Sitting of 29 June 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Road Fuel Taxation
    Andrew Selous: When he last met the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the effects of road fuel taxation on business in Scotland [180229]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend on a wide range of issues.
    Andrew Selous: The respective pre-pump prices, excluding taxes and duties, of unleaded petrol and ultra-low sulphur diesel are 20p and 21p. Last year, the Chancellor said that he would not proceed with fuel duty rate increases if the international oil situation remained volatile. What hope can the Secretary of State give to hauliers and motorists in Scotland and throughout the UK that the Chancellor will keep his word?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has picked his day carefully—today, oil prices have fallen to a two-month low following the handover of sovereignty in Iraq. Oil prices are currently volatile and high because of a combination of factors, including not only uncertainty in Iraq and the middle east, but increased demand from the United States, China and other countries. The Chancellor has said that he will examine oil prices and review the situation in August.
    Conservative Members should concentrate on why petrol prices have increased, which is because of oil prices rather than sudden increases in duty. We must wait and see what happens in the summer, but the Government's action in encouraging the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase
    136
    production, coupled with the progress that we have made in Iraq, is helping to exert downward pressure on oil prices, which in turn will help pump prices.
    Mr. John McFall: The Government have cut the fuel tax escalator that the previous Government imposed. Does the Secretary of State accept that environmental issues such as climate change are important and that a sensitive balance must be reached? Those who fought against protestors in the late 1980s are now inciting people needlessly to riot, which is a sorry sight.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right that one must take a wide range of issues into account in considering the taxation of fuel. A few weeks ago, the Conservative party showed its opportunism at its worst: instead of joining others in encouraging OPEC to increase oil production, it made opportunistic demands, but Conservative Members know that they would take a completely different view if they were in government.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: The Prime Minister has indicated that the Government will review September's proposed 2p rise in fuel tax in August. Just so that ordinary Scots know how strong their voice is in Cabinet, are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would intervene and advocate abandoning that tax hike? Today's press says that desks are being thumped throughout Downing street; are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would thump his desk?
    Mr. Darling: In our Department, desks are not thumped—they are too valuable. Just as I am determined to bear down on the Scotland Office's hospitality budget, I will not rack up bills by damaging my desk. People, whether they are hauliers or motorists, are, of course, concerned about fuel prices, but it is important to concentrate on the causes of the oil price increase, which, as I said, are increased demand from certain parts of the world and events in Iraq and the middle east. I recognise that we have a long way to go, but the recent fall in oil prices is welcome. Brent crude is currently trading at just more than $33 a barrel, which is much better than a few weeks ago. The Chancellor has said that he will keep the situation under review and, as he indicated earlier this year, he will make a decision in August.
    Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the threatened protests throughout Scotland should fuel tax increase. Will he assure the House that those protestors will face the same level of law enforcement that trade unionists faced when they defended their communities in the 1980s?
    Mr. Darling: It is important that anyone who demonstrates abides by the law and does what they are asked to do by the police and other authorities. Of course people have a right to object, but they must do so within the framework of the law.
    John Thurso: In my constituency and in many other remote rural areas where road transport is a necessity, fuel

    137
    costs, on average, 10p more than it does in urban areas such as Inverness and Edinburgh. Is the Secretary of State aware that EC directives 92/81 and 92/82 contain derogations to allow for lower tax to cover precisely that situation? Why do not the Government act to end that penalty in remote areas, and what is his Department doing to persuade the Treasury to that end?
    Mr. Darling: The Liberals always give the impression that they want fuel prices to go up for environmental reasons—except, of course, in their own constituencies. As for the hon. Gentleman's proposal, it would give rise to difficulties were the Government to decide that fuel tax should be lower in one area than another. There will always be an argument about where the line is drawn. The hon. Gentleman's proposition is not practical, and were we to act on it I suspect that he would be the first to complain about where the line was drawn.
    Pete Wishart: Despite today's welcome news about oil prices, 77 per cent. of the price of a litre of fuel is still taken up by taxes and duties. Does the Secretary of State think that that figure is too high or too low, and does he think that there could still be a case for a further 2p hike in fuel prices for Scottish motorists?
    Mr. Darling: As I said, the Government's position is that we are keeping the situation under review and the Chancellor will make his decision in August. That seems to me to be the right way to approach these matters.

