found themselves throttled at birth and this provision happened to be a factor. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord raises some interesting points. However, my instinctive reaction is that these are precisely the kind of matters
  712
  that need to be argued when a scheme is proposed. Other Members of this House have argued the case for the involvement of employers. Amendment No. 214 is not about small employers; it is about employers of any size who happen to have workplaces with four or fewer parking places.
  It is entirely right that those who are liable to be affected by a scheme should have an opportunity to contribute to it. It may be, for instance, that a small number of parking places can be used for those who have mobility problems. Although the points raised are interesting, it is better for them to be dealt with in the context of a particular scheme rather than for Parliament to endeavour to legislate in detail for what might be a range of circumstances in different cities up and down the country.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said it all. However, I am afraid that I shall have to give the official response all the same.
  Motor vehicles, as defined in the Bill in Clause 197(1), already exclude certain electrically assisted pedal cycles and other forms of unpowered modes of transport. That leaves us with the question of whether, as the amendment suggests, the Bill should automatically exclude all powered two-wheelers from charges in all circumstances.
  We consulted on this matter in Breaking the Logjam. We examined the possibility for a national exemption for motorcycles. Over 60 per cent of responses said that there should not be a national exemption, although many people thought that it should be a matter for local discretion, as the noble Baroness rightly said.
  We recognise the merits of an exemption for motorcycles. It is true that motorcycles do not cause congestion in the same way as four-wheeled vehicles—although there are some people who think that motorcycles cause a certain amount of danger in city streets given the way in which some are driven.
  We are also aware that under the provisions of the Bill a local authority could charge motorcycles if they contribute to local congestion problems, or it could exempt them if that were thought proper. There are places where one can imagine motorcycles causing congestion—one has only to look at scooters in Rome or Athens to realise that. There is also the possibility of a reduced rate if local authorities think it appropriate. Discretion is the answer.
  The same is true of the threshold of four spaces, which I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lea, criticise in speaking to an earlier group of amendments. Again, we made it clear in the consultation paper that there are attractions in applying a threshold. It is administratively convenient to exclude a large number of negotiation and enforcement power duties from a scheme. It may be that some are small businesses—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, they are not necessarily all small businesses—and there may be advantages which local authorities can and will take into account.

  713
  Who is to say that four is the right level for every town or city where there might be a workplace parking levy? The requirement could be different in different cities; it could be different with a different pattern of enterprises. Surely it is better to leave it to local discretion in this case as well.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, not least among the pleasures of being a Member of this place is that one learns things all the time. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, always manages to correct me on matters of definition—for which I am grateful, because one does not always think these matters through. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. If he thinks that scooters in Sienna—he said Rome, but Sienna will do—are a problem and that might or might not be a reason for including them, he ought to think of bicycles in Beijing. A congestion charge on those might be deemed worthwhile, but if such a charge were levied no one would get to work at all.
  This has been a useful debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 203:
  Page 102, line 29, at end (", and
  (f) include a provision for any vehicle able to pass through any designated charging area without any charges being incurred once every calendar month").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment enables us to discuss particular circumstances which merit consideration (although I heard what was said about considering a scheme). I can envisage circumstances—which happen all too often—in which someone takes a family member to the doctor, the doctor says that he or she had better go straight to hospital, and the person's car is suddenly acting as an emergency vehicle. If the hospital happens to be in a congestion charging area, there is a problem. We believe that this matter needs to be considered and we have tabled the amendment to make sure that it is.
  The Minister will probably say that such a provision is impractical. He may also take the not unreasonable view that in an emergency people would drive their car to the hospital, not notice and the cost and would, as it were, "bite the bullet" if a charge were levied. But there is a question of whether we should consider these matters in a more lenient way.
  Amendment No. 204 deals with a different and more important matter; namely, the question of keeping a charging scheme under review. If a charging scheme fails to meet the criterion laid down in Clause 163(2)— namely, that it is desirable in order to achieve the policies within the transport plan—it should cease.
  An authority may not introduce a scheme unless it is desirable in order to achieve the policies of the transport plan. But circumstances can change. One can envisage a situation where that is no longer the case and the transport scheme is not helping the transport plan at all. In such a case we believe that the scheme should be rescinded.
  I turn to Amendment No. 205 in this group. As I read the Bill—and I may have misinterpreted it—it requires a congestion charge to be made on a road where a charge is already being made for parking. There may well be a need to control parking but it may not per se be creating congestion. It could be in a residential street where it is highly desirable to control parking but there is no congestion. The matter requires careful thought.
  Amendment No. 206 provides for the charge to be used if the money to be raised is used for transport. We debated these amendments in a different form in Committee. If these charges are to be introduced, we believe that it is important for the benefit to go back into the transport system of the communities that are actually paying the money. That is not absolutely explicit in the Bill, although it is implicit as a result of the criteria under which the charges have to be commenced. We need to think about the resulting situation should such criteria cease to apply.
  Amendment No. 213 has been tabled for a somewhat different reason. Where a congestion charge applies through a town centre, especially in more rural parts of the country, there will almost certainly be people who will wish to avoid it. If an authority produces a charging scheme in such a situation, it would not be a bad thing if there were a designated and explained alternative route, so to speak. Indeed, it would be very humane and would certainly help people driving commercial vehicles. This is a problem when transport costs are already very high. It would be a good idea to have an alternative route available in areas where people believed it was desirable to introduce a congestion charging scheme.
  Amendment No. 226 is the final amendment in this group. It would require the licensing authority to keep every licensing scheme under review and to revoke it,
  "if it not longer meets the criteria set out in subsection (2) of section 178".
  This reverts to the point that we have already made: an authority may not introduce a licensing scheme, unless it fulfils or facilitates the achievement of policies in its transport plan. It is always necessary to refer such charging schemes back to that original intention, so that they can perhaps be revoked if they are not fulfilling the purpose for which they were initiated. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it seems t o me that, in the main, these are matters that should be addressed in the context of each scheme. The noble Lord may like to consider an alternative to his proposal to deal with an emergency; namely, the arrangement proposed by the Mayor of London, for whom I do not speak. Nevertheless, the proposal is worth considering. Of course, all this will depend on the mechanisms used, but it is proposed that a driver will have up to midnight on the day on which he enters the charging area to make the payment. Therefore, if he has forgotten or is facing an emergency and has not had time to make the payment before entering the charging area, he will have the opportunity to make that good without

  715
  incurring a penalty. It will be a very limited opportunity, but one which will meet the point. I believe that that is an illustration of how each scheme can be designed to meet particular circumstances. Indeed, we wait to see how the public will react to such a proposal in London.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, all these amendments relate to prescriptions on the face of the Bill which, in most cases, are best dealt with by the provisions of each scheme, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or, alternatively, by regulations. Amendment No. 203 refers to emergencies. Clearly there will be occasions when a motorist will need to undertake a journey in an emergency, but there are many ways in which such circumstances could be accommodated within a scheme rather than giving a blanket concession from charges once per month, irrespective of whether or not that provision is used for an emergency. That seems to me to be the least satisfactory solution. Although I wholeheartedly accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, does not speak for the Mayor of London, that is perhaps a slightly better provision. Indeed, there may be better ways yet for meeting this problem. It is a matter best dealt with by individual schemes rather than spelling out such provision on the face of the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 204 and 226 are slightly different in that they require the schemes to be kept under review if they no longer meet the objectives of the local transport plan. This would place some obligation on government. London transport authorities will need to keep schemes under review, but the provisions suggested in these amendments would mean that a scheme must automatically be revoked if it no longer helps to meet the objectives of the LTP. That is perfectly sensible in principle; but, in practice, it would be far too blunt an instrument. Authorities need to be able to give careful thought to how and when they revoke a scheme. Of course, many of these schemes include contractual obligations with other bodies, and the sudden revocation of a scheme may well cause significant financial losses to the authority. We are committed to keeping the schemes under review—indeed, local authorities will need to do so—but the amendments do not seem to suggest the most sensible way to ensure that that is accomplished.
  I believe that there is some misunderstanding as regards Amendment No. 205; it is almost the other way round. The aim of the clause is to prevent the new road user charging powers being used simply to impose on-street parking charges. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to open up the possibility of road user charges being levied as a sort of second tier of on-street parking charges. This could be achieved if a charging scheme were introduced and exempted moving vehicles. Therefore, Clause 170(3) provides the safeguard to prevent this happening. The noble Lord's amendment would remove that safeguard.
  716
  Amendment No. 206 relates to the setting of charges and would delete the provision that states that a charging authority, when it sets charges, may have regard to how charging revenues are to be spent in accordance with Schedule 12. As the noble Lord said, Schedule 12, and everything that we have said in relation to the Bill, provides that every penny of the net proceeds from road user charging and workplace parking levy schemes will be retained by the charging or licensing authority for at least 10 years to fund transport improvements. However, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to increase the number of judicial challenges that a local authority could face were it to charge rates at particular levels with the objective of specifically funding a particular transport improvement, as well as tackling congestion more generally under the local transport plan.
  The flexibility with which charging authorities can set charge rates to fund particular transport improvements is an important part of this provision. The noble Lord's amendment would call that into question. That would not be in the interests of improving transport choice—for example, not being able to fund a light-rail scheme, only a general provision in relation to congestion—or of encouraging modal shift.
  Amendment No. 213 deals with signing an alternative route for through traffic. Clearly one would approve of such a measure in general; indeed, in some cases, marked alternative routes would definitely help to relieve congestion in city centres where there is a road user charging or a workplace parking levy charging regime. We certainly expect schemes to be designed to give information for motorists stating not only that the scheme is in operation but also giving them a choice of whether or not to enter the charged area; in other words, before the point of no return. It is important that motorists know that if they decide to enter the area they must pay the charges. It also means that they should know whether there is an alternative route. Although that would apply to most city centre schemes—indeed, probably all of them—an alternative route may not be available in certain other situations. For example, there may not be an alternative route as regards the small-scale charging schemes that are being developed by Derbyshire County Council in the Peak District National Park, or in the relatively small city centre scheme being promoted by Durham County Council to preserve the world heritage site within Durham city. Depending on one's destination, there would not be an alternative route. I believe that some degree of flexibility is required and that would not be allowed by the noble Lord's amendment.
  In general, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says, these issues are provisions for and tailored to individual schemes. The noble Lord usually wishes to devolve such decisions to local authorities. I should have thought, therefore, that he would accept that point.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her remarks about the considerations of the Mayor of London.

  717
  The Minister is always helpful when he replies. It is always useful to have his remarks reported in Hansard. One then has a record of the Government's intent on these matters. That is extremely useful for reference. There will be those who in future will be glad that we have had this debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 204 to 206 not moved.]
  Clause 171 [Charging schemes: exemptions etc.]:
  Viscount Simon Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 207:
  Page 103, line 14, at end insert ("including exemptions in respect of people who are registered as disabled and people who have a chronic illness which prohibits them from using public transport").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in proposing a similar amendment in Committee, my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston mentioned my inhibiting illness which does not allow me to travel by public transport. He then continued to address the problem of disabled people travelling on public transport but said nothing about those people who, for various chronic health reasons, are completely unable to travel by public transport. He may not have understood the problem affecting a small number of people but it is for that reason that I shall take slightly longer than might have been necessary. Notwithstanding the very small number of people affected, the problem should be addressed. I shall not address the problems of disabled people who cannot travel by public transport because my noble friend said that that would be covered by regulations.
  In a letter sent to me during the Summer Recess, my noble friend said that he would be working closely with disabled people, representative groups and others in order to ensure that the proposed exemption is both workable and fair and that he intends to consult widely. Even then he referred only to disabled people.
  Some noble Lords will be aware of my personal problem which prevents me from travelling by public transport in that I can have a serious allergic reaction to certain allergens in about five to 20 seconds. But I am not—-I repeat: not—in any other way disabled in the generally accepted understanding of the description. Within most parameters I can work normally.
  My noble friend says that he will consult widely. I assure him that I have written and spoken to the British Medical Association in order to put forward conditions which might be covered by the amendment. Its reply was that this would be difficult because the chronic illness would be in an extreme form. Consequently, it advised me that the only person who could confirm that a patient might be subject to an exemption from road user charging who is not disabled and does not claim disability living allowance would be a general practitioner. Therefore, wide consultation will not bring to the surface any of the problems encountered by this small section of the community.
  My noble friend may well say that a GP might abuse the system. This has happened before, as we all know. But this could easily be checked in one way or another and any such GP could have his or her attention drawn to any inconsistency that might become evident. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the possibility of a GP issuing an interim exemption before a government body issues one which will then last for a longer period. In this case the patient would have the immediate exemption with a longer certificate to follow in due course and the government body would have before it a record of the GP's submissions thereby affording a check on individual doctor's submissions.
  While it is true that I have a personal interest in the amendment, there are others like me who would benefit from the inclusion of the amendment on the face of the Bill. They might have lung, psychiatric or dermatological problems. This Government like to take care of minority interests and those people who might be worthy of the exemption covered by the amendment are a very small minority. Why should that small minority have to suffer the unfairness of road user charging when they cannot travel b} public transport?
  I remind my noble friend of his written words to me: that he seeks a system which is fair to everybody who might be affected. Unless the Government agree to the amendment, or make similar proposals, the situation of the few people who, although unable to travel by public transport, find themselves charged despite that inability will be extremely unfair. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, anything that I say does not detract from what my noble friend Lord Whitty said in a letter to my noble friend Lord Simon during the Recess. I hope to be able to build on it because I recognise that a legitimate point is being made even though it is a difficult point to deal with. I recognise also that my noble friend made a particularly constructive speech in which he has made a number of suggestions for ways to tackle the difficulties. I can assure him at the very least that all the points he makes are part of the ongoing consultation process.
  I remind the House of the system as set out in Clause 171. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to set national exemptions in England from road user charges or the work based levy through national regulations. Every charging scheme has to comply with such regulations. Local authorities can add their own local exemptions if they wish to, but they cannot take anything away from the national exemption. As my noble friend Lord Simon recognised, we have given our assurances—I repeat them today—that we intend to grant some form of national exemption from both road user charges and the workplace parking levy for disabled people.
  I appreciate that my noble friend is not disabled and that he has distinguished his condition and that of others from disablement. He is right in saying that anything we do has to be workable, fair and

  719
  enforceable. So we are working closely with disabled people, groups which represent disabled people and other interested parties. I can give him an assurance that in so far as there are groups representing those who may not be disabled but are not able for the reasons he set out to travel on London Transport they will be, and are being, consulted as well.
  One option we are considering is some form of exemption based on the orange—it will now be the blue—badge system. That is under review. Organisations which represent disabled people, including our own statutory advisers—the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—recognise that there may be need for some tightening of the rules on eligibility to protect the scheme for those for whom it is essential. As part of the review we also consider the question of what is the best approach for our national exemption for disabled persons formed from the new charges. We hope to issue a new consultation paper shortly and we expect that the overall review process will take about 18 months.
  I can assure the House that we intend to consult widely once the details of our proposed exemption are drawn up. I can assure my noble friend that Clause 171(1)(a) is already drafted widely enough to provide the type of exemption that he seeks, if that is our decision following consultation. But we have to consider his concerns, and the helpful suggestions he has made, alongside the concerns of others and as part of the consultation process. I should also add that whatever national exemption is decided on, local authorities can grant additional exemptions if they wish.
  On the basis, therefore, that the Bill provides for everything that would be necessary to allow the kind of exemption which is posited in this amendment, and on the basis that it would be better for it to be part of the wide-ranging consultation process which I have described, I hope that my noble friend will find it possible to withdraw the amendment.
  Viscount Simon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response to my amendment. I am glad that he will consult widely, except that those who, as a result of chronic illnesses, cannot travel by public transport, will not be thrown up by that consultation as they are few and far between. That can be ascertained only from a general practitioner. I shall read carefully what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 172 [Penalty charges]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 208:
  Page 103, line 37, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("by the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 172 deals with the payment of penalties for vehicles that have travelled through an area where a congestion charge applies. Once again, we have the issue of whether the owner or the driver should pay. At an earlier stage we said that we believed it should be the driver; we still feel
  720
  that that is the situation. I suppose that the Minister will say that it is a matter for regulation, but I do not apologise for raising the matter again.
  Amendment No. 209 deals with a slightly narrower point. The subsection makes it a criminal offence to remove a notice of a penalty charge unless one is the registered owner of the vehicle or someone acting with his authority. In the amendment we seek to add the words:
  "with intent to avoid payment of a charge imposed by a charging scheme under this Part".
  I admit to being puzzled. If someone drives through an area in which a charging scheme applies, it is highly unlikely that he will stop in the middle of the area or when he gets to the other end and obligingly wait for someone to put a ticket on his car. I believe that he will either be seen, stopped and obliged to pay the charge or he will be recorded as having been there and a letter will catch up with the owner in due course. I am puzzled as to how someone will remove such papers from a vehicle. Perhaps I have missed the point.
  Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 deal with a third matter. As drafted, the Bill enables the national authority, the Secretary of State or the Assembly for Wales to give the transport planning authority the power to charge anyone who removes evidence, and can give them the power to enter a vehicle to obtain evidence if they believe an offence has been committed. It is one thing to give them that power, but the Bill, as drafted, can also make it a requirement of the national authority to do that. I do not believe that is necessarily a good point.
  When this matter was discussed earlier the complaint made was that if some authorities had the power to enter to collect evidence and others did not, that may create anomalies. That is perfectly true. It seems to me that the Bill enables the Secretary of State to say in relation to one scheme that someone will enter and in relation to another scheme that someone will have the option to enter. Such anomalies could arise under the present wording of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 212 deals with the issue of removing notices that require people to pay the penalty charge from a vehicle with the intention of avoiding payment. I am not sure who will remove notices with an intent to avoid payment. It seems to me that such papers would arrive by post. Perhaps I have misunderstood the matter, but I believe that these technicalities ought to be discussed. If they are debated now, subsequent regulations may be made clearer.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, there may be some misunderstanding. First, I shall distinguish between a criminal offence and a civil matter and, secondly, I shall describe how the enforcement may work.
  The criminal offences are contained in Clauses 172 to 174. They cover the intentional acts of non-payment, which include interfering with charging equipment to avoid payment, and offences that are needed to ensure that the civil enforcement of a charging scheme is not undermined, which include the unauthorised removal of a penalty charge notice from a vehicle windscreen.

  721
  The noble Lord seems to believe that that is not the way in which the schemes will be enforced. That may or may not be so. In some circumstances, certainly in the initial stages of introducing congestion schemes, prepayment may be shown by a licence on the inside of the windscreen in the same way as parking permits work. If a car is parked without a prepaid permit to enter the congested area, it is likely that a traffic warden or other person may place a penalty notice on that car.
  That relates to criminal charges, but the simple nonpayment of a charge will be a civil matter, which will be akin to non-payment of an on-street parking charge in areas where that has been decriminalised. As in the case of the 1991 Act, dealing with decriminalising, we propose that the registered keeper of a vehicle should he liable to pay penalty charges that would be due for non-payment of a road user charge.
  Amendment No. 208 would make the driver of a vehicle liable for penalty charges in all cases. While superficially attractive, it would prove to be unenforceable as it would be necessary to place the responsibility on someone to identify who the driver was at the time. Therefore, in relation to charging, it would be the vehicle that would have a permit or otherwise, or a payment system or otherwise to enter that congestion area, and it is therefore the keeper or owner of that car who will be required to identify who was driving or to meet the charge himself.
  Amendments Nos. 209 and 212 deal with criminal intent. Amendment No. 209 would constrain the offence of unauthorised removal of a penalty charge notice to those cases where it was removed by a person who intended to avoid payment of a charge. Amendment No. 212 is similar in relation to wheel clamping.
  Requiring proof of intent would make some charging schemes unenforceable; for example, it would be difficult to enforce them if there were no effective sanction preventing any person from removing a penalty charge notice from a windscreen, whether or not he had a direct financial interest. If the person concerned were a passenger or stranger and not directly liable for the charge, he could act without risk of prosecution. Therefore, logically, I hope that it can be seen that the balance between criminal offences and civil matters is represented in the Bill and that it follows the precedent set in the Road Traffic Act 1991 regarding keeper liability.
  Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 would remove the ability of the appropriate national authority to make regulations to prescribe how some important aspects of the charging scheme are to be enforced. Therefore, there would be no central provision and enforcement would be left entirely to the discretion of the charging authority. Some degree of discretion is necessary in this area but, in certain cases, not total discretion. Therefore, in certain aspects of the scheme the national authority must be allowed to prescribe how important aspects are to be enforced. It is not the case that the national authority must so prescribe but, if it does, those prescriptions must be followed. These provisions
  722
  provide a robust framework from which regulations can be drafted for the fair and effective enforcement of road user charging schemes.
  I hope that the noble Lord is reasonably clear about the various distinctions that I have attempted to make and that he understands why I do not believe that his amendments will work. Therefore, I hope that he will withdraw Amendment No. 208.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, as usual the Minister has given a courteous and full explanation, and I am rather more clear than I was. However, I could not help thinking that if someone drove into an area where a congestion charge was in place and was silly enough to park in the middle of it so that a warden could put a notice on his car, he should probably be paying a double penalty for lack of care and attention. I do not believe that drivers are that stupid and, therefore, I do not believe that many people will be caught in that way.
  The Minister's reply has been helpful and I shall study it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
  Clause 173 [Examination, entry, search and seizure]:
  [Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 not moved.]
  Clause 174 [Immobilisation etc.]:
  [Amendment No. 212 not moved.]
  Clause 176 [Traffic signs]:
  [Amendment No. 213 not moved.]
  Clause 177 [Preliminary]:
  [Amendment No. 214 not moved.]
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 215:
  Page 107, line 7, at end insert—
  ("( ) A licensing scheme shall be introduced only after the majority of the public transport improvements outlined in the local transport plan have been implemented and successfully in operation for the minimum of six months.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment reverts to a point raised at an earlier stage. The introduction of these schemes raises a severe question in everyone's mind. In part, they are intended to provide a certain amount of additional funding for transport improvements. By putting up the cost of using a car, they are also supposed to provide a disincentive to using a car. Such a scheme is perhaps worth while. However, I suspect that in the end the effect of such schemes will prove to be inflationary and will be paid for one way or another by us all.
  That said, if the schemes work, it is implied that alternative forms of transport will be running reasonably before they are brought into operation; otherwise, they will do no more than generate revenue. We do not believe that they should be simply revenue-generating schemes. They will have validity only if alternative modes of transport are in place before they are introduced. This amendment gives effect to that

  723
  small and general principle and I believe that it would be well worth sticking to it. I hope that the Minister will treat it with sympathy but I suspect that he may not.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly treat the reasoning behind the amendment with sympathy. However, I am afraid that this is another example of a scheme which needs to be adapted to local conditions rather than being laid down prescriptively on the face of the Bill. The fundamental principle is accepted. We shall want to see improvements in public transport before a charging or licensing scheme is introduced. That will be a condition for securing the Secretary of State's approval of the order to give effect to the scheme. That is the fundamental safeguard which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks.
  The requirements for securing scheme approval depend on local factors. They depend on the size of the scheme and on the availability of alternatives to the car. Such factors will vary between one scheme and another. Some small-scale schemes may not need extensive up-front improvements to local transport. Larger schemes are certainly likely to need more substantial improvements.
  However, it would not be sensible to set out on the face of the Bill the improvements to public transport—or, in this case, the majority of the improvements outlined in the local transport plan—that should be in place for any particular period, whether it be for six months or any other period. It is possible that we shall want to see more of the local transport plan in effect and for a longer period before the Secretary of State approves an order. However, that must depend on the size and scope of the scheme and the nature of the public transport improvements which are possible and necessary. Such factors should not be prescribed on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He has at least treated the principle with sympathy, if not the detail. I shall study his reply and, in the meantime, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 216:
  Page 107, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 216, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 217.
  Clause 177(2) provides for the occupier of a premises or any person specified by the national authority in regulations to be liable for the workplace charging levy. We believe that, if a tax is imposed, it should be imposed locally. It is not appropriate for the national authority to determine who should pay it but the authority which makes the scheme. After all, that authority will raise the tax and will enjoy the benefit of the revenue, if revenue there be. There is some doubt
  724
  about the certainty of that under the Bill as drafted but I have tabled subsequent amendments to deal with that point.
  We feel quite strongly that there should be a direct link between those who decide to generate a tax and draw the revenue and those who decide how it should be implemented. We do not believe that it is necessary—I return to my local authority responsibility point—for the national authority to make that definition. We believe that it should be left to the authority which makes the scheme. That is the principle which should be followed. If an authority is to receive criticism or praise for what it has done, it should have absolute responsibility for what it has decided rather than being told how to decide it before it sets about the task.
  I turn to Amendment No. 217 that deals with a small point that we debated earlier. The Bill provides that a workplace parking levy licence may last for only 12 months. We think that that very often, that is too uncertain certain and the Bill should permit a licence to be valid for a period longer than 12 months. This amendment gives effect to that belief and that is why we have tabled it. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I deal first with Amendment No. 217 which may have the opposite effect to the noble Lord's intention. The principal effect of his amendment, if carried, would be to remove an important safeguard for businesses. Our intention was simply to protect businesses by ensuring that a licensing authority could not require a business to take out and pay for a licence for more than one year and therefore could not ask them to pay for several years at once. If the amendment were carried, that protection would be removed. I do not believe that the business community would necessarily thank the noble Lord for that. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press that amendment.
  I did not entirely follow the noble Lord's argument on Amendment No. 216 because its effect would be to remove a degree of flexibility from local authorities and from the way in which the regulations are drawn. It would specify that in all the circumstances, the occupier would be the person responsible for paying the workplace parking levy. In the vast majority of cases it will be the occupier, but there are a very small number of instances where it would be more appropriate to make someone other than the building occupier liable for paying the levy. That is why we have provided that regulation-making power in paragraph (b) of that subsection. It needs, in particular, to cover a situation where someone other than the occupier of the premises was using the car park for his workforce or for a situation where premises are shared by more than one occupier. That is why that regulation-making power exists.
  Thus, far from the amendment providing a more direct relationship between the local authority and the payer of the charge, it removes the ability to provide some flexibility in identifying who is the appropriate

  725
  person to charge. That is the reason for that regulation-making facility. I hope that noble Lords do not pursue that.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister explained his objections to Amendment No. 216. It is not the regulations that need to define who is going to pay the charge; it is the scheme that needs that definition. I do not think that one needs that to be defined in regulations in order to have it defined in the scheme. It seems to me that if a charging authority is to make a scheme, it will certainly not make it without defining with sufficient precision—in the circumstances in which it finds itself in its own area— who is going to pay. It is a sine qua non of making a scheme that if one is going to do this, one has to define who is to pay and must take account of differing circumstances.
  I do not remain entirely convinced by the Minister's response to that particular amendment.
  On Amendment No. 217, the Minister is quite right. I suppose that my amendment might make it possible for someone to draft a licence that was for five years and require a payment for five years at the time the last licence was drafted. It tempts me to bring a revised amendment forward at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 178 [Local licensing schemes]:
  [Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
  Clause 179 [Joint local licensing schemes]:
  [Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
  Clause 184 [Licensing schemes: consultation and inquiries]:
  [Amendment No. 219 to 225 not moved.]
  Clause 185 [Matters to be dealt with in licensing schemes]:
  [Amendment No. 226 not moved.]
  Clause 187 [Licences]:
  [Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
  Schedule 12 [Road user charging and workplace parking levy: financial provisions]
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 228
  Page 222, line 44, at end insert (", a London traffic authority's and the Greater London Authority's").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this series of amendments is to remove what we see as one of the pernicious effects of these schedules as they are at present drafted. The Bill as conceived permits the introduction of both congestion charging and workplace parking licensing with the revenue to accrue to the authority that initiates the tax and brings it into being for 10 years only and may be introduced only if they are in aid of the local transport system. The Bill mentions an initial 10 year period from their introduction and that could be any time for a considerable period—I think it is 10 years—after the introduction of the Bill. One can have these schemes running forward.
  A lot has been made of the fact that this is hypothecation of expenditure for the local transport scene. If the idea is good then it is right that the money should be hypothecated. But the problem is that the Bill then goes on to provide a limit to the hypothecation and it will be hypothecated for 10 years in the first instance.
  We debated this in Committee and the objection raised, not least from colleagues sitting on my right, was that even if an authority had achieved all the transport improvements that it could ever envisage, a charging scheme might still be desirable for the disincentive effect that that may have on drivers.
  It shows a remarkable lack of confidence in what we are about if that can be seen to be so because that statement is an admission that public transport cannot fulfil the needs of the community and one may need to have artificial fiscal incentives to dissuade people from otherwise travelling by car. That is rather a depressing thought.
  Being a man of a sensitive nature and, for once in my life, listening to what was said, it occured to me that there is a different way of dealing with the Government's—or my—dilemma in believing that it would be inappropriate to have a local tax devised, set and made locally for local purposes subsequently, as I would put it, purloined by the Treasury because the hypothecation ran out.
  We tabled this particular series of amendments with that in mind so that if that Utopian day were to come when there was nothing in the transport field on which the local transport authority had to spend this money, the revenues would accrue to the local rate fund. That would leave the charge in place with motorists paying their contribution. It could be argued that the cost to the local community would subsequently be neutral, and so it would. But, of course, there would be a deal of value being transferred from one particular section of the community to the community at large.
  We believe that that idea should be pursued because it would keep the principle of local taxation—set locally and used locally.
  I do not like the idea that those specific charges that were originally devised for transport improvement should continue, but if they must do that—and from the debate we had in Committee it seems they must—then at least the benefit should stay locally and the local community should be allowed benefit from it. It seems to me that the amendments follow a very important principle. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, noble Lords are aware that Schedule 12 of this Bill mirrors the provisions in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which provides for the full hypothecation of new charges for improving local transport for at least 10 years. We recognise that this is a crucial factor in the success and acceptability of each and every scheme. Schedule 12 provides that these ground-breaking hypothecation arrangements will be reviewed in 10 years' time. Regulations will then be made to set out the future arrangements for the use of revenues from charging and licensing schemes.

  727
  I am firmly of the view that this approach is a more sensible route to follow than that down which the noble Lord wants to lead us. I can assure him that the review will be wide ranging and will look at all the options. I would add also that the regulations that will be made will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of the other place.
  It may be that the review recommends that 100 per cent hypothecation of charging revenues for transport spending should continue for all schemes for a further period. Alternatively, it may suggest that some of the revenues should be used for other purposes, particularly as substantial transport improvements will have been put in place during the original period of hypothecation. But clearly I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the review.
  I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that the best place to consider his proposal will be in the review of the use of charging revenues that will take place in 10 years' time, when I trust that he will be present to dispute the matter, if necessary. In the mean time, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which ran along predictable lines. Ten years hence, of course, a review will be a review. Who will undertake that review at that time is an interesting point. It may or may not be the Minister. The reality is that, whatever the political tides of change might be, the Minister would be appalled at the thought of doing that job in 10 years' time.
  So I doubt that it will be the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, undertaking the review. If it were him, I pay him the compliment of saying that I would have considerable confidence in the way he would do it. Unfortunately, I have spent a long time dealing with governments and I have little confidence in what is going on.
  The Minister is saying that the Government might follow the principles I am advocating, or they might not; that they might keep the money being used for transport, or they might not. I am innately suspicious of the Treasury. In my experience it likes to get its hands on moneys if it can. I can well envisage that, at the time the review is undertaken, other pressures will exist. There may be a strong argument from the Treasury that hypothecation for 10 years is a good thing. It may say, "Look at all the good that has been done", but that it should now end because it can use the money better nationally. I can also envisage the argument that local authorities are not very good managers and that we should look at how well the Treasury does things; and so on.
  I do not like where we are on this matter, but I shall consider the Minister's reply with care. With the charitable hope that he will not have to do this job for another 10 years—with, of course, the best of political intentions in saying so—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 229 to 234 not moved.]
  Clause 193 [Information]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 235:
  Page 115, line 13, after ("(1)") insert ("or (2)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, information obtained by an authority, including the Government, in the course of performing its functions is only protected from disclosure by a contractor to whom it has been disclosed by the licensing or charging authority. But protection from disclosure should extend to disclosure by the authority itself. In other words, if a contractor to whom information is disclosed releases it and it does damage, he can be sued. If the authority inadvertently releases the information to him, there is no claim. We do not feel that that is satisfactory and believe that it should be corrected.
  Amendment No. 236, which follows on from that, says,
  "If information is disclosed or used in contravention of subsection (4), the charging authority or licensing authority in question shall be liable to compensate the person who provided such information for any loss suffered as a result of the disclosure".
  All those schemes will be dealing with matters of considerable commercial worth. It is important therefore that when such matters are being discussed by authorities, the information should not be released in such a way that it can do damage to the person who gave the authority that information. The two amendments run together and sustain what we believe to be a worthwhile principle. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, as we debate the final group of amendments to Part III, I am once again pleased to be in agreement with the noble Lord on his intentions, though I hope to persuade him that his concerns are already met.
  We envisage that the disclosure of information by public bodies may be essential for the fair and effective enforcement of a charging or licensing scheme; for example, the name and address of the registered keeper of a vehicle may need to be passed on to a charging authority by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
  Amendment No. 235 is in fact unnecessary. Clause 193(3)(b) already deals with the noble Lord's concern and refers to the disclosure of information obtained under subsection (2). I can therefore assure the noble Lord that his concern is already specifically catered for.
  I agree also with the noble Lord that, where information is wrongly disclosed, people should be able to claim compensation for any damage caused. However, that is already catered for under the common law through our judicial system, to which anyone who feels that they have been caused damage in that way can resort. Proceedings under common law provide appropriate remedies for claims against persons who have wrongly disclosed information.