    Proceeds of Crime Act
    Mr. Russell Brown: What discussions he has had with the First Minister about returning cash seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to local communities worst affected by the criminals. [180230]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): As my hon. Friend will know, that is a matter for the Scottish Executive, but I know that they are determined that recovered criminal assets must be used to benefit the communities that suffer from drug dealing.
    Mr. Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. About 50 per cent. of all assets seized in Scotland have been seized through the good work of Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, which also led to the largest ever UK seizure through the civil recovery aspect of the Act. I appreciate that this is a matter for the Scottish Executive; nevertheless, when my right hon. Friend speaks to the First Minister will he impress upon him that some of that money must find its way back to the local communities that have been so badly damaged through criminal activities, and especially drug dealing which is rife in many parts of the country?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the seizures that have taken place in the south-west of Scotland and my hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the chief constable and his police force in Dumfries and Galloway. For many years—indeed, ever since he has been the Member for Dumfries—my hon. Friend has expressed his concern about the impact of drug dealing on communities. Of
    138
    course, I talk to the First Minister about such matters. It is difficult to have an exact correlation between where the money is seized and where it is paid back, because the place where it is seized may not be the scene where so many crimes have been committed and communities have suffered. The Scottish Executive is talking to the Treasury about the exact percentage that is retained and repaid. The general principle of the legislation is absolutely right, and it is a great pity that Opposition Members were so reluctant to support us.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Notwithstanding the fact that many of these responsibilities lie with the Scottish Executive, this House has responsibility for regulating and dealing with professionals. Given that the amount of money that has been seized is lower than might have been expected, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to deal with professional associations representing accountants, bankers and lawyers, which often act to assist criminals by hiding their assets and preventing their being seized?
    Mr. Darling: I am tempted to declare an interest, but it has, sadly, been some years since I practised, although the register shows that I am still a member of the Faculty of Advocates. I am still practising politics, however.
    My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering various measures to attempt to deal with some of the problems that he highlights. There is a balance to be struck between maintaining confidentiality between clients and professionals and dealing with situations involving abuse of the system.

    Regional Selective Assistance
    Mr. Michael Moore: What discussions he has held with the Department of Trade and Industry on the future of regional selective assistance. [180231]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I met ministerial colleagues last week when the European Commission's proposals for amending the guidelines that govern regional state aid from 1 January 2007 were discussed. The Government's approach to responding to the Commission regarding the proposals was set out by the Minister for Industry and the Regions in a written statement on 14 June
    Mr. Moore: In the borders over the past few years, more than £6 million of regional selective assistance has created more than 200 jobs and safeguarded at least another 1,000. Does the Under-Secretary recognise the importance of that funding in the aftermath of the debacles at Biosytems and in the textile industry? Will she ensure that however RSA is to be restructured, the needs of rural manufacturing economies, such as that of the south-east of Scotland, will not be ignored?
    Mrs. McGuire: We are well aware of the importance of regional selective assistance to many areas in Scotland. Approximately 48 per cent. of Scotland is covered by RSA. I know that specific issues apply in the borders. In our discussions with the Commission, the

    139
    Government hope to identify effective, regional targeting while ensuring that some of the most deprived and disadvantaged areas are given the economic support that they need. I encourage the hon. Gentleman and his party to make their views known in the consultation period that the Minister for Industry and the Regions announced.
    David Cairns: Has my hon. Friend had a chance to study the report of the West of Scotland European Consortium, which makes a compelling case for continuing assistance to the west of Scotland, due to deprivation and social exclusion that are higher than average? Will she assure me that whatever the future holds for regional assistance, the needs of constituencies such as Inverclyde, which have higher than average unemployment and poverty, will be borne in mind?
    Mrs. McGuire: I have had a glance at the document that my hon. Friend mentions. I have not read it in detail, but I endorse his views. As someone who served on the monitoring committee of the former Strathclyde objective 2 partnership, I know the importance of European funding, through structural funds and regional selective assistance, to areas such as my hon. Friend's constituency. It is one of the aspects of European partnership that is clear to people not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. It is one of the benefits of European partnership and membership of the European Union that the Conservative party often neglects to mention.