  729
  I do not believe therefore that it is necessary to add this safeguard to this primary legislation and I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Once again we have the question of the cost of going to law. I accept that there has to be a burden of proof. But if a difficulty arises and one is required to have recourse to law, yet there is no automatic provision for compensation—assuming an appropriate element of proof is provided—people can be put to considerable expense. Whatever the justice of the case, it remains a sad fact that in this modern era justice tends to flow with those who can afford it, and some people cannot or will not. I shall study carefully what the Minister said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
  7 p.m.
  Clause 201 [Membership and chairing]:
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 237:
  Page 119, line 14, at end insert (", and
  (c) at least one person representative of disabled people").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, rather oddly we now turn to railways on a day when hardly any of them appears to be working. However, I hope that by the time proceedings on the Bill are completed the railways of this country will be up and running and we shall have helped them to work a little better.
  In moving Amendment No. 237 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 238, 249 and 286. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will speak to his Amendment No. 260 which is part of this group. The purpose of Amendment No. 237 is to require that at least one member of the Strategic Rail Authority represents the needs of disabled people. My second amendment requires that disabled people are consulted by the authority in drawing up strategies. Organisations of disabled people believe that at least one authority member, perhaps nominated from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, should represent the interests of disabled rail users, and that the needs of disabled people when travelling are specific and should be included in strategic planning decisions. The Bill requires the authority to consult before it develops any strategies, and I believe that that needs to include disabled people and their organisations.
  Amendment No. 249 is designed to require that all rail services secured by the authority should comply with the rail regulator's code of practice entitled Meeting the Needs of Disabled People. The code of practice is the result of a lengthy period of consultation which involves both the industry and disability movement. It introduces a number of useful steps to improve access to rail services for disabled people, including the application of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations to rail vehicles which are
  730
  refurbished. The code can also be revised to reflect new developments without requiring the introduction of new primary or secondary legislation.
  The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 286, requires that any substitute road services should carry guide and other assistance dogs. I understand that, as the law now stands, a taxi or private hire vehicle driver can refuse to carry an assistance dog. Such a refusal will often lead to an assistance dog owner being stranded without transport or put in a position which jeopardises his or her personal safety. The refusal to carry an assistance dog is a refusal to carry an assistance dog user. In the case of taxis, Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will place duties on taxi drivers to carry assistance dogs at no extra charge to the owners.
  On 17th July the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, announced that consultation would start that week on the final implementation of Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act some time next year. However, private hire vehicles are outside the scope of the DDA. The Disability Rights Task Force recommended that this should be an issue to be considered by the Government in extending the DDA in any future equality legislation. The Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People has produced a policy statement which highlights the fact that local authorities in their capacity as licensing authorities can already impose conditions on private hire vehicle licences which require the carriage of assistance dogs.
  I understand that there is a power available to licensing authorities outside London under Section 51(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which enables them to attach such conditions as they consider reasonably necessary to the grant of a private hire driver's licence. However, with exclusive contracts to rail stations and substitute rail services it is essential that assistance dog owners are not left stranded. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a requirement to place conditions on the grant of powers which ensure that exclusive contracts and substitute vehicle services provide for the carriage of assistance dogs by private hire vehicles at no extra charge to the owners. I beg to move.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support these amendments. In particular, I make a strong plea for the adoption of Amendment No. 286. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, in effect if one refuses to carry an assistance dog one also refuses to carry the owner. Taxis will not be able to do that when the relevant part of the Disability Discrimination Act comes into force. I urge the noble Lord to have a big think about this matter and perhaps try to meet the point between now and Third Reading.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since my Amendment No. 260 is in this group perhaps I may speak briefly to it at this stage. Clause 213 gives the authority power to secure road transport where railway services are temporarily disrupted or discontinued. This amendment imposes a requirement

  731
  to tender out such services not only where services are discontinued, as provided in subsection (4), but where they are temporarily disrupted. Competitive tendering is the most appropriate way to secure an efficient and cost-effective service. It is a transparent process which is not only fair but is seen to be fair and it should be adopted in these circumstances.
  At Committee stage we pointed out that it would be good business practice to have enabling contracts in place just in case such services were required. If not, there would be two consequences: first, any contract would be made on the basis of a distressed purchase, not a willing buyer and willing seller; secondly, if the contractor had no experience of dealing with the authority he would probably be well advised to factor in the difficulty and delay in being paid. Finally, it would avoid the development of over-cosy arrangements and the possibility, unlikely though it might be, of any of the authority's employees being tempted off the straight and narrow.
  I do not believe that it would be necessary to have an enabling contract with every operator at each and every locality. It would be necessary to have only a few contracts with substantial operators which allowed for subcontracting based on the use of existing bus and coach industry arrangements to deal with breakdowns and accidents. This is a slightly different point from the main thrust of the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Swinfen in his amendments. However, I believe that as my amendment is in this group it is appropriate to make these points now.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, the first two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, call for consultation. Consultation must be worked into the arrangements to deal with the disabled. I hope that the Minister will tell your Lordships that consultation is already taking place; if not, it will leave holes in the overall coverage.
  As to the carriage of assistance dogs, if people are denied this facility effectively their powers of movement are restricted by their disability, whether it be hearing or sight. If one is to give people full equality one must ensure that that extension of their senses is available to them. That is all that one asks for in this narrow context, and one hopes that the Minister will be able to provide an affirmative answer.
  Lord Freeman: I support my noble friend's amendment. I do so by anticipating the only credible argument that may be advanced against it by the department; namely, that the Secretary of State should have the right to appoint individuals rather than delegates or those who seek to represent a particular organisation. My noble friend argues that someone who is disabled should be a member of the authority and, therefore, should not be a delegate but represent the needs of the disabled. I commend to the House the amendments in the name of my noble friend.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support the amendments. I make a plea to the Minister. I reached
  732
  York station today and the place was in absolute chaos. There was no communication with the public. If trains break down and trees fall on the lines the public should be able to get through to the station to find out whether trains are running. What happened to me was that I arrived at York station with someone who was going to take my car back. I then had to ring up and get someone else to fetch him while I drove to London. I now have two cars in London. It is a difficult situation. Please will the Minister do something to let the public know what is happening when there is this state of chaos?
  Amendment No. 249 is particularly important. We live in a commercial world and our caring world seems to be disappearing. It is important to highlight the needs of disabled people. We are now in a population which is growing older. Many disabled people are old, blind, infirm and need help. Therefore, I think these amendments are important.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like to speak in support of Amendment No. 237. Clause 201 states that the SRA should include a representative of disabled people. I think the Minister will respond by saying that, if the SRA puts a disabled person on the board, it will have to include a whole list of other people.
  I therefore should like to ask him to look at the matter in a slightly different way and think of the phrase "mobility impaired". Many people are mobility impaired. A woman pushing a child in a pushchair is mobility impaired. There are a whole range of other people. An important part of the Government's strategy for transport is that it should be available to everyone. Perhaps it would be a wise move to have someone on the SRA whose remit it is always to remind the SRA of its duty to the mobility impaired.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the basic framework on which the SRA will be operating includes the fact that it is a condition of passenger and station operators' licences that they comply with a statement of policy which is designed to protect the interests of people who are disabled in their use of trains and stations. That is a central part of this whole section of the Bill and an essential provision on the requirements of operators and station managers throughout the system. In future such policies will be approved by the SRA. Compliance with those policies will be enforceable by financial penalties or any other appropriate sanction for breach of licence conditions.
  Noble Lords will also be aware that infrastructure and rolling stock accessibility issues are all covered by the Disability Discrimination Act and regulations made under that Act. So we are talking about a situation where there is a very strong basic requirement to provide access for the disabled to trains and stations.
  Given that background, we need to consider the proposed amendments. Amendment No. 237 deals with the nature of the SRA board itself. I would

  733
  underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that the board is not a board of delegates; it is a board of people with expertise and experience which is appropriate to carry out its function. It is a board which is relatively small—between eight and 15 members. That board must act as a team rather than as a group of representatives. That does not mean that the members should not have a wide range of experience. The approach to the membership of that board would need to include assessment of the need to reflect experience of dealing with the disabled, or being disabled. In practice, the British Railways Board has a member who has experience as chairman of the National Disability Council. He will automatically be offered a place as one of the first members of the SRA. In that context, he will undoubtedly bring welcome expertise on the needs of disabled passengers.
  The approach for all future arrangements would tend to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State in making future appointments. But nevertheless I can assure noble Lords that in making such future appointments the Secretary of State will need to bear in mind that the membership of that board needs to reflect a wide range of expertise and interests, including the whole interest of accessibility, access for the disabled but also access for others such as those referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, just now.
  I turn to Amendment No. 238. So far as concerns consultation, there is a problem of starting to list on the face of the Bill all those organisations which should be consulted. The natural effect would be others feeling that they were excluded and indeed deemed to be excluded. Some organisations would be left off, giving rise to doubt about their status. However, I can repeat the assurances that the SRA will consult and that directions given by the Secretary of State will require the SRA to consul DPTAC in all cases where that is appropriate. We will also consult that committee and other interested parties before the Secretary of State gives directions to the SRA.
  Amendment No. 249 would seek to make all agreements entered into by the SRA comply with the code of practice. While I recognise the sentiment behind the amendment, it would be inappropriate here. The power in Clause 210 includes a power to channel grants to the passenger service operators through franchise agreements. That raises a whole wider range of issues; for example, it could extend to agreements making land available to the railway network or making freight grants, where there is no obvious involvement with disabled people as passengers.
  The authority needs to be able to target the most appropriate mechanisms for protecting the interests of disabled people. But it is not appropriate to have the general power to enter into agreements constrained by a provision which does not discriminate between the various types of agreement in which the SRA may be involved. Some agreements of the SRA would not be appropriate for this stipulation. In any case, the provisions which require the SRA to have regard to the interests of disabled people are fully protected through
  734
  its duties, including Clause 206, which operates through the licence conditions, as well as the various provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act and its regulations. These are the most appropriate ways of securing protection for disabled people's access to rail transport.
  Amendment No. 286 primarily deals with the substitute services. The national conditions of carriage which relate to all rail services also apply to any substitute services which are operated or provided by the train operator. What is at issue here is not the type of road vehicle, but the fact that it is a substitute for a train service. Therefore the conditions of carriage for these substitute services are the same as; those which apply to train services. Those already provide for dogs to be carried free. Train operators can enforce that requirement on those vehicles they use for substitute services.
  Therefore, I think that the anxieties raised by the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington, are unlikely to arise, since the train operators have to ensure the same facilities as they do on their trains. There will also be national conditions relating to that. The national conditions list possible situations arising on substitute services which must be avoided where they may cause injury, inconvenience or damage to property and so on. Those conditions cover luggage and dogs. It is unlikely that under those provisions the carriage of a highly trained assistance dog would be reasonably refused. Therefore, the issue of substitute services is covered, certainly in terms of general provisions. Emergency situations may not always comply fully with those provisions but, in relation to the normal provisions for substitute services, the requirement that those substitute services are equivalent to those provided by the carrier must ensure the provision both for disabled people and for the carriage of dogs.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I very much appreciate what the noble Lord said on Amendment No. 286. However, I am concerned about the private or public owners and operators of the substitute services. If they do not at present have to accept dogs, will the rail authorities be able to force them to accept these assistance dogs?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the answer is yes. The service that is provided is a substitute for a train service. That substitute service has to make the same provision as the train service. The issue is not whether it is a taxi, a minibus, a PSV vehicle or a minicab; it is whether it is substituting for a train service. If the provisions relate to the train, they relate to the substitute for the train. I hope that that gives the assurance which the noble Lord seeks.
  Amendment No. 260 requires competitive tendering. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that competitive tendering would normally be appropriate for substitute services. However, I do not think that that requirement should be on the face of the Bill. In any case, virtually all substitute services will be procured by the train operators and not by the

  735
  SRA. The SRA would secure the provision of substitute services only in the rare event of it operating as an operator of last resort. I agree that call-off contracts could be made in case they are needed. But it would hard to predict where and when, if ever, the SRA might need to act as an operator of last resort. In any case, the SRA will be bound by the general provisions where it is so acting. Therefore, the amendment is inappropriately targeted. Where there is an ongoing provision for substitute services, virtually all of them would be likely to be procured by competitive tendering by the operators.
  With those explanations and reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank all those who supported me on this group of amendments. My noble friend Lord Freeman is right. When someone is on the Strategic Rail Authority, it is to represent. He or she is not a delegate. The field of disability is so wide that one person will not necessarily have a particularly good knowledge of every aspect.
  I found the Minister's reply very helpful. I thank him for that and I thank him for the emphasis that he gave, after my intervention in his speech, with regard to assistance dogs. He gave me the answer for which I was specifically looking. I do not think that I shall need to bring this matter back at Third Reading, although I reserve the right to do so if I find holes in the noble Lord's argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 205 [Strategies]:
  [Amendment No. 238 not moved.]
  Clause 206 [Manner of exercise of functions]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 239:
  Page 121, line 4, at end insert ("including those which involve the use of other forms of transport in conjunction with railway services and the integration of the railway information and ticket booking facilities").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 259 and 280. Subsection (2) of Clause 206 sets out the objectives of the authority in exercising its functions and includes the promotion of through ticketing between passenger service operators. It does not appear to cover through ticketing across different forms of transport. The amendment makes explicit the need to promote such through ticketing schemes. Eagle-eyed noble Lords will have noticed that subsection (2)(d) provides for the promotion of integrated information and ticket booking facilities. However, no mention is made of different modes of travel, so it does not refer to integration with bus, air or sea travel.
  The integration of information and booking facilities is a vital element in a modern integrated transport system. With the sophisticated technology now available, it should be possible for passengers to obtain from one outlet information as to the scheduled
  736
  times of trains, up to date information on their running, the range of fares and the cheapest for the particular journey, similar information on the bus, air and other connections and the ticket itself. It should be a major priority for the authority to encourage such systems.
  In Committee the Government objected to the amendment on the grounds that it is a primary purpose of the SRA to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system. They said that the amendment was therefore unnecessary. Unfortunately, I believe that would also mean that there is no need for the subsection at all. That is because subsection (1) of Clause 206 states:
  "The Authority shall exercise its functions with a view to furthering its purposes".
  The purposes are laid out in Clause 204 and there is very little difference between them and the matters mentioned in subsection (2). In other words, the subsection is redundant. As it is, by ignoring the interface between rail and other means of transport, which is where the biggest holes are at the moment, the subsection sends the wrong message that this matters less than inter-rail integration.
  I turn to Amendment No. 259. The new clause would enable the authority to use the franchising process more proactively in order to promote and secure a truly integrated transport system. All too often rail passengers find themselves stranded on arrival at the station because there are no connecting services. Train operators should be encouraged through the franchising process to explore with bus and other transport providers the possibility of them providing connecting services. Train operators should also make proper provision for disabled people.
  Cycling is a means of transport that is environmentally friendly and healthy. It should be encouraged. The Government's downgrading of the previous government's targets for increasing cycle journeys was a retrograde step. At present, it is often difficult for cyclists to use trains.
  Train operators should also be encouraged to make appropriate arrangements with Railtrack as to the provision of the kind of facilities at the station which are referred to in our proposed new Section 17(9) of the Railways Act 1993. As it is the authority which dictates the terms on which train companies operate, the authority should be encouraged to use the franchise system to address these issues. The Government's position is that these powers already exist. However, they are clearly not used. Perhaps inclusion in the Bill will encourage the SRA to use them.
  I turn to Amendment No. 280. The Railways Act 1993 enables the regulator to secure access for an applicant to a railway facility such as a station. Such facilities include ancillary services, whether provided or procured by the facility owner. The new clause provides that such ancillary services can include those listed in the amendment.
  If the transport system is to be truly integrated, people arriving at stations need information not only as to train services but also about connecting bus and

  737
  other services as covered by my Amendment No. 259. They need to be able to buy tickets that cover their entire journey, preferably by means of new technology which combines fare and travel information with provision of a ticket. If arriving by car or bike or on foot, they need proper directions—this element will build on the memorandum of understanding between Railtrack and the Highways Agency—and somewhere to park securely. Poor and insecure car parking facilities are something that the industry is addressing, but more work needs to be done. People should be encouraged by the availability of cycle hire facilities to leave their cars at home. There should also be good, comfortable waiting areas, especially at night. If disabled, they need good access and facilities. These are all matters which are relevant to the arrangements between train operators and Railtrack and it should be made explicit that they fall within the ambit of the regulator's powers in relation to access contracts.
  The Government vaguely say that such matters are more of interest to the public than to the parties to the access contract. We say that that is short-sighted. If the transport system is to develop in the direction of greater integration, such facilities will have to be provided to enable the operating services to market their services more effectively. The amendment is a neat mechanism for enabling market pressure and competition to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system. I beg to move.
  7.30 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I admit to having some admiration for the amendment. If all the things required of the companies and Railtrack were actually done, the quality of the service would be infinitely improved.
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Baroness has hit the nail on the head. I do not believe that all the details need to be on the face of the Bill but, my goodness, they are required. The weekend's crisis has been most telling. One friend tried to travel from Coventry to London but was told there were no trains on the West Coast line and none on the Chiltern line. He drove to Leamington Spa and discovered that there a train was running perfectly normally. It is impossible to underestimate the anger that the public feel when they are given such misinformation. My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath told me a similar story. There were no trains to London from Doncaster all day, but then one arrived from Edinburgh. The railways must get it right even in a crisis, and the same applies to the buses. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will have some words of comfort.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can comfort my noble friend in respect of what has been occurring this week but I hope that we are beginning to get over those events. It must be seen as a primary and central duty of the SRA to provide integrated information. Where that is not done on time and with accuracy—whether for rail itself or for intermodal transport—one of the central objectives of the Bill and
  738
  tasks of the SRA is to ensure that that is remedied. The SRA might include integrated ticketing and integrated information as part of integrated transport. Although I accept that stretching logic—as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was doing—might lead me to delete certain other parts of the Bill, because this is such a central part of the SRA's function it does not need to be repeated, which is what the amendment would provide; the SRA already has that requirement.
  Amendment No. 259 would give a list of relevant considerations when the authority tenders for or enters into a franchise agreement. We have been over that ground. There are several ways in which the Secretary of State can give direction or guidance on issues covering all aspects of multimodal travel, including integration with bus services, and bicycles. The structures put in place by the Bill will ensure that the SRA has a wide-ranging duty to take account of the interests of all railway users and potential users in the interests of integrated transport. To list them in the way that Amendment No. 259 suggests would not be appropriate.
  Amendment No. 280 sets out a substantial amount of new detail that needs to be considered in the provision of access agreements but it is, to a large extent, already covered. Access agreements are the formal permission to use an owner's facilities, through which a train operating company can use Railtrack's network. That provision is already covered by the 1993 Act, which gives a general power for access agreements to cover the provision of ancillary services—whether the railway facility owner provides them direct or secures their provision. If there is any dispute over what ancillary services might be included, it can be resolved by the direction of the regulator under Section 17 of the 1993 Act.
  The definition of "ancillary services" in Section 83(1) of the 1993 Act is wide. It covers any service necessary to give effect to access rights. If the regulator considers it necessary that an access agreement should require the facility owner to provide the services, he can already so direct. That is already provided for by a combination of this Bill and the Act's existing provisions.
  I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord that the amendments are not necessary and that a major role for the SRA in integrated transport, information and ticketing is central to the Bill.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am encouraged by the Minister's reply, particularly his final sentences, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for supporting the principles behind the amendments. The Minister is probably right—it is impossible to put all the detail on the face of the Bill—but I am glad that we agree on what needs to be done to make the railways more attractive. The provision of accurate information is essential. Given today's difficulties with the weather, I sympathise with the rail operators in not being able to provide information to the degree of accuracy that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I would like. However, although that may have been

  739
  difficult on the longer-distance routes where all sorts of different conditions pertained, the operators could not even get it right on the District Line from Wimbledon, which one would have thought would be slightly easier, with only half-a-dozen stations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

The Queen's Speech
7.38 p.m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that in future the Queen's Speech at the Opening of Parliament is of reasonable length, and, while containing details of the Government's legislative programme, omits an account of past events.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not believe that I am alone in being concerned at the fact that the Queen's speech at the State Opening of Parliament has become much longer in the past three years and the political tone more strident. The State Opening of Parliament is not only a colourful occasion but of considerable constitutional significance. The Queen comes to Parliament in person as head of state and as the symbol of the nation's unity. She is there as a reminder that loyalty to Queen and country, which we hold in common, is a great unifying force. The things we hold in common—principally loyalty—are far more important than the minor differences, the stuff of everyday politics, which sometimes, but only temporarily, drive us apart.
Surely on that great occasion—which is a state, not a party occasion—and out of respect for the Queen, the Queen's Speech should not stray from its purpose of outlining the Government's programme and should be no longer than necessary to achieve that purpose. It should be couched in dignified and not unnecessarily controversial language. I do not believe that anyone would disagree with any of those propositions.
For some years, a number of my noble friends on this side of the House and I had a hand in deciding the content of the Queen's Speech. We always took a pride in their wording and in keeping them to a reasonable length. I remember that on more than one occasion we rejected unduly wordy contributions from departments. I shall not mention which departments or Secretaries of State but consequently we were not always popular with them. However, the result of our efforts was that between 1979 and 1996 the longest Queen's Speech contained about 1,100 words.
Things have certainly changed since 1997. The Speech of 1998 was even longer at 1,613 words and 1999 produced a monster Speech of 1,772 words, which was nearly twice as long as most of the Speeches in the previous decade.
It may surprise some Members of your Lordships' House to learn that some of the longer Speeches were not followed by a larger number of Bills. Indeed, during the years of the Labour Government there has been no relationship between the length of the Speeches and the number of Bills introduced subsequently. For instance, while in the 1997–98 Session 50 government Bills were introduced, a longer Speech in 1998 was followed by only 31 Bills. The monster Speech of 1999 was followed by fewer Bills than were introduced in Labour's first Session.
Therefore, the recent excessive length of Speeches seems to have nothing to do with the number of Bills but a lot to do with the Speeches ceasing to be concise statements of the Government's policies and becoming more party political. They are often more a recital of what the Government have done than a statement of their intentions.
I cannot believe that the drafting of the Speeches has been handed over to Alastair Campbell—I am sure that they would be much more racy if they had been—but I believe that the old disciplines instilled in us have been forgotten and that someone with few literary skills stitches together turgid offerings from the departments.
I cannot resist telling the House that much the same happened to me when I was in Bermuda and had to read its Government's Speeches at the state opening. On one occasion, I was surprised to discover that two lengthy paragraphs on page 13 were a repeat of two paragraphs on page 1! That took a bit of explaining.
I turn briefly to the Speeches of 1997, 1998 and 1999. The 1997 offering contained a great deal of stuff about tobacco advertising and the restoring of confidence in the integrity of the political system. That looks rather odd post-Ecclestone. However, its excessive length was not due to that but far more to an excessively long Foreign Office passage, complete with sizzling statements of the obvious, such as that the Government
"will seize the opportunity to increase co-operation between the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth".—[Official Report, 14/5/97; col. 8.]
The second Speech is interesting to read now because it gives a foretaste of the repeat announcements which have become an established ploy. Much space was taken up telling us that Scottish and Welsh devolution, which we had been told all about the year before, was going to happen. Similarly, we were told that the regional development agencies, for which legislation had been passed the previous year, were also going to come into being.
However, the third Speech really broke new ground. Much of its contents had nothing to do with the Government's programme but was a highly selective recital of the Government's alleged achievements in the field of unemployment, the minimum wage,

741
income tax, national insurance and interest rates. Those issues have no place in the Speech and are more suited to the Government's annual report. In fact, on 13th July this year, I pointed out in this House that the Government's annual report is, to an extent, a selective account of their alleged achievements published at the public's expense and nothing of which to be particularly proud. But if there ever were an excuse for putting all that stuff, which was in the 1999 Speech, in the Queen's Speech—and I deny it—it certainly disappeared when the annual report was invented because that is a vehicle precisely for such party political propaganda and for what the Government are alleged to have done rather than what they propose to do.
I do not want to go on, analysing why the Speeches were excessively long. The point is that, judging by the length of the Speeches made in previous years, they were. It is perfectly plain to see that if one adds up the words of all the Queen's Speeches during the past 20 years—and I have wasted a bit of time doing it!
It may be that the Speeches were not written by someone determined to go beyond the bounds of propriety in the hope of gaining political advantage. The explanation for them being so awful may be sheer sloppiness. But out of respect and consideration for the Queen, something really must be done to try to arrest a decline in such standards. Something must be done to remind the media just how low standards have fallen since the Conservative's Queen's Speech in 1986. They may then be alerted and not allow more Speeches of such a low standard to go unchallenged.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, during such a dark and dramatic night, one might have hoped for a subject of debate which would summon up the blood a little more, rather than the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. We are discussing a somewhat narrow subject—the length of, and the inclusion of past events in, the Queen's Speech at the Opening of Parliament. I hope that it is not churlish to wonder whether it could have been the subject of a Starred Question, but here we are.
The throng sitting behind me tonight—
Noble Lords: Where?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: They are here, my Lords, they are here. They have asked me to make one principal point. However, I shall first allow the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, the fact that there has been a decline in terms of the length and literary merit of Queen's Speeches, although I must confess that his presence in this place long outdates my own and he is in a better position to say that. I also fully accept that if, inadvertently, there has crept into the Speeches a degree of partisanship, that would be unseemly and counterproductive. I am sure that if that were the case the Government would not want it to be.
An improvement which could be made would be no longer to repeat the Speech. The Commons does not go to the trouble of repeating it. It is printed and it
742
would be straightforward for this House to follow the same line. We would therefore save time having to repeat the 1,772 words of the Speech and, having read its contents, we would come to the debate, which traditionally begins at 3.30 p.m., and get straight into it. There is some time-wasting in the current conduct of business. That time could be better spent getting straight into the debate.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord would not deny that there is a symbolic importance in the Queen coming here and delivering the Speech, for the reasons that I mentioned.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I absolutely agree. I did not mean to imply that the Queen should never come here to open Parliament, but when she does not come here there is no need for the Lord Chancellor to read the Speech solemnly in her stead. Others may disagree.
The number of Bills may not have increased, but I think that the length of Bills has increased vastly. The Speech will reflect that to an extent. It is surely important that the Speech tells the House and the country in a pithy and informative way what is proposed for the Government's programme. Some detail is needed so that we can get our teeth into the debate.
The Liberal Democrats feel strongly that the current organisation of the debate does not allow sufficient focus. It is too diffuse. Although the days are divided up into policy areas, they are too large. It should not be beyond the wit of those who organise our affairs to sub-divide the days into specific policy areas that are autonomous and consistent. That would allow more specific contributions and would encourage a more informative response from the Minister. Timing arrangements such as those that we are working to in this debate would then be inevitable.
That would have three effects. First, people would be more inclined to contribute to the debate. Secondly, the debate would be better. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it would be more interesting for journalists and those whom we hope would report it to the country and would therefore be more informative and stimulating to the public at large. Much of what passes in this House may be worthy, but it is carried on with little regard for the ultimate impact on the public. I thank the noble Lord for choosing this subject for debate.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was not surrounded by throngs of Liberal Democrats. I notice that I have something of a throng—or at least a good number—of Conservative Peers behind me. I am sorry to see that the Government Chief Whip does not have a throng behind him.
I welcome the debate. My noble friend Lord Waddington brings a great deal of experience to the debate, having been a Leader of the House and a

743
Minister in various departments. I am sure that during his time as Home Secretary he did not introduce the number of Bills that Home Office Ministers have introduced during this Session, some of which the Government Chief Whip might admit have not been as perfectly drafted as they might have been. Better drafting might have avoided some of the great number of government amendments that we have dealt with. I hope that the Government will take on board all my noble friend's wise words.
The most important point in a debate such as this is that Her Majesty is, and will always be, above politics. That is why it is not desirable for words to be drafted for the gracious Speech that are more redolent of a spin doctor's manual or that are too easily identifiable with a particular political party. Like my noble friend, I have examined some past examples. The most striking difference between the Speeches before 1997 and those after is that the Government's domestic agenda is now put before foreign policy. Exception was made in 1997 for references to Her Majesty's state visits and visits anticipated by other Heads of State. However, since 1998, even those references have been relegated to the body of the text, behind the trumpeting of the Government's domestic policy. That is disappointing. References to state visits remind us of the role of the sovereign as the embodiment of the state. That is valued and supported by every Member of this House. It seems proper and appropriate to the occasion to have such references at the outset of the Speech. Instead, in 1998 and 1999, we had dismal and tawdry references to "modernisation"—a new Labour buzz word that is as hollow as it is inappropriate to such a great occasion of state.
I have looked back at the 1989 Queen's Speech—the last year, as it was to prove, of the government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. That Government was wrongly attacked by many as high-handed and ideological, but there was no evidence of that in the gracious Speech. It opened with the traditional references to state visits and foreign policy. It then turned not so much to the domestic agenda as to the legislative programme, which is the purpose of the Speech. It was a brief, factual Speech, with almost no adjectives or adverbs. I forget who it was who used to strike out almost all the qualifiers from all his first drafts. That might seem an extreme approach at times, but it has advantages. It would be hard to detect from the 1989 Speech which party was in government. The same could be said of the last Speech prepared by the government of my right honourable friend Mr Major, except perhaps for one aspirational phrase about wishing to maintain a strong economy.
How different was last year's Speech. Far from concentrating on legislation alone, as used to be the custom, it contained elements never found in the Speeches to which I have referred. There are self-congratulatory phrases describing the Government's self-proclaimed achievements that could easily have been dropped into a speech made by the Prime Minister or into a Labour Party broadcast. That
744
practice should not grow. We may be spared that, as I think that we can all agree that the Government's list of achievements is remarkably short.
Fatuous new Labour-speak comes into too many gracious Speeches, with redundant adjectives and phrases such as the "dynamic, knowledge-based economy" and repeated references to "modernisation". I hope that such undesirable tendencies will not be encouraged and that the Chief Whip will do his bit in the drafting of the next gracious Speech to ensure that they are removed.
My noble friend has drawn attention to a matter that may seem less important than some of the great issues that come before the House, but on consideration it is of very great importance. In the absence of the Leader of the House, I hope that the Chief Whip will be able to reassure us that we will return to the simpler style of Speeches of the past.
Perhaps I may end by asking the noble Lord for a reassurance. In due course we shall have a speech on the Prorogation of this Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord can give an assurance that that Prorogation speech will be similarly short.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the debate, perhaps I may make one comment as regards the quality of the Queen's Speech. I realise that my noble friend cannot give the House guarantees lasting into the distant future, but can he at least give an assurance that in this year's Speech Her Majesty the Queen will not be required to utter grammatical solecisms? In particular, I hope that she will not need to deliver herself—as was the case last year—of a split infinitive.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for giving us the opportunity to revisit the fundamentals of our constitution. As he will be well aware, Erskine May reminds us that the Queen's Speech details the "causes of summons". The reasons why the Monarch feels it necessary to call a Parliament to meet make it improper to speculate in advance why Her Majesty the Queen might wish to call Parliament, in what style and at what length. However, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that it is an occasion of deep constitutional significance.
I assume that noble Lords neither wish nor would expect me to pre-empt Her Majesty's speech in December. Furthermore, I shall not comment on the length and style of previous Speeches, apart from remarking on the aim of this Government, where possible, to publish Bills in draft in order to help to secure an improvement in the final legislation. The Queen's Speech now includes an announcement of a number of Bills to be published in draft. Those are then considered by all interested parties and are sent out for consultation. They are also considered by Members of this House. I can recall the Joint Select Committee which met to consider the Financial Services and Markets Bill. I shall return to that measure in due course because it serves well as an example of what may happen to a Bill when it is first published in draft.