    Dungavel Centre
    John Robertson: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the Dungavel immigration removal centre. [180232]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): The operation of Dungavel immigration removal centre is a reserved matter and the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, I have regular meetings with Home Office and Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss any specific concerns surrounding asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland.
    John Robertson: My hon. Friend knows that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, of which I am a member, visited Dungavel last week. We were impressed with the facilities and the commitment of the staff. Will she join me in congratulating the staff on their efforts and assure me that any families in Dungavel will be detained for as short a period as possible?
    Mrs. McGuire: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and I am sure that the staff in Dungavel will also welcome them. Some of the pictures that the media paint of Dungavel in no way reflect the high quality of service that good people provide there to refugees and asylum seekers who need support.
    Of course, the Government continue to pay the greatest possible attention to the detention of families. I assure hon. Members that families are detained only as a
    140
    last possible resort. In Dungavel, we try to turn families around quickly, although there have been one or two exceptional circumstances. It is important to acknowledge that, in any immigration structure, there eventually needs to be a place in which to hold people in the system. However, the facilities in Dungavel are first class and superb.
    Annabelle Ewing: At Scottish questions recently, the Under-Secretary welcomed the fact that the new Children's Commissioner for Scotland intended to visit Dungavel. She knows that the commissioner has visited and that she said at the weekend that she wholeheartedly agreed with the conclusion of the chief inspector of prisons that detention compromises children's welfare and development. What does the Under-Secretary say in response to the commissioner's comments?
    Mrs. McGuire: The commissioner also said that the facilities inside Dungavel were good. She was there at the express invitation of the Home Secretary, as I said at the last Scottish questions. Yes, the commissioner is on record as saying that she does not believe in principle that children should be detained, and that is a difference that we have with some groups in Scotland about the detention of children. The reality is that if the hon. Lady's party were in charge of immigration in Scotland, it, too, would have to put in place a structure to deal with those who were unwilling to accept the outcome of the immigration or asylum process. I am due to meet the commissioner quite soon and I shall be interested to hear her views first hand, rather than through the media.
    Mr. John Lyons: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that a joint meeting between the Scottish Executive, the Scotland Office and the Children's Commissioner, Kathleen Marshall, might be constructive in developing a way forward for dealing with the question of children at Dungavel?
    Mrs. McGuire: I reiterate that the management of Dungavel is a matter for the Home Office, although we obviously link very closely with the Scottish Executive and Home Office Ministers over some of the issues that I have already identified. I have had correspondence with the Children's Commissioner and, as a courtesy, we are meeting to discuss some of the issues that are causing her concern. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that the Scottish Executive, Home Office Ministers and I meet regularly to discuss these issues, which are important not only to this House but in Scotland generally.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Having visited the centre recently, may I say to the Minister that one of its strengths is the separation between the centre's detention staff and the Home Office officials dealing with the legal process? However much those detained endeavour to destabilise the process, they are in my view still treated with the same concern. May

    141
    I seek the Minister's reassurance that there are no plans to change that two-pronged relationship, as has been reported?
    Mrs. McGuire: There was a report in a national daily newspaper that the Home Office intended to extend Dungavel to provide a further 150 places for families, and it is totally untrue.
    Mr. Duncan: Does the Minister agree that she and her Department would be under considerably less pressure over Dungavel if the wider asylum issue were not in such widespread chaos? Is not the real scandal the fact that so many of those awaiting removal have had to wait so long for the legal process to be concluded, in the knowledge that so many others have evaded the process entirely?
    Mrs. McGuire: The real scandal is that when the Conservative party was in power, it allowed our immigration and asylum policy to descend into chaos. We have had to sort it out. The reality is that immigration and asylum cases are now being dealt with in a far more effective and efficient manner than they ever were under the Conservative Government.

    Health and Safety Executive
    Ann McKechin: When he last had discussions with the Health and Safety Executive on its work in Scotland. [180233]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): Ministers have had discussions with a number of organisations in relation to their work in Scotland.
    Ann McKechin: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that while the number of fatalities and major accidents at work in the rest of the United Kingdom has decreased, the number in Scotland has increased in recent years, and that the rate of deaths in the workplace in Scotland is 95 per cent. higher than the average for Great Britain? What discussions has he had with the Health and Safety Executive in Scotland about the resources that it requires to tackle that issue, and to ensure that accidents in the workplace decrease significantly in Scotland?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. There is no intrinsic reason why the number of accidents in the workplace in Scotland should be greater. In particular, the number of people injured on construction sites in Scotland is much higher than on sites in England. The Health and Safety Executive is investigating the issue and carrying out research into why this is happening. It has also been agreed that the HSE, in conjunction with the Scottish Executive, will set up a joint piece of work to examine how the situation can be improved. In addition to what the Government can do, there must be a reminder to everyone involved in a workplace—a construction site or elsewhere—that safety can and must be improved. There are still too many people being killed and seriously injured at work in Scotland, and that should not be happening.

    Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
    Mr. David Marshall: What plans he has to meet the Scottish Executive to discuss the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation; and if he will make a statement. [180234]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): My right hon. Friend and I meet regularly with Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss a wide range of issues. We welcome publication of the index as a valuable tool in tackling poverty for both reserved and devolved areas of responsibility.
    Mr. Marshall: May I say to my hon. Friend that I am 63 years old and live in the Shettleston constituency—[Laughter.] Adult male life expectancy there is just that—63. Tragically, because this is no laughing matter, that is 14 years fewer than the UK national average, and it is partly due to poverty in the area. Six of the 10 most deprived areas in Scotland are in Glasgow's east end, where 20,000 people are unemployed. Does she therefore agree that the No. 1 priority must be the education and training of the unemployed, and will she assure the House that she and the Government will do all that they can to help the Scottish Executive to deal with and tackle this very serious situation?
    Mrs. McGuire: In spite of the raucous response to my hon. Friend's question, by drawing attention to his age he makes a serious point about the difficulties in some parts of the United Kingdom, including his constituency. I hope that he will take confidence from the fact that we are tackling some of the major issues, which are mainly related to unemployment and poverty, not only in his constituency but across Scotland. More children have dropped out of poverty over the past seven years of a Labour Government, following the dramatic increases that had occurred in children and their families dropping into low income. I hope that that will give him reassurance for the future. I wish him many future happy returns.

  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Devolution
    Ann McKechin: What devolution issues she has considered since 25 May. [180244]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since 25 May. [180245]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 25 May, 48 devolution issues have been intimated to me. Thirty-six of those related to criminal matters, including pre-trial delay, self-incrimination under the Road Traffic Act 1988, regulatory fisheries offences and evidential issues. In the civil sphere, 12 issues were intimated, 11 of which related to actions for

    143
    damages or judicial review in respect of prison conditions, while the last concerned a challenge to the discretion of the procurator fiscal.
    Ann McKechin: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether she has had any discussions with the new Children's Commissioner for Scotland, Dr. Kathleen Marshall, who was referred to earlier today, in connection with the concerns that she has expressed about human rights issues arising from the new antisocial behaviour legislation that has recently passed through the Scottish Parliament? If she has not had any such discussions, does she intend to meet her later this summer?
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: To date, I have had no discussions with the commissioner. The matters that my hon. Friend raises relate to policy, which would usually be discussed with policy Ministers, not with me. Obviously, were there any legal issues to be addressed, that might be a different matter.
    Miss McIntosh: Has the hon. and learned Lady's advice been sought, however, on the positioning and the legal situation as regards the construction of wind farms in international shipping lanes in Scotland? In the event of a wind farm being built and a fisherman colliding with it, who would be responsible for that collision?
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: The hon. Lady knows full well that I cannot tell the House whether my advice has been sought.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Not again.
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: I am afraid so. I am happy to discuss privately with the hon. Lady general issues relating to the statutory structure, if that would be of assistance to her.
    Mr. George Foulkes: May I congratulate the Advocate-General on the splendid job that she is doing? She will be a very difficult act to follow. Will she also pass on my congratulations to the Lord Advocate on the great improvement that there has been in the Scottish Procurator Fiscal Service? Can she also tell him that if he needs any heavyweight support, I will be free after the next election?
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: I can only say that those kind words were entirely unsolicited. I shall be more than happy to pass on my right hon. Friend's good wishes and thanks to the Lord Advocate.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What human rights issues she has considered since 25 May. [180248]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): In addition to the human rights issues raised in the devolution issue minutes to which I referred some moments ago, as a matter of routine such matters were
    144
    considered by me in my role under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 and in my capacity as a United Kingdom Law Officer.
    Mr. Dalyell: Given that Mr. Eddie McKechnie, acting in furtherance of the human rights of Mr. Megrahi, is hopeful that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is giving the most serious and painstaking consideration to that complex case, does my hon. and learned Friend think that the House of Commons will have a role when the commission reports? I do not criticise Members of the Scottish Parliament, but it is clear that none of them have bothered to become immersed in what is a very complex issue.
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: I am sure that many Members of this Parliament, as individuals, will read the commission's report with great interest when it is available. I think that these matters will generally be regarded as devolved, but I am sure that, with his great experience, my hon. Friend will find a way of raising the issues that concern him in the House.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Advocate-General review the answers that she has given in the House over the past six months? Does she believe that her Question Time has added anything to parliamentary accountability?
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: I think that Question Time has resulted in a most interesting and stimulating debate. I have certainly enjoyed it. I am particularly grateful to Opposition Members, who have raised so many questions with me. I shall be delighted to review the answers, but I remind Members that the conventions which prohibit me from giving details of opinions are not created by me—they are long-standing conventions, which Members have also supported.

  DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—
  DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Postal Voting
    Ann Winterton: What assessment the Department has made of the efficacy of the recent trials for postal voting in the north-west of England. [180752]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The recent trials of postal voting in four regions of England proved worth while. Turnouts increased throughout the country, but were appreciably higher in the all-postal areas, where they doubled in comparison with those for the previous European elections. The Electoral Commission is statutorily obliged to evaluate the pilots. No doubt lessons will be learned from its report, which is due in mid-September.
    Ann Winterton: Experience has shown that turnouts increase initially after all-postal ballots, but then fall back. Turnout increased on this occasion because there were two elections on the same day, the European and the local elections. Will the Minister acknowledge the incidence of costly administrative chaos, postal delays in some areas and alleged fraud? Will he ensure that while opportunities for postal voting will continue to be provided, the traditional democratic right to vote in person at a polling station will always be maintained in the future?
    Mr. Leslie: Of course the right to cast a vote in the polling booth was maintained in the all-postal ballots, via the assistance and delivery points. There was an issue over whether there were enough of those, and we could think about that for the future.
    Part of the reason for the increased turnout was our decision to combine the European and local elections, but comparison of pilot with non-pilot regions shows an appreciably higher turnout than under the conventional arrangements. We organise pilots because we want to learn lessons. We are trying out these arrangements because we want to find ways of dealing with the historic lower turnouts that have occurred in recent elections. I think that that is the right thing to do, and it has certainly proved worth while.
    Keith Vaz: The trials were very successful in Leicester. Turnout increased in all three Leicester constituencies—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Members must let the hon. Gentleman put his question. When the Minister replies, he too should be heard.
    Keith Vaz: Turnout was up in all three Leicester constituencies, especially Leicester, South, where a lot of people turned out to vote against the cuts instituted by the Liberal Democrat administration. However, will my hon. Friend look at the guidance in respect of making ballot boxes available on the day for those who missed the postal deadline? Only one ballot box was provided by the returning officer, which was at the town hall in the city centre. Parking was extremely difficult, so many people could not return their ballot papers. Could we not have, at the very minimum, a ballot box in each parliamentary constituency to make them more accessible to those who cannot vote except on polling day?
    Mr. Leslie: The point of having an all-postal pilot was to test the extent to which the dispatch of ballot papers to the electorate through the post helped to make it easier and more convenient for them to vote. If we had provided the same number of polling stations as before, it would have negated slightly the effect of testing the efficacy of all-postal balloting. I accept that many hon. Members have noted that they would have preferred more assistance and delivery points, and that is obviously something that will come out in the Electoral Commission's evaluation.
    146
    I also heard my hon. Friend's comments about the cuts that the Liberal Democrats have proposed in Leicester, but that is a debate for another day.
    Mr. David Heath: It is extraordinary that the Government are yet again disregarding the views of the Electoral Commission in respect of the referendums.
    May I take the Minister back to the statement that he made on 27 May? He said:
    "I am confident that the deadlines to hand over packs to the Royal Mail will be met."—[Official Report, 27 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1735.]
    Will he confirm that the contracts let with Royal Mail required those packs to be in its hands on 25 May, two days before he made that statement? Will he apologise to the House for clearly misleading it in that respect? Will he tell us whether any penalty clauses are attached to the Royal Mail contracts, and if so, who will be responsible: the printers, the Government, whose fault this whole debacle was, or the hard-pressed council tax payers of the north of England?
    Mr. Leslie: What a shame that, in attempting to perpetuate the story about the supposed chaos and shambles of all-postal voting that both Opposition parties have tried to peddle, the hon. Gentleman seeks to accuse me of somehow misleading the House, which I certainly did not. I underlined the fact that in law, the ballot papers needed to be dispatched to the deliverers from the returning officers by midnight on 1 June. That is in fact what happened to all intents and purposes, and within a few hours of that deadline, the papers were issued. There may well have been different contractual arrangements from area to area and from returning officer to returning officer, but the legal position and legal requirements that I set out were absolutely clear. I am glad that that was a success and that we were able to ensure that those papers were issued, to all intents and purposes, by that deadline.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's two main priorities in using postal voting are to ensure that a larger number of people use their vote, which is good for democracy, and to ensure the integrity of the vote? Later in the year, when we have the report showing the advantages, the disadvantages and where we can improve on what was done in June, may we have a full debate on it? There is merit in taking this matter forward and we can learn from what happened this month.
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend makes some reasonable points and I am sure that we will debate the Electoral Commission's report and evaluation in due course. From some of the comments from Opposition parties, one would have thought that we were criminal in trying to address the problems of lower turnout, engagement and participation by the electorate. We have come up with the solution of trying out new techniques to engage the public, while the Opposition parties have developed no ideas or proposals whatever to engage the public more in the electoral system. That is a great pity.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: With allegations of corruption, vote tampering and voter manipulation now growing, with 20,000 spoiled ballot papers in the north-west region alone, and with concerns about the huge confusion emanating from postal voting, is the Minister really going to maintain that a short-term, marginal, 5 per cent. improvement in turnout is worth the collapse of confidence in our voting system that postal voting could entail?
    Mr. Leslie: The issues about spoiled ballot papers are separate from the constant repetition of claims of fraud and malpractice. I note that, again, the hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence, but is simply perpetuating rumour, story and things that have been heard on the grapevine. If that is good enough for the Opposition, it is certainly not good enough for the police, who need to see the evidence immediately—if the hon. Gentleman has those reports. I trust that he will now produce such evidence immediately to the police, if he has it. There have been no charges yet in respect of any electoral offences in the pilot regions and no legal proceedings, despite the scare stories and the doom and gloom that we heard from Opposition Members.
    I accept that the Electoral Commission will need to look at the question of spoiled ballot papers; the witness statement requirement that was foisted on the Bill by Opposition Members may well be responsible for some of that.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: We all want to boost turnout, but why can we not pilot weekend voting? Why can we not pilot Thursday voting, but make Thursday a public holiday? There are alternative ways of approaching this issue, without jeopardising the secrecy of the ballot.
    Mr. Leslie: Nobody has jeopardised the secrecy of the ballot, but I accept that my hon. Friend has other suggestions that he would like to try out. In fact, we trialled weekend voting in Watford in 2003, but no appreciable effect was proven there. The right approach is to test new arrangements that make it easier and more convenient for people to participate in elections, while always maintaining the security and safety of the electoral process.