745
I hope that the noble Lord would agree that the practice of announcing Bills in draft has been a welcome addition to the content of the Queen's Speech. The Financial Services and Markets Bill was foreshadowed in one Queen's Speech and was the first and only Bill to be carried over in the House of Commons from one Session to the next. It was then reintroduced in this Session. Because it was also considered by a Joint Select Committee, the whole process attracted an enormous number of amendments by the time the legislation finally reached this House. I believe that we encounter a no-win situation here. I agree that that Bill needed a great many amendments, but that was necessary in order to respond to the wide consultation which had taken place over two Sessions.
The Queen's Speech needs to strike a balance between providing full and proper information as regards the intentions of her Government against not becoming overly long for Her Majesty's listeners and, indeed, for Her Majesty. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, criticised recent Queen's Speeches for being rather too political. I find it rather odd that Members on the Benches opposite often criticise the Government for being obsessed with presentation, but then proceed to discuss endlessly the way in which a speech has been written rather than its contents.
Hindsight can be a terrible thing. However, I cannot help but wonder whether some of us would have benefited from a little more detail and information in previous Queen's Speeches. Let us consider, for example, one line from the Speech delivered in June 1987:
"A Bill will be introduced to abolish domestic rates in England and Wales".
In October 1991, only 12 months before the ERM debacle, the Speech stated that:
"My Government will pursue, within the framework of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, firm financial policies".
Because I have a deep personal regard for the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I have chosen not to research into what was said in a Queen's Speech by the previous government about the privatisation of the railways. I am happy t o draw a veil over such matters.
This Government have made progress on a number of serious and important issues. I make no apology for the fact that those past events have been mentioned in a number of Queen's Speeches. Members of this House, Members of another place and the wider public would want to be informed of such matters. I shall take as an example the report made on the progress of the peace process in Northern Ireland. That was definitely worth mentioning in last year's Queen's Speech. Similarly, in 1998 the introduction of proposals for devolution in Scotland and Wales was a valuable statement because it introduced a matter of major constitutional change. I am sure that noble Lords, Members of another place and, indeed, the people of this country would wish to hear more about such issues. I believe that it was important that we should all be reminded of the settlement of the nation before we turned our attention to the business for the coming year.
746
Recent speeches have introduced new policies of the highest importance. For example, in 1997 mention was made of the responsibility put on the Bank of England to set interest rates, as well as mention of the intention to set a national minimum wage. In 1998 mention was made of plans to reform the NHS and to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit in the House of Lords, while in 1999 the modernisation of the welfare state was covered, along with the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made mention of the number of Bills that have been passed after Queen's Speeches. In 1981–82, during the third Session of that administration, 46 Bills were passed. During the following Session, the figure was 41. In 1985–86, during the third Session of the next administration, 49 government Bills were passed. In the fourth Session of that administration, when the noble Lord was in the Cabinet, a further 49 Bills were passed. Finally, in the fourth Session of the next administration, 43 government Bills were passed. We have introduced 41 government Bills during this Session. Thus the number of Bills currently being passed compares favourably with previous third Sessions of Parliament.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord may have misunderstood what I was saying. I wished to make the point that one cannot consider the length of a Queen's Speech and relate it directly to the number of Bills being introduced. I have not complained about the number of Bills. I wished to make the point that, strangely enough, one discovers time and time again that a speech may be longer than the previous Speech and yet contain the details of fewer Bills. I pointed out in particular that the 1999 Queen's Speech—the longest by far of all Queen's Speeches—contained the details of fewer Bills than did the 1997 Queen's Speech. It cannot be argued that the Queen's Speech was necessarily long because the Government were imposing on Parliament an extremely heavy workload. Other reasons must be found and I have tried to indicate what those were.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was about to develop my argument by saying that there is no connection between the number of Bills and the length of a Queen's Speech. I am reminded that one of the first points one learns in philosophy is that a connection is not a cause. Indeed, I wished to remind noble Lords only that the number of Bills introduced in this Session compares favourably with the number of Bills introduced during the third Sessions of previous governments.
Indeed, in comparison with some earlier Sessions, I believe that this administration has been positively restrained. Perhaps noble Lords would like to see a further eight Bills introduced over the next week or two. That would take us back to the happy days of 1991.
We are determined to take Parliament seriously and to allow proper time for full debate to take place on our legislation. Major government Bills almost always need to be amended during their passage. However, if

747
we make sensible and reasonable concessions, we are told that we are amending too much. If we stand firm on our principles, we are told that we are unfairly resisting argument. I mentioned earlier our new practice of publishing Bills in draft. It would be ridiculous to do that if we were not prepared then to take account of the valuable comments that we receive. I have mentioned already the valuable experience gained on the Financial Services and Markets Act. However, responding properly to consultation means that amendments have to be introduced. Often such amendments help to make legislation both more effective and focused. Furthermore, implementing those changes is one of the most important duties of this House.
However, having said that, I believe that I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his comment that some Bills that we introduced this year have required a certain amount of polishing. I have said before that we are a listening Government. To that end, the Home Office seems to have listened more than most.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, seemed to imply that Her Majesty the Queen should not read the speech at all. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, but I believe he also raised the matter of the repetition of the speech by the Lord Chancellor in the afternoon. It has been agreed that that practice will stop. No longer will the Lord Chancellor repeat the Speech in the afternoon. As I understand it, noble Lords who are not present on the morning of the Speech will be able to read it in the Printed Paper office. The Procedure Committee has agreed that the practice of the Lord Chancellor repeating the Speech should cease.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I certainly did not mean to say that Her Majesty the Queen should not deliver the Speech. I was not aware of the reform that the Government Chief Whip mentioned. I am glad that it has been lighted upon.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, also mentioned a problem with the organisation of the four days of debate that we normally have. I am inclined to agree with him. As the House will know, topics are agreed for the day with the intention that the debate on that day should concentrate on those topics. We have considered informally among the Chief Whips a sub-division of the day, so that the first half of the day was taken up by a certain subject and the second half by another subject. However, it has been suggested that this will be harder to achieve and should be time limited.
The Queen's Speech is, in fact, one debate from beginning to end. If the day were to be divided into two different subjects, there would need to be 12 Front Bench speakers. There would be three to open and three to close on the first subject; and three to open and three to close on the second subject. That would mean that there would be twice as many Front Bench speakers than is now the case, and that would reduce
748
the opportunities for Back-Benchers to speak in the debate. We agreed informally that, on balance, it would be better to keep to the organisation that we have now.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rather confused me because he said that I have not got a throng behind me. The noble Lord should appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, counts as a throng. The point about the length of the Prorogation speech is well made and will be taken to heart.
As I said, the Government cannot win. If Sessions are short, they are accused of railroading their programme through; if Sessions are long, they are accused of mismanaging it. Arguments about the style of the Queen's Speech do not obscure the main fact: we are putting forward a substantial programme of reforming legislation and delivering it successfully.
Perhaps I may return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Gilbert about the famous split infinitive in the previous Queen's Speech. If we had removed it, the Speech would have sounded odd. It would have stated:
"A Bill will be introduced which will make it unlawful for public bodies racially to discriminate".
That sounds wrong. The Queen's Speech is meant to be easily read and understood. I have the backing of Fowler's Modern English Usage which states:
"Rigid adherence to a policy of non-splitting can sometimes lead to an unnaturalness or ambiguity and no absolute taboo should be placed on the use of adverbs".
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for replying to the point I raised. If he needs any assistance in removing split infinitives, I shall be only too happy to help.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend.
This has been a useful debate. Noble Lords have made a number of important points. I undertake to draw them to my colleagues' attention.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.14 to 8.35 p.m.]

Transport Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 206.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 121, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In considering any proposals relating to or that may affect the carriage of goods by rail, the Authority shall consult all such persons—

(a) providing services for the carriage of goods by rail, and

(b) having any other interest in the carriage of goods by rail, as appear to it to be appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 246 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and Amendment No. 248 in my name.
On Amendment No. 240, noble Lords will recall that I tabled an amendment in Committee proposing a rail freight council to act as the formal consultative arrangement with the SRA and anyone else in respect of rail freight customers, mirroring as far as possible the workings of the rail passenger council. I shall not repeat what I said in Committee about the need for such a body. My noble friend Lord Whitty said in response:
"Freight services tend to be used by private companies that are better placed to represent themselves and to take up complaints directly with the freight operator concerned.—[Official Report, 17/7/00; col. 718.]
My noble friend is right in one sense. However, the other problem is that in the railway industry, size matters. Railtrack is very much larger than the train operators, and that shows; and the customers are generally very much smaller than the train operators, and that shows. It is important to set up a consultative arrangement between the SRA and those that are not licensed train operators, those that might be in future, or other customers. My noble friend was very nice about me personally, but, of course, one does not make legislation around people.
Having consulted widely in my own industry—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—I proposed an alternative version to the amendment, requiring the Strategic Rail Authority to consult widely as appropriate. That would avoid the cost to the rail freight council and means less bureaucracy. In the present circumstances, the industry needs some such provision.
I accept that the wording of my amendment is probably not entirely satisfactory. I hope that my noble friend the Minister may say that he will take it away and consider it. He may even say that he will include something along these lines in the Secretary of State's directions to the SRA. The industry believes that it can grow as is envisaged in the 10-year plan, but it needs the ability to be consulted, as of right, by the SRA on matters concerning rail freight.
I support the proposal in Amendment No. 246 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman. I do not know when the Strategic Rail Authority will publish its strategy, but I have heard rumours that it may be delayed until the new year; I do not know why. I find it extraordinary that the SRA cannot produce a strategy before then. The Government published their 10-year plan in July, and I should have thought that three months was an adequate time in which to produce a strategy. Certainly, the rail freight industry would very much like a rail freight strategy, whether or not it is published at the same time as that of the SRA. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, is to achieve the more regular publication of a statement of policy and strategy, as well as that for financial assistance, I believe that it deserves every support.
I turn, finally, to Amendment No. 248, which is very much a probing amendment. I welcome the new clauses in the Bill and the intentions about rail freight grants, but both I and my colleagues are confused about how the grants will be paid regarding flows of rail freight between England and Scotland. It is quite clear that grants for flows in England will be paid by the SRA out of DETR funding and that grants for flows within Scotland will, similarly, be paid for by the Scottish Executive out of Scottish funding, block grant, or whatever.
However, there is a little confusion regarding the position between England and Scotland. For example, are the freight facilities grants paid in whatever location they need to be spent? The answer to that question is probably yes. But what about the track access grant, which is the grant for so many miles in each country? Will it be split on a mileage basis, or in some other way? The SRA has started a consultation process on grant schemes covering different types of grant. Can my noble friend the Minister say who will provide the grants, who will assess them and where the money will come from both in England and in Scotland? I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like to express my support for this group of amendments, especially Amendment No. 240, which seems to me to represent excellent good sense. One of the principal objectives of an integrated transport plan is the transfer of more freight from road to rail. Many different companies and authorities will need to play their full part in that process, otherwise it will not happen. There is one large company among the rail freight companies, but there are quite a few much smaller companies. It seems to me that it would be extremely sensible for the SRA to have such a group of companies with an interest in the carriage of goods by rail, which could act as a sounding-board to ensure that the polices really do fit the bill.
I certainly hope that the Government will give some consideration to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, described how he asked for something a good deal more specific in Committee, but now he asks for something more generalised. However, it will be of great value. I hope that the Minister will be able to give it some consideration.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I, too, wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, as regards Amendment No. 240.I shall also speak to Amendment No. 246, which is tabled in my name and forms part of this group. Should those on the Government Front Bench think that there is all-party collusion on the matter, I should point out that that is not the case; indeed, we all just happen to agree on the same principles and to be of similar mind on the subject.
The purpose of my amendment is to ask for the SRA to produce a regular annual statement on its freight policy. Indeed, we still await the first overarching

751
statement on freight. It is disappointing that it may well be postponed until the new year. However, I hope that we shall see it sooner.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, we all want more freight shipped by rail, but we must not be too starry- eyed about it. Doubling the amount of rail freight over the next 10 years, which is what the English, Welsh and Scottish Railway Company hopes for, will simply be equivalent to the growth over two or three years in good years of road freight—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seems to disagree with my figures. That is not to say that I do not fully support any move to increase rail freight, but we must still be realistic about the situation. We are not a central or eastern European country, where 30 per cent to 40 per cent of freight is shipped by rail: it is in the low single figures in this country, and should be very much higher. Nevertheless, we must surely congratulate the EWS on achieving a 30 per cent increase in rail freight since privatisation and support the company in its aspirations for growth, although it is disappointing to note that the amount of rail freight—not road freight—through the tunnel fell by 6 per cent last year and the omens for this year are not necessarily as good.
How can we improve upon the situation? As president of the British International Freight Association, I have already conducted the consultation which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has requested—I was about to call him "my noble friend": well, he certainly is my friend on this issue. I have consulted our membership about what are the crucial factors that would encourage more use of rail freight. I received two simple answers and will send the results of the survey to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, as they may well be of interest both to him and to some of his officials. The two critical issues were: reliability and frequency, and, interestingly, not speed. To achieve this, we need to take at least three steps, which should not cost any cash, and three steps that would. Perhaps I may summarise them for noble Lords, as that is all I can do in the time available.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, should be encouraged to continue with what he has already started; namely, to press the Commission to liberalise rail freight in Europe even further. A good start has been made and interoperability, which is the aim of the Commissioner, must be encouraged. I suspect that the noble Lord is almost a lone voice in the Transport Council on some rail liberalisation issues. If he is not, he is only supported by two or three other countries. The Government's leadership is important in such matters.
Secondly, we must permit faster night freight on the new Channel Tunnel rail link line—a campaign that has been running now for several years. It still does not look as if it has been resolved, but is something that I believe to be vital. Incidentally, the latter is not about speed; it is about getting capacity for freight through the rail link during the night, while it is largely dedicated for passenger use during the day. Thirdly,
752
we must require freight to be properly provided for on the new West Coast mainline. I am still not convinced that that is the case.
I turn next to three issues that I very much hope to see reflected in these annual statements from the SRA. The first is cash from the taxpayer that will help to pay for new rail terminals. One terminal a year might be a modest contribution to our economic well-being. Secondly, we should help to build new dedicated freight track. Let us not kid ourselves: freight and passenger trains do not mix comfortably. They certainly do not complement each other in terms of the wear and tear on track. Finally, there must be help to enhance the loading gauge— which means the size of the tunnels—for continental gauge.
Although I speak as a Conservative, I am a firm believer in a more substantial rail investment. I have long argued for that. I believe that the cost of this additional investment in rail freight infrastructure can be justified by the social and environmental benefits in the same way as new roads are. To that extent, it is justified. If the Minister cannot comment, I look forward to some comment by the Strategic Rail Authority in regular annual statements.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Berkeley substitutes his previous concept of a rail freight council with a broader requirement for consultation. I fully agree that the rail freight industry needs to be aware of matters affecting it and to have the opportunity to comment on the SRA's strategy. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, I also agree that if a freight industry is to meet the targets that we look for in the 10-year plan it is also not acceptable for freight parties to have to rely on the goodwill of the passenger operators to alert them to relevant matters and to provide the required priority on the track.
There may have been some failings in the past. They need to be addressed, as well as the important and substantial infrastructure issues on increasing the capacity of the track, to which the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, referred. However, providing it in the terms of the amendment would not necessarily be appropriate. But I can give some comfort: our directions and guidance to the SRA will cover consultation on material matters with the freight industry. We shall consider carefully how the needs of the freight industry are met when we issue these directions and guidance and consult with the freight industry on the draft of the directions and guidance. Without going as far as my noble friend wishes on the face of the Bill, I hope that that gives him substantial reassurance.
On Amendment No. 246, again the SRA has a duty under Clause 205 to formulate, keep under review and publish strategies with respect to its purposes. The intention is that it will do so on a regular basis. These purposes include promoting the use of the network for the carriage of goods. The SRA's budget will be published in the normal way and it will publish an annual report. The noble Lord will understand that the SRA's expenditure on freight will depend in large part

753
on the grant applications it receives. Therefore, it is not that easy to be precise on the forward pattern of expenditure. The shadow SRA has consulted on the principles of a new grant scheme. The provisions I have outlined should give proper information and accountability and, therefore, the framework to potential freight operators and freight users on the overall strategy to be adopted by the SRA. I believe that that meets to a large extent the spirit of the amendment.
Amendment No. 248 deals with the issue of freight proposals which require grants across the Scotland-England border. I do not think that the amendment is helpful but some clarification may be helpful. The SRA will draw up schemes for freight grants. Once drawn up, the Scottish Executive will administer them within Scotland. The amendment refers to the provision in Clause 210 which makes such grant administration in Scotland solely a matter for the Scottish Executive. It would not be possible, therefore, for the SRA. to take the sole lead where a scheme impacts on Scotland, nor for the Scottish Executive where it impacts on England. The simple fact is that we cannot enforce co-operation but we are providing the framework whereby both authorities can work together on a scheme that they consider worthwhile.
As regards funding, the Scottish grants will be paid for from the Scottish Consolidated Fund if they are made under the SRA's notified schemes.
I am confident that we shall continue to need cross-border schemes and that they will continue to be administered effectively after the Bill is in force and after the powers of the SRA are in place, and the need for co-operation on such schemes with the Scottish Executive is clear. In the light of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he clarify his statement on grants? He is right about the amount of budget depending on the grants received. But is it not true that a significant amount of funding in the 10-year plan is for infrastructure grants for freight which could be paid directly from the SRA to Railtrack? In those circumstances, I should have thought that the budget for that would have been set by the SRA in consultation with Government rather than waiting for applications to come in. Is that correct?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, under the change provisions, that will be broadly correct. The grants to which I refer relate to grant applications from the freight operators themselves. That is less easy to estimate substantially in advance.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and thank him for his explanation of Amendment No. 240 which will give great comfort to the rail freight industry. I look forward to seeing the instructions from the Secretary of State to the SRA. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 121, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) In exercising its functions in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) the Authority shall produce regular reports on the performance of all railway passenger services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would require the rail passengers council to report on the reliability and performance of all services in the UK including Eurostar, Heathrow Express, London Underground and other metros.
The issue was discussed in Committee. At col. 706 of the Official Report of 17th July, my noble friend Lord Macdonald said in respect of non-franchised services that,
"There will not be the same public interest, in a regulatory sense, to put a requirement on the authority to publish performance information on a statutory basis".
I believe that he is right in one sense. The key is the regulatory sense. But a passenger does not mind what contract or franchise the operator has; he wants to know about the reliability of the trains. If there is performance information for most trains in the UK, it should be done for all. At present, Eurostar and Heathrow Express are discrete services. However, if terminal 5 goes ahead, there may well be services from Heathrow to Birmingham, Waterloo or Reading. Does the inclusion of performance information of such future services depend on whether they are franchised or let in some way? Will passengers understand the difference?
I seek a commitment from the Government that this should be a desirable objective. I am sure that the amendment is drafted defectively. But a principle is involved and a commitment to consider the issue in future. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment, and support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, hoped for services which may one day link Heathrow with the remainder of the United Kingdom rail services. That was one of the conditions by BAA as a sweetener for the creation of terminal 5. If they are not forthcoming, there will be a lot of angry people.
The conditions under which a service is supplied does not matter to the passenger; what matters is the quality of that service. It is necessary for people to have a concept not just of a railway, but of the whole pattern of rail travel and services Nothing would give passengers greater confidence than to feel, with reason, that the quality of rail services was improving steadily. We hope that that would be a result of having a strategic rail authority and regular reports on the quality of services.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is important that the SRA publishes an indication of the performance of passenger train operators. Whether all passenger services, including non-franchised operations, should be subject to the same requirement is a more difficult matter. The SRA has the power to require franchised

755
operators to provide that information and to produce it in the terms prescribed by the SRA because those operators are dependent on it for the franchise. There is an entirely different situation in regard to Eurostar and the Heathrow Express. I do not believe that a requirement that they provide such information would be workable. Clearly, it is within their own interests to produce such information and to convey it to the public in the same form as the information that is provided to the SRA, but the requirement must relate to the franchise. That is why I believe that the amendment of my noble friend is misplaced.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am pleased to hear my noble friend say that it is clearly in the operator's interests to give such information to the passengers. I hope that he is right, but I also hope that that is another item that will be in the instructions to the SRA, even if on a voluntary basis. I am sure that many noble Lords, and people outside the House, will encourage the operators and the SRA to acquire such information and to publish it, even if on a voluntary basis. I am grateful to my noble friend for that clear explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 121, line 19, leave out ("and any investment in bodies corporate by it").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 242, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 247. Clause 206 gives the Strategic Rail Authority power to invest in bodies corporate; in other words, other commercial concerns. This amendment would remove that power.
The authority is supposed to be a strategic planning body, so why on earth is it taking shares in companies? Nothing in Clause 204, which deals with purposes, or in Clause 206, which concerns the manner of exercise of functions, suggests that that is necessary. In short, there is no discernible need for such investment in order for the authority to perform its functions. Worse still, to acquire shares in that way could give rise to serious conflicts of interest. In relation to that noble Lords have only to look at Clause 206(3) which states that the authority shall have regard to,
"(a) the need to protect all persons from dangers arising from the operation of the railways",
and at paragraph (b) which talks about the disabled, and paragraph (c) which covers the environment.
On all those issues there is a balance to be struck. Without the impediment of a financial interest, the authority would not be compromised. On Amendment No. 313 we shall discuss lightweight cement tankers that may not be robust enough for their duties. A properly organised and planned competition may be one thing, but an ill-judged investment would be something else.
In Committee the Government said that the SRA needs the flexibility to invest in a railway. However, we believe that that flexibility will leave the authority
756
vulnerable. Business will be aware that the authority can invest and will naturally take advantage of that. It is important that noble Lords remember that Clause 210 allows the authority to make grants and loans and to give guarantees but those powers do not compromise the authority's clear-headed strategic thinking. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the good news for the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is that I do not believe that this amendment is unnecessary; the bad new is that I believe it to be dangerous. It would remove from the SRA a specific power that we have given to it so as to ensure that it has all the powers that it needs to improve the railways. We have sought to ensure that the SRA can be as flexible and, therefore, as effective as possible.
We intend the SRA to be a player. Its main role will be as the funder of the franchised network, but as well as that core of services we want the network to grow and to be improved, and we want the SRA to play an active role in such improvements. In order to do that, the funding powers of the SRA need to be flexible so that they can react to any circumstances where they may be needed. The SRA will play the traditional role of paying out grants, but there are other more imaginative and potentially more effective models.
The SRA may want to become involved in a joint venture in which Railtrack, the train operators, construction companies, finance houses and the SRA could participate to deliver improvements. Equally, the SRA may want to put capital into a company. There is nothing unique in the idea of investment in projects that may help to lever in private funding. I am astonished that the Conservative Opposition should believe that there is. Such investments can provide a degree of assurance to investors and can help to give support where the investment is not likely to provide returns in the short or medium term. For capital infrastructure, all the investment may need to be upfront and the payback can be decades later.
I simply do not understand what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, talks about when he refers to a conflict of interest. He will have to give the House some examples if we are to take that argument seriously.
The shadow SRA's forthcoming strategic plan will set out the principles of investment support from the rail modernisation fund, and it will describe the forms of support that will be available. We shall be as transparent on this issue as we hope to be on all other related issues. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly shall not press the amendment tonight. In his reply the Minister has given me considerable food for thought. He says that the amendment is not only unnecessary but dangerous. I suppose that is better than being told, as one often is, that the amendment is unnecessary. He also says that he requires the flexibility that this clause

757
would give the authority, in that it can do things other than just paying grants and it may want to put money into schemes.
We are talking about taxpayers' money. In general terms, the record of taxpayers' money being invested in what I may call "money-making wheezes" is not usually a good one. I only hope that the authority considers matters most carefully before taking advantage of the power that the Minister has described and that we, the taxpayers, do not find ourselves investing in schemes which have no chance of making money, as has happened so often in the past. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 121, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) In exercising its functions in accordance with subsections (1) and (2) the Authority shall have regard to the local transport plans prepared by local transport authorities in accordance with section 107.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise briefly to move Amendment No. 243, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland, and to speak to the other amendments in the group which also stand in his name.
Amendments Nos. 243 and 244 are straightforward. They state that the authority shall have regard to local and regional transport plans. That seems to be a matter of simple good sense. Local transport plans in particular are the main way in which the Government's general policies for transport are expressed. It is obviously most important that both sets of plans should be taken into account. There should be discussion between regional and local planners and the Strategic Rail Authority so that the two big planning bodies are not out of kilter at a local level.
Amendment No. 245 concerns publication of the Secretary of State's or Scottish Ministers' directions or guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority. Again, I hope that that is seen in the spirit of freedom of information. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it is or whether it falls under the caveat that advice is not to be published. On the other hand, that caveat applies to advice to Ministers, whereas the advice referred to in this amendment is from Ministers.
I must confess that the true meaning of Amendment No. 284 escapes me. As my noble friend Lord Shutt did not have time to brief me—everything having happened in rather a hurry—I hope that the Minister can explain to us its meaning and his response to it. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, first, perhaps I may deal with Amendment No. 284, as to which the noble Baroness has asked me to play on both sides of the net. The amendment deals with the relationship of the Strategic Rail Authority with the PTEs. It would delete the provision that the SRA need not comply with a PTE statement when that places extra costs on
758
the SRA. We resist that proposal for the fairly obvious reason that it would make the SRA do something outside its control while, at various points during this process, the PTEs have substantial powers to influence the decision of the SRA. I hope that that explains the position in relation to this amendment.
Amendments Nos. 243 and 244 concern the need to relate the SRA's strategy to the local transport plans. Indeed, as the noble Baroness said, it is very important that those two processes interrelate. Our guidance on local transport plans already deals with the relationship with national rail planning, and the planning guidance notes cross-refer to the SRA. Therefore, I believe that that interrelationship is already provided for under existing guidance and that the spirit of the amendment is met.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 245, I have some cause for quarrel with the noble Baroness. That amendment would require directions and guidance from the Secretary of State to the SRA to be laid before Parliament in advance of their being issued. We do not consider that suggestion to be appropriate. Under the present regime, although the objectives are laid before Parliament, the instructions and guidance—the equivalent of this amendment—are not. Where the objectives are laid down in the Bill, the new directions and guidance will correspond to the old instructions and guidance. We believe that they should be dealt with in the same way, subject, of course, to the requirement on the SRA to consult before we reach that point.
I accept that it is awkward for noble Lords to take my word on this matter before they have seen the draft guidance to the SRA. Obviously the timing is not ideal. However, I can assure the House that we shall consult on that guidance later this year. For example, local authorities and others with an interest will have a full consultation role in the drawing up of those directions and guidance. However, to require all such guidance to be laid before Parliament would not be in line with the way in which we have dealt with these things in the past or with the arm's-length relationship that the SRA needs to have with Ministers. I hope therefore that the requirements on the SRA to consult, to report and to publish its strategies will be sufficient to meet what I believe is the basic objective behind the amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, did I hear him say that he was going to consult the industry on the instructions and guidance to the SRA but was not going to inform Parliament? I do not think that was what he meant but that is the way it came across to me.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, either I convoluted two sentences or the noble Lord is not following me with his usual acuity. We shall consult on the guidance to the SRA as to how it should carry out its functions and whom it should consult in so doing. However, we would not lay before Parliament the instructions and guidance that are mentioned in the measure we are

759
discussing. It would be rather unusual for us to do so and certainly has not been the case under the current franchising regime.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which I am sure that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, will read with great interest as the amendments came from that source. I hope that the House will be glad that, however unusual the procedure I have adopted, we have managed to discuss four amendments in seven minutes and have been given a good answer for the record. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 244 not moved.]
Clause 208 [Directions, guidance and advice: supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 245 and 246 not moved.]
Clause 210 [Financial assistance etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 247 to 249 not moved.]
Clause 211 [Securing of services by franchising]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 123, line 36, at end insert—
(""(2C) The Authority shall not exercise its powers under subsections (2A) and (2B) unless necessary for the purpose of exercising its powers under section 30(1)(a)."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 250, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 251 and 257. The Government claim that they are strengthening the franchising provisions by requiring the SRA to say where franchises should be franchised rather than just be eligible for franchising. However, it is difficult to see the difference. Surely the SRA is unlikely to designate a service as eligible unless it thinks that it ought to be franchised.
In Committee, the Minister argued that this amendment seeks to tie the provisions for designation to the role of the SRA as operator of last resort. That is nonsense. It seeks to tie the provisions for revocation of designation to that role, and rightly so. The Government argue for flexibility in changing the designation map. Why is that?
The bias should be in favour of franchising if the Government are sincere in their protestations that they are not interested in renationalising the railway network and the only changes should be new designations or as operator of last resort.
I turn to Amendment No. 251. This is a simple amendment. There is a gap in the Railways Act 1993, in that the franchising director is to designate services as eligible for franchising and is responsible for any invitation to tender in respect of such services but is not apparently obliged to issue any invitation to tender for such services. The relevant section is Section 26 of the 1993 Act. This amendment is designed to impose such an obligation on the authority (as successor to the franchising director).
I turn to Amendments Nos. 252 and 253. Section 26(1) of the Railways Act 1993 allows the Secretary of State, when the authority selects a franchisee, to direct otherwise. This amendment removes that power. The Secretary of State should not be able to substitute his choice of franchisee for that of the authority. That would lay him open to the charge of appointing one of his friends, especially as he also takes under subsection (3) of Clause 211 the power to direct how the appointment is to be made, so that the proper tendering process can be bypassed. This provision has proved not to be necessary and, given that it is open to abuse, should be removed.
If my Amendment No. 252 does not find favour, perhaps I can tempt the Minister with my very attractive Amendment No. 253. Subsection (3) of Clause 211 gives the Secretary of State wide powers not only to substitute his choice of franchisee for that of the authority but also to dictate the method of selection of the franchisee. Amendment No. 253 limits the power of the Secretary of State to prohibit the authority's choice of franchisee to occasions where he has evidence that the person selected is not a suitable person to be a franchisee. What other reason would the Secretary of State have for interfering? In this case we believe that the authority should give the franchisee to another tenderer or re-tender.
In Committee, the Government argued that the SRA may need the right to obtain the authority of the Secretary of State to ignore the tendering process. On what basis should the authority be entitled to flout the tendering process? Surely the proper approach, if no person meets the specified criteria, is to re-tender, inviting the preferred operator to tender if he has not done so in the first round. If that does not overcome the problem, the authority could operate the service itself but only as a last resort. There is little point in choosing someone who is not even interested enough to tender, and to do so must give rise to suspicion of abuse.
I turn to Amendment Nos. 254, 255 and 256. Subsection (2) of Clause 211 of the Bill inserts new sections into the Railways Act 1993 that enable the authority to vary or revoke designation of services as eligible.
We believe that the authority should not have carte blanche to remove sections of the railway system from the franchising process. Such power should only be used in the circumstances where the authority is permitted by the Bill to provide services direct or to secure provision of them. Thus, a new power given to the authority to revoke designation of services as eligible for franchises could only then be used where no tender is received on the second time of asking. There could be some very simple reason why no tenders have been received. One ought not to resort to the sledgehammer when slight changes could result in tasty wholenuts being received in the form of viable tenders.
My final amendment in this group is Amendment No. 257. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 258. Subsection 211(5) inserts a new Section 30 into the

761
1993 Act. Subsection 30(b) allows the authority to provide services direct when a franchise comes to an end and no new franchise agreement has been entered into. This gives the authority the power to provide all services direct by not renewing the franchise agreements when they expire. The amendment limits these powers to an interim period before a new franchise is granted or no tenderer can be found.
Assurances from Ministers that there is no intention to re-nationalise the rail network ring hollow when such wide powers are included in the Bill. The circumstances in which they can be exercised should be spelled out.
When opposing this amendment the Government protested that there must be an alternative structure to last resort operations. It is agreed that something must be done, the issue is when it becomes a matter of last resort. This amendment is designed to ensure that the SRA does not just take over the service when a franchise has expired without bothering to re-tender or not doing so for a very long time. Doing so would hardly qualify as a "last resort".
The Government argue that a re-tendering process is implied, but where is it implied? Designation as a service that "should" be franchised can be revoked by the SRA. Sadly, my Amendment No. 250 may not find favour. This does not need a direction from the Government—that is only required if the Section 26A or Section 26B procedure is adopted and that can be by-passed by the "de-designation" process. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the amendments to Section 26 in Clause 211 are important provisions and I welcome the opportunity to explain them again.
To summarise, the Bill provides the assurance of a competitive process either by a formal invitation to tender at the expiry of an existing franchise or an equivalent process. This process must be flexible enough to deal with mid-term franchise replacement exercises such as that currently under way and to ensure that the trains do not stop running if there is no private sector response or an inadequate private sector response to competition. The amended Section 26 is the detailed machinery for this. It provides a safety net that spells out in detail what happens if the franchise process fails. There has to be a public sector capability to act as the operator of last resort.
I do not expect my words to dispel the Opposition's unjustified concern that the amended Section 26 is there to facilitate re-nationalisation by stealth, but I will try. The amendments in Clause 211 to the franchising procedures in Sections 23 to 30 of the Railways Act (addressed in Amendments Nos. 254 to 258), substantially maintain the current position under that Act. Among other things, the 1993 Act already enables the British Railways Board to compete with the private sector for franchise opportunities, and the Secretary of State to dispense with a formal invitation to tender exercise.
762
So the provisions on last resort operation are written out in full to reflect the intended dissolution of the British Railways Board. They require extensive procedures to be followed before they can be activated and cannot be used with an intention to re-nationalise the railway industry.
Amendment No. 250 seeks to link the franchise designation process to the authority's last resort operating powers. In fact, the new powers to designate franchised services in Clause 211(1) and (2) ate freestanding and have been amended to facilitate the process of franchise exemption. All currently franchised services will remain designated but the SRA will be able to revoke and replace existing designation to reflect, for example, modifications of the franchise map.
I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by Amendments Nos. 251 to 253 to speak to the intention of Clause 211(3) of the Bill. Noble Lords will know that the franchising director is currently in the process of negotiating replacement franchises of up to 20 years. The purpose of that is to secure better services and more investment sooner rather than later. Improvements are sought to safety, performance, customer service, innovation and investment.
He is doing so in an exercise which is very close in substance to the tendering process laid down in the 1993 Act. But there are upwards of three years to run on existing franchises and the franchising director cannot force an unsuccessful incumbent to hand over the keys to a franchised service before the expiry of the franchise term. Because of that, it can be argued that the process, although highly competitive, does not technically constitute an invitation to tender procedure as specified in Section 26 of the Railways Act.
Before letting a replacement franchise, therefore, the franchise director proposes to obtain a direction from the Secretary of State under Section 26 of the 1993 Act which allows him to award the replacement franchise without being at risk of an unsuccessful tenderer arguing that the process conducted by the franchising director was not compliant with Section 26. The instructions and guidance given to the franchising director in September 1999 anticipated a direction under Section 26(1) in the event of a successful franchise replacement exercise and directions have been given to the franchising director in respect of the Chiltern and South Central franchises.
We are not, therefore, amending Section 26 to give the Secretary of State any broad new powers, since he can already direct that the invitation to tender procedure be set aside. We are amending Section 26 because we consider that it could be improved and the process made more transparent.
For example, the process does not currently specify how the Secretary of State is able to exercise his powers of direction beyond dictating that the franchising director need not follow a tender process or set any limits on how the Secretary of State is to exercise the powers. We feel that the scope of his powers should be set out more clearly and so we iterate the various

763
combinations of directions which the Secretary of State may give. We also provided that in future there should be a formal statement of the procedures which are to be adopted dealing expressly with franchise replacement.
That will help those who may be considering entering into negotiations for franchise replacement to understand how the Secretary of State and the SRA will exercise their powers to award an early replacement franchise. It is a substantial advance on the general power currently in Section 26.
I want to make it clear that it is not the intention to use that power to impose a franchisee on an unwilling SRA. But there are circumstances where a direction in those terms would be an appropriate method of concluding franchise negotiations; for instance, if a franchise replacement is identified as the likely recipient of a franchise, the logical outcome of a Section 26 direction might be that the franchise should be awarded to that person. But we do not want to prevent a satisfactory outcome by limiting the way in which it can be brought about.
I hope that explains the rationale for the amendments to Sections 23 to 30 of the Railways Act in Clause 211, and I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply which was as detailed as my speech in moving the amendment. I shall study the Minister's response very carefully. Sometimes when I study the noble Lord's replies I am persuaded by them, and for that reason I have not moved as many amendments at Report as in Committee. The noble Lord is very confident in his position and I do not believe that I shall be able to move him very far. Subject to the usual caveat, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 251 to 259 not moved.]
Clause 213 [Securing provision of substitute bus and taxi services]:
[Amendment No. 260 not moved.]
Clause 217 [Functions relating to Board's property]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 130, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Any land required for the discharge of any of the functions of the Authority may be retained or disposed of at prices reflecting its transport use.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that Amendment No. 261 is all about railway land in the ownership of Rail Property Limited which is transferred to the Strategic Rail Authority. I raised this matter in Committee and was interested in the reply of my noble friend Lord Macdonald. My noble friend confirmed that there was,
"no statutory impediment to the SRA retaining land that has a reasonably foreseeable railways use".—[Official Report, 17/7/00: col. 741.]
764
My honourable friend the Minister for Railways, Mr Keith Hill, suggested in the House of Commons that 20 years was a reasonably foreseeable timescale. I had the honour to become a member of the property advisory group of the SRA following Committee stage. That group also recommended to the SRA that 20 years was an appropriate timescale in which to look at the future need for land for the purpose of transport use. Considering that it takes at least 10 years to build a new railway—in the case of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link it will probably be 20 years—this is a reasonable timescale.
I was interested in my noble friend's statement that,
"Clause 217 enables the Secretary of State to give the SRA a direction about how land that could serve a transport use other than railways is to be disposed of or otherwise dealt with by the SAR".
I am not clear whether that is a general or specific direction. Following the response of my noble friend Lord Whitty to a previous amendment, I am not sure whether that direction is to be made public. My concern is that a piece of land may be seen to be of use for, say, a station car park or rail freight terminal in five or 10 years' time. If a supermarket offers £5 million for the site, whereas it is quite clear that for transport use it is worth only £1 million, will the SRA regard £1 million as acceptable and allow the land to be sold to a transport operator for that sum? If so, does the SRA have to seek the approval of the Secretary of State or will it be allowed to take such action on its own?
Another possibility alluded to by my noble friend in Committee is that the SRA may have to sell it for £5 million and then make a grant of £4 million to bring down the value of the land to £1 million for transport use. It is all a bit messy. This probing amendment is one last attempt to clarify the position. I beg to move.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I support the noble Lord's amendment. The crucial point here is that in order to make a judgment about whether a car park, old freight yard or maintenance depot will be of use to either a freight or passenger railway in future one must have a strategic plan. That is the only way in which one can judge whether the property is likely to be needed. I agree with what the noble Lord said about time frames. When one considers the planning for the Channel Tunnel rail link or even the upgrading of the West Coast main line, 20 years goes in a flash. Therefore, I strongly support the noble Lord. Noble Lords will be interested in the Minister's response about matching the requirement to judge the value of a piece of land against the plan of its possible need.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that at present, there is a great deal of inconvenience to rail passengers, particularly over the safety factor? In recent years there have been considerable sales of railway land. We live in a horrendous time in terms of railway history. It has been suggested to me that consideration should be given to keeping relief land at the side of railway lines.

765
Relief lines could then be used to avoid inconvenience to the public. In terms of sale of land, that issue should be given serious consideration.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is an acute probing amendment. I await with great interest the Minister's reply. This subject has been discussed in your Lordships' House with regard to a number of Bills. I became a Member of your Lordships' House six years ago and certainly since then we have discussed that question many times. No doubt it was discussed by other noble Lords long before l arrived. It is a matter of immense importance that we retain the land that is required for the Strategic Rail Authority's use.
Another important issue is the price at which that can be done. Public authorities—for example, local authorities—are obliged to seek the highest price for the land. That has sometimes hampered them in using the land for the best purpose in terms of the public service. It is important that we should try to avoid that pitfall and the kind of round-the-rabbit financial arrangements which might be used, as is suggested in the latter part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I await the Minister's response with great interest and hope.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said in moving the amendment. I confess that I do not know how it works, but I have sympathy for the issue and agree that we need to have a long-term strategy. We must avoid short-term financial considerations.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the House will agree that this matter has already received a great deal of attention both here and in another place, and that we have made much progress. I know that my noble friend Lord Berkeley and noble Lords opposite have been heartened by the assurances that we have been able to give during the passage of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, since the Committee stage, the shadow SRA has appointed the noble Lord to its property advisory group. My noble friend is advising the SRA on property. The SRA is advising me on policy. So I am in a rather contradictory position. I am never sure which of his many hats he is wearing at any given time. But I look forward to him giving me advice on how I should be answering him in the near future.
The amendment probes the extent to which the SRA will be free to dispose of land at its railway value, rather than at the higher value which might be obtained for non-railway use. We have already made it clear that there is no statutory impediment to the SRA retaining land that has a reasonably foreseeable railway use. As regards disposal, land decisions will be taken in the context of the SRA's emerging strategy. The SRA will consider carefully how best to use its financial powers and to manage its land holdings to meet its strategic objectives. It will consider on an individual basis cases in which there is a conflict between railway use and land value.
766
Where the SRA has taken the decision that a site is required for railway use, it will need to obtain the market value for that land reflecting the limitations on its use. Value-for-money considerations will apply as they do to any public body, but the SRA will have freedom within the agreed policy on land matters. It will not be a case of, say, a supermarket coming along and the SRA being obliged to accept a higher bid reflecting its value for retail development. The decision that the land is required for railway use will already have been taken after careful scrutiny.
Of course, railway users' bids will have to be realistic and reflect the full railway value. Safeguards will also be needed so that the SRA can be assured that a purchaser for railway use will not then maximise the value of the land in the interests of its shareholders. Our current advice—PPG 13—states that local planning authorities should identify and, where appropriate, protect transport sites.
More generally, support for rail freight will be channelled through a new, improved freight grants scheme. That provides a transparent way of using the SRA's broad financial powers under Clause 210.
On the question of whether the powers will be general or specific, they may be either. Clause 208(1) compels the publication of directions or guidance by the person giving the directions or guidance. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Isiwyn that the SRA will not own land of the kind to which he referred. It is really Railtrack which owns the adjacent land, and the regulator is considering licence changes relating to that Railtrack land.
With those reassurances, I hope that my noble friend will now withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive and useful explanation of what is a complicated problem. He is absolutely right. Transport use is not always the perfect solution to everything. I know of one instance where a bus company wishes to buy some railway land. It wants to move its bus station to the new land so that it can sell off the existing bus station land for commercial development. That hardly meets the spirit of "transport use". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 222 [Regulator's power to require provision etc. of railway facilities]:
[Amendments Nos. 262 and 263 not moved.]
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 134, line 45, at end insert ("if the Regulator is satisfied the person to whom the direction is given will not otherwise be adequately rewarded as set out in section 16E above').
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 265 and 288. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 289 because the Minister convinced me in Committee that the regulator has the matter in hand.
Subsection (2) of what will be new Section 16F of the 1993 Act enables the regulator to require the applicant for a direction to reward or make payments to the recipient of the direction. The amendment would limit such power to cases where the regulator is satisfied that the recipient will not otherwise be adequately rewarded as set out in the current provisions of new Section 16E.
The current drafting of new Section 16F(2) is:
"The Regulator may include supplementary provisions in any direction under section I 6A above, including (in particular)—

(a) provision adding detail (for instance, as to the time by which, or standard to which, the person to whom it is given is to do anything which it requires him to do); and

(b) provision imposing requirements on the applicant (for instance, to make arrangements for rewarding the person to whom the direction is given or to make payments to him)".

But there are no tests similar to those in Section 16E.
New Section 16B is extremely damaging to the working of Clause 222 and the new sections it adds to the 1993 Act. The person making the application may have to go to considerable lengths and expenditure, only for the application to be made commercially unviable when the regulator uses his unfettered powers under new Section 16F(2)(b). That uncertainly might deter an applicant from pursuing a project under the new section.
Under the amendment, the applicant would be able to anticipate the payments or rewards. The Minister may point to new Section 16A(3), which effectively allows the applicant to withdraw so that he will not burn his fingers beyond the cost of the feasibility study but nothing in the Bill counters the uncertainty of new Section 16F(2)(b), which creates the serious risk of an investment bottleneck.
Amendment No. 265 suggests that the Bill could be improved without Clause 222, which gives the regulator the power to impose an obligation on a private company to make an investment that, presumably, is not commercially viable. I say "presumably" because otherwise it would not be necessary to use the blunt and sometimes unpredictable instrument of legislation. The Government defend that provision on the ground that it may be in the public interest. Government interference on that scale in a private company is the worst of both worlds. The way to tackle investment in the public interest where there is no commercial benefit to Railtrack is to reform the incentives and subsidy system so that there are good commercial reasons for Railtrack to make the necessary investment.
The authority can in any case make grants if it so desires under Clause 210. It would still be possible for Railtrack to reject a project but it is hard to see why it would do so. In the event of a safety consideration, Railtrack would only need to put its hands up to the Health and Safety Executive and cry "Foul".
Apart from commercial unviability, I cannot imagine why Railtrack would not want to go ahead with a good project. The role of the Government and regulator is to set strategic objectives and implement
768
them via the authority through enforcement of licence conditions and adjustment of the subsidy and incentive system. Surely it is better to let Railtrack get on with it rather than indulge in intermittent management of the company.
Amendment No. 288 is designed to ensure that the regulator operates in a way necessary to encourage Railtrack to increase access to the rail network. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, Amendment No. 264 would make any provision under new Section 16F subject to adequate reward. I understand the motivation but the amendment is unnecessary. New Section 16F specifies some of the matters that the regulator may include in an order under new Section 16A. We make it clear in new Section 16E that the regulator may only give a direction under new Section 16A if he is satisfied that the person directed will be adequately rewarded for improving the facility, which extends to any ancillary provision under new Section 16F.
As to Amendment No. 265, Clause 222 will enable the regulator to give the appropriate person a direction to provide a new railway facility or to give a railway facility owner a direction to improve or develop an existing facility. We recognise that is a powerful tool but in some cases it is justified. The industry is running a public service and there must be the power to force through vital improvements, to ensure that the infrastructure is adequate to meet the demands of a growing network and, above all, is safe. That power is not designed to replace normal commercial judgments, does not preclude voluntary arrangements and does not excuse facility owners from licence conditions and safety cases. It is an extra where really needed—and in all cases, the facility owner will be adequately rewarded. The authority will have to support an application. The final decision belongs to the rail regulator. He will be operating under his duties in Section 4 of the Railways Act 1993, including the duty to act in a way which he considers will not make it unduly difficult for holders of network licences to finance their activities.
The power is a long stop to be used where strategic issues are in question. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is a necessary long stop and that Members opposite will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall read it most carefully in Hansard and meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 265 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 266 not moved.]
Clause 224 [Penalties]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 137, line 43, at end insert—
("(2A) The amount of a penalty imposed on a relevant operator may riot exceed 10 per cent. of his turnover determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State; and an order under this subsection shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 267, 268, 270 to 276, 292 and 294 address the enforcement of railway operators' obligations under their licences or franchise agreement. Firstly, they provide an upper limit on penalties. Secondly, they provide a protection against the danger of penalties being imposed under both the Competition Act and the Railways Act in respect of the same event. Thirdly, they improve the provisions in the Bill, giving operators the right to appeal against the regulator's or the SRA's decisions on enforcement to the High Court.
Amendments Nos. 267, 268 and 276 meet our commitment in Committee to amend the Bill to introduce some of the protective provisions accepted during the passage of the Utilities Bill.
Amendments Nos. 267 and 276 impose an upper limit on any financial penalty or sum payable by an operator for breaching an enforcement order. The upper limit is 10 per cent of the turnover of the relevant operator, with detailed provisions set out in an order made by the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 267 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make detailed provisions in relation to the definition of turnover, by order made by affirmative resolution.
Amendment No. 294 will preserve the current position for the time that it will take to get the turnover regulations prepared and approved by Parliament.
Amendment No. 268 provides the same degree of protection against what has been called "double jeopardy" with regard to financial penalties as for other aspects of enforcement action. It does this by requiring that the rail regulator should not impose a penalty where he is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under his Competition Act powers. It also requires the SRA, before imposing a financial penalty relating to the contravention of a consumer protection provision in a licence, to ensure that the regulator does not propose to take simultaneous action under the Competition Act.
Amendments Nos. 270 to 275 and 292 improve the drafting of the provisions in the Bill which specify the remedies available to a court where it upholds an operator's appeal.
I shall not now speak to the Opposition's amendments in the group but shall listen carefully to what noble Lords have to say. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my Amendment No. 269 is in this group. It is self-explanatory and is designed to improve the new provisions relating to the imposition
770
of fines, corrections or penalties. As I said in Committee, we accept that as a last resort there needs to be a penalty regime to deal with breaches of obligations. However, these powers are wide-ranging and it is in the interests of both the railway operators and the railway customers that policy and enforcement are clear and issued in advance.
In Committee, the Minister objected on the ground that the provision would bite only on Railtrack, which does not run trains. In a way, the Minister was right; it was a Railtrack-type amendment. However, it was not designed to be anti-Railtrack. The prime target is the current problem of the lack of incentive—indeed, disincentive—for Railtrack to allow more trains on the track because of the increased need it creates for rail repairs and the delays which they may cause. This is at a time when the number of passengers is growing. To an extent, the industry is a victim of its own success. We have no objection to adding other operators and honing the wording, but the Minister also claimed that the regulator and the SRA would deal with the problem through positive incentives. Fine, but that is jam tomorrow, and anyway sticks are useful and are sometimes a necessary complement to carrots.
The safety concerns highlighted by the Hatfield crash have also made the issue more pressing. The penalty system must be structured so that it does not create or exacerbate a conflict between safety and service. Railtrack must not feel that it is being unfairly penalised for carrying out the extra safety work made necessary by additional use of the track.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I was not going to intervene, but I must point out to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that there is considerable debate about whether the accident at Hatfield was caused by excessive use of the track or inadequate maintenance. It would be rash to legislate for more or different penalties so soon after an accident the causes of which have not yet been identified. I have some concerns about the noble Earl's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. After Hatfield, the public wants to be satisfied that the rail industry is working together and doing everything possible to address the safety issues. We must not prejudge the results of the Health and Safety Executive's investigation into the causes of the accident or the recommendations arising from the Cullen inquiry into the culture, management and regulation of safety.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, spoke only to Amendment No. 269, which would affect the statement of policy made by the rail regulator and the SRA towards penalties. The amendment's general aims are perfectly good to provide financial incentives to run more trains, to provide a fair division of responsibility for train delays, to prevent disproportionate penalties and to protect the franchise parameters.

771
The provision of incentives is not the primary responsibility of a penalty regime. The issue is better tackled through contractual and regulatory arrangements, such as franchises and access agreements. The point about proportional penalties is unnecessary as penalties may not be unreasonable. One that was disproportionate or affected the basis of a franchise contract would not be reasonable.
Penalties do not come at the end of the incentive regime. They are imposed when the operator or facility owner has already failed to meet their contractual or licence obligations. The prospect of penalties can be an effective stick and an incentive to ensure that trains are run to a contractual level, but once a standard has been contravened, a penalty is not connected with a specific level of future performance. For performance to be driven up, it needs to be worth while to invest for the long term and to maintain an improved service in the short term. That is why the SRA will negotiate replacement long-term franchises to give operators a greater stake. As part of those franchise incentive payments, rewards and penalties—carrots and sticks—will double.
Railtrack also needs an inducement to invest. One of the purposes of the rail regulator's periodic review of access charges is to ensure that Railtrack shares in growth and is therefore willing to contribute.
The noble Earl's aims are being met, but in the positive, not the negative sense. I hope that he will not press Amendment No. 269.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 268:
Page 138, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) The Authority shall not impose a penalty on a licence holder or person under closure restrictions unless—

(a) it has given notice to the Regulator specifying a period within which he may give notice to it if he considers that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998;

(b) that period has expired; and

(c) the Regulator has not given notice to the Authority within that period that he so considers (or, if he has, he has withdrawn it).

( ) The Regulator shall not impose a penalty if he is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 269:
Page 138, line 22, at end insert ("; and
(d) the desirability of providing a financial incentive for relevant operators to run or allow the running of more trains and for a fair division of responsibility for train delays,
but no policies will be adopted that will have the effect of imposing disproportionate penalties or materially altering the parameters within which an existing franchise was granted").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 269) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 49.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Geddes, L.

Blatch, B.

Hanham, B.[Teller]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Byford, B.

Luke, L.

Lyell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northesk, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Freeman, L.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Addington, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Amos, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brennan, L

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brett, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Desai, L.

Sawyer, L.

Dubs, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Eatwell, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Filkin, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Gilbert, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Goudie, B.

Whitty, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 270 to 276:
Page 141, line 41, leave out from ("On") to ("a") in line 45 and insert ("an application under this section on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) above the court, if satisfied that the ground is established, may quash the penalty or (instead of quashing it) make provision under either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4A) below.
(4A) The provision referred to in subsection (4) above is—
(a) provision substituting").
Page 141, line 47, leave out ("or
(c) may specify") and insert ("and
(b) provision substituting").

773
Page 142, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 6 and insert—
("( ) On an application under this section on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above the court, if satisfied that the ground is established,").
Page 142, line 11, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").
Page 142, line 22, after first ("the") insert ("relevant").
Page 142, line 25, leave out ("and at such time and place,") and insert ("at such place and by such date").
Page 142, line 26, at end insert—
("(7B) The amount of the sum may not exceed 10 per cent. of the turnover of the relevant operator determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State; and an order under this subsection shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7C) If the whole or any part of the sum is not paid by the date by which it is to be paid, the unpaid balance from time to time shall carry interest at the rate for the time being specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 227 [Extension of functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 277 to 279 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 280 not moved.]
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 281:
After Clause 233, insert the following new clause—

Transport Bill

  PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED CLOSURES AT STATIONS
  (" —(1) In section 43 of the Railways Act 1993 (notification of proposed closures), after subsection (1) insert—
  "(1A) The Authority shall also—
  (a) send a copy of the notice to every person who is the operator of a station within the area affected; and
  (b) require him to publish it at the station."
  (2) After subsection (12) of that section insert—
  "(12A) The Secretary of State shall also—

  (a) send a copy of the decision to every person who is the operator of a station within the area affected; and

  (b) require him to publish it at the station."

  (3) In Schedule 5 to that Act (alternative closure procedure), renumber paragraph 2 as sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and after that sub-paragraph insert—
  "(2) The operator shall also—

  (a) send a copy of the notice to every person who is the operator of a station within the area affected; and

  (b) require him to publish it at the station."

  (4) After paragraph 3 of that Schedule insert—

  PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED CLOSURES AT STATIONS

    Publication of consent at stations
    3A. Where the Secretary of State has given his consent under paragraph 3(2)(b) above, he shall—

    (a) send a copy of it to every person who is the operator of a station within the area affected; and

    (b) require him to publish it at the station."

    (5) In paragraph 5A of that Schedule (services in and around Greater London), insert at the end—
    "(10) The Secretary of State shall also—

    (a) send a copy of his decision to every person who is the operator of a station within the area affected; and

    (b) require him to publish it at the station."

    (6) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 of that Schedule (interpretation), for "in which the station or the line, or any part of the line, affected by the proposed closure is situated" substitute "affected".
    (7) After that sub-paragraph insert—
    "(1A) In this Schedule "the area affected" means the area in which the station or line, or any part of the line, affected by the proposed closure is situated.").
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments relate to railway closures. Amendment No. 281 relates to the advertisement of proposed railway closures at stations and follows the acceptance by the Government of the principle behind an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. The amendment will ensure that notices of all railway closures proposed under the Railways Act 1993 are displayed at stations in the area that would be affected by the closure. This will apply in the case of closures proposed by the Strategic Rail Authority under Sections 37 to 42 of the Railways Act, and closures proposed by any railway operator subject to the alternative closure procedure in Schedule 5 to the Act, such as London Underground Limited.
    When we debated the noble Baroness's amendment in Committee, we said that a difficulty with requiring the Strategic Rail Authority to publish notices of closure proposals at stations was that the authority did not have the power to do this without the station operators' consent. We agreed to take the amendment away to consider the options for providing the authority with an appropriate power. After reviewing the options we have placed an obligation on the face of the Bill on the SRA—and also operators under the Schedule 5 procedure and the Secretary of State where he is responsible for publishing closure decisions—to send a copy of the notices to relevant station operators and to require them to publish the notices at their stations.
    Our amendment also seeks to achieve proper consistency between the closure provisions of the Railways Act. That is why we have amended Schedule 5 so that the alternative closure procedures more closely mirror those in the body of the Act; and why we have given the Secretary of State powers parallel to those of the authority to require operators to publish his notices of closure decisions at their stations. Previously, while Section 43(12) of the Act required the Secretary of State to publish decision notices at stations, there was no express provision obliging the station operators to co-operate.
    The effect of Amendment No. 281 will be to ensure that passengers who might be affected by a closure will be able to see the proposal readily, at relevant stations, at an early stage and make any representations.
    Amendment No. 335 is consequential on Amendment No. 281, and adds to an existing repeal in Schedule 30 relating to Section 43 of the Railways Act. It repeals certain words from Section 43(12) in order to avoid repetition following the new provisions that will be introduced by Amendment No. 281.
    As regards my noble friend's Amendment No. 282, we should certainly not expect the authority to approve lightly any proposal to close a passenger

    775
    network, or part of a network, or make a decision on a minor closure, without considering its wider purposes as set out in Clause 204.
    The authority has wide-ranging purposes under Clause 204 to promote the use of the railway for the carriage of passengers and goods, to secure the development of the railway network, and to contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport of passengers and goods. Under Clause 206(1) these purposes must influence all its deliberations and there is no need to reiterate these purposes for each of the authority's functions. They are the reasons for establishing the authority.
    I should, however, clarify that the role of the authority in major closure cases (that is, closures that might affect passengers) is not to make the final decision. Its role is to make a preliminary assessment as to whether the closure should be permitted, and to advertise this publicly if its opinion is that it should be permitted. The final decision will rest with the Secretary of State, who will consider each case in the light of any representations he receives and the reports made to him by the independent rail passengers' committees. There are, therefore, safeguards built into the process to ensure that all the issues relevant to the major closure proposals are taken into account before any final decision is made. I beg to move.
    10.15 p.m.
    Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 282, even though my noble friend the Minister has given me a satisfactory answer. I am extremely grateful to him. Although it sounds as if things will be perfect in the future, I should just like to illustrate the fact that they are not quite right yet. The chief executive of the SRA has recently recommended the closure of a light rail depot in Holyhead, which is used for parking passenger trains. It is conveniently no longer required by the passenger train operator because the Welsh Assembly has put a compulsory purchase order on the corner of the site for the purpose of building a new road. However, I am reliably informed that the latter could have been moved sideways so that this particular site would not be touched.
    The site in question is said to be the last possible for an intermodal terminal in Holyhead for transferring freight from the ferries on to rail; indeed, there is no other site available there. I find it extraordinary that the shadow SRA is recommending a closure when one of its objectives is to promote freight, as well as passengers. I find it equally extraordinary that the Welsh Assembly is promoting this when one of its objectives is to encourage rail freight. Both of them are actually hindering rail freight despite a statutory duty to promote it. It is good to hear from my noble friend the Minister that, in the future, the rail freight industry will be consulted on such matters. Let us hope that this is just a one-off situation and that things will be just as my noble friend so nicely explained in his response to my amendment.
    Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend's point about the Holyhead light maintenance depot closure, I understand that, far from wanting to close the entire depot, North Western Trains has applied to the rail regulator to close the end of three sidings, ranging from 20 metres to 80 metres long. Under Section 39 of the Railways Act, the operator is required to give notice of the closure to the franchising director. The latter must then form an opinion on whether the proposed closure should be permitted to go ahead and, if he agrees that it should, publish a notice to that effect.
    In this case, the franchising director has supported the proposed closure on the grounds that the Welsh Office had compulsorily purchased the land on which the network stands in connection with the construction on the A55 trunk road, and the National Assembly for Wales has refused a licence to enable North Western Trains to continue to occupy it. I understand that North Western Trains believes that the consequent shortening of the sidings will not interfere with its stabling of rolling stock at the depot. It is now for the rail regulator to consider any objections to the closure application, which may be made to him by 9th November. Having said that, I commend the amendment to the House.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 237 [Operator's duty to continue where closure should be permitted]:
    [Amendment No. 282 not moved.]
    Clause 239 [Winding down and abolition of Board]:
    [Amendment No. 283 not moved.]
    Clause 244 [Passenger Transport Executives]:
    [Amendment No. 284 not moved.]
    Clause 245 [Standards]:
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 285:
    Leave out Clause 245.
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment proposes to delete Clause 245. I was initially unaware of why the Minister had included this clause in the Bill. My initial instinct was to query the clause on the basis that it gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations in order to impose standards that are rather ill defined. In effect, it gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to vary a franchise, or any other agreement, and impose whatever extra obligations he wants under threat of fines.
    However, when I studied the clause I found that it allows the Secretary of State to create new offences by regulations, which could attract unlimited fines, and that these regulations would be implemented by the negative resolution procedure. Although this is generally in order as far as concerns the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, the clause, as drafted, is far too wide. Apparently, the regulations will be about "technical specifications for interoperability", emanating from the EU. However, these are technical engineering standards so there is no need for the usual suspects to start frothing at the mouth.
    We need to examine the merits of the clause. The technical interoperability standards are clearly a matter for regulations. A good analogy is the construction and use regulations for road vehicles laid under Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act. The regulations are highly technical and frequently relate to EU technical directives. However, the actual offences are created by Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act which involves no delegated powers. I believe that we should be doing something similar to achieve the Minister's objectives for Clause 245. There will be important matters of evidence and defences to be considered. For instance, there will almost certainly be computer software involved in the interoperability standards. It will no longer be a matter of a few technical drawings specifying, for example, draw-bar arrangements and air brake couplings. We are much more likely to see, or be aware of, millions of lines of software code being transferred electronically.
    Presumably the unlimited fines would be appropriate where the accused person has had a management failure. But these offences and penalties are covered elsewhere, perhaps in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act.
    I do not intend to press the amendment today. My intention is to return at Third Reading with some substantive amendments. But the Minister should note that I shall suggest avoiding the need for regulations requiring a parliamentary procedure. I am, of course, referring to the technical regulations not the offence-making regulations. I beg to move.
    Lord Whitty: My Lords, I define the noble Earl's approach as somewhat strange. The main purpose of the clause is to allow the transposition of an EU directive on interoperability which the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, was pressing to have in place as rapidly as possible. I agree with him. The high-speed rail directive came into force in 1996 and should have been transposed at the latest by last year. So we are already behind and the Commission has already started infraction proceedings. The only way we can comply is through the proposed new clause because there are limitations on using the European Communities Act in this context.
    Technical harmonisation, to which the noble Earl rightly refers, is very important. It is not an end in itself; it is a means to achieving the kind of interoperability and liberalisation of the rail markets to which the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, referred. These powers will allow for the transposition of the conventional rail interoperability directive when it comes into force. As the noble Earl says, it will give extensive powers to make regulations because the scope of the 1996 directive is wider than the existing high-speed directive and includes a wider range of matters such as staffing, operational and telematic aspects as well as the technical standards which the noble Earl had in mind for infrastructure and rolling stock. So we need a wider regulation-making power than we would have done under the previous directive.
    778
    We envisage that the provision will set penalties at a similar level in respect of offences created under regulations made under this clause to those which are available for enforcement of railway safety, in particular the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. As the noble Earl will be aware, existing legislation already provides for unlimited fines to be imposed in certain cases. At this time it must be apparent that the Government consider it essential that similar offences should continue to carry the same penalty irrespective of which legislative route there is to that penalty. I believe, therefore, that the noble Earl's attempt to delete the clause would lead us not only into serious trouble in complying with our European obligations but also would dilute the current regime as regards safety on the railways. I hope that he will think again about returning to the issue at a later stage, let alone pursuing it today.
    Earl Attlee: I agree the need for the clause and that my amendment to delete the clause was rather clumsy. When I studied the matter the other day I had not realised the technical difficulty, which is that the clause refers only to standards; it does not refer to technical standards and certainly does not refer to technical interoperability standards which is the objective of the clause. Perhaps I can suggest to the Minister that he studies my comments in order to understand my position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 246 [Substitute services to be suitable for disabled passengers]:
    [Amendment No. 286 not moved.]
    [Amendments Nos. 287 to 289A not moved]
    Schedule 27 [Minor and consequential amendments about railways]:
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 290:
    Page 313, line 34, leave out paragraph 13.
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 290 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 293 and 333 and 334.
    I have tried hard to make this interesting, but I cannot. This is a group of four minor drafting amendments that all relate to the British Railways Board and they are consequent upon its wind up and abolition. They are the fruit of a summer spent checking that we have caught everything!
    Amendment No. 290 removes an amendment that we made to the Transport Act 1980 which would have incorrectly removed a reference to the BR pension scheme administrators and substituted a reference for the SRA. Amendment No. 293 corrects a cross reference. Amendment No. 333 removes a repeal in the Post Office Act 1953 which is no longer necessary as it is down for repeal in the Postal Services Act 2000 which was introduced after this Bill. Amendment No. 334 removes a reference to any subsidiaries of the BRB from the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 291 not moved.]
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 292 and 293:
    Page 315, leave out line 42 and insert—
    ("( ) In subsection (2), omit paragraph (b).
    ( ) After that subsection inser—t
    "(2A) If such an application is made in relation to a provision of an order requiring the payment of a sum in the event of a contravention and the sum would be payable before the time when the application is determined, it need not be paid until that time.
    (2B) Where such an application is so made the court, if satisfied as mentioned in subsection (2) above, may (instead of quashing the order or the provision of the order) make provision under either or both of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2C) below.
    (2C) The provision referred to in subsection (2B) above is—

    (a) provision substituting for the sum, or provision for determining a sum, specified in the order such lesser sum, or such other provision for determining a sum, as the court considers appropriate in all the circumstances of the case; and

    (b) provision substituting for the date by which the sum is to be paid specified in or determined in accordance with the order such later date as the court considers appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

    (2D) Where the court substitutes a lesser sum, or different provision for determining a sum, it may require the payment of interest on the new sum at such rate, and from such date, as it determines; and where it specifies as the date by which the sum is
    780
    to be paid a date before the determination of the application it may require the payment of interest on the sum from that date at such rate as it determines.").
    Page 319, line 17, leave out ("212") and insert (" 213").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Schedule 28 [Transitionals and savings about railways]:
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 294:
    Page 321, line 32, at end insert—
    (" .—(1) The fact that no order has been made under section 57A(2A) of the Railways Act 1993, as inserted by section 224(1), does not affect the validity of any determination of the amount of a penalty under section 57A.
    (2) The fact that no order has been made under section 55(713) of the Railways Act 1993, as inserted by section 224(2), does not affect the validity of any determination of the amount of any sum payable in accordance with a final or provisional order.").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
    Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Rail Safety Funding
  Northern Ireland: Rail Safety Funding
  Air Passengers: Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Air Passengers: Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Rail Franchise Non-renewal: Handover Arrangements
  Rail Franchise Non-renewal: Handover Arrangements
  Train Protection and Warning System
  Train Protection and Warning System
  Working Time Directive: Lorry Owner-Drivers
  Working Time Directive: Lorry Owner-Drivers
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  The Children's Fund
  The Children's Fund
  Non-attendance at School: Parental Fines
  Non-attendance at School: Parental Fines
  Student Benefits: Payment During Vacations
  Student Benefits: Payment During Vacations
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Unclaimed Benefits
  Home Secretary's Driver: Prosecution Decision
  Home Secretary's Driver: Prosecution Decision