    House of Lords
    Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on the future of reform of the House of Lords. [180753]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government remain committed to reform of the House of Lords, but to proceed now in the face of current opposition in the Lords could jeopardise the wider legislative programme. However, the Government are determined to take this matter forward and to find a consensus that defends the Commons supremacy and the proper revising role of the second Chamber.
    Mr. Burns: Does the Minister accept that, just as no one has been able to find a solution to the West Lothian problem, there is growing concern that a similar problem will arise with reform of the House of Lords, because no one can come up with a credible solution to altering the balance of power between the two Chambers, and to the consequent problems? In order to provide a solution once and for all, why do the Government not support the Prime Minister in his preferred option and just continue appointing Members of the House of Lords?
    Mr. Leslie: I am not quite sure that that is the Prime Minister's total view, but I always support him in all eventualities, as all Members are well aware by now. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point in part, in that it is possible to square the issues of improved legitimacy for the second Chamber and maintaining Commons supremacy. There is a consensus that we want this House of Commons to be the final decision maker. At the same time, it is important that we find a way to improve connection with the public so far as the second Chamber's composition is concerned, while ensuring that it continues in its revising role.
    Tony Wright: There is a view in some quarters that it would be better to have a half-baked scheme than no scheme at all. Will my hon. Friend resist that view and remember that it has taken us nearly a century to come up with House of Lords reform that has some chance of working? It would be better to get it right in a form that can command widespread support.
    Mr. Leslie: That was a cryptic question from my hon. Friend, but I shall not demur from answering it. He is correct to say that it is better to get a solution that works well. As I said earlier, it is possible to square Commons supremacy with improved legitimacy for the second Chamber, and we will continue to press ahead in looking for a consensus on that point.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that many of us are very concerned about the influence and power of the Whips in this House and therefore want to extend the powers of the second Chamber? Does he also understand that in order to do that, he has to give greater political legitimacy to the second Chamber? That would involve either a complete or very substantial election process by a direct franchise from the people.
    Mr. Leslie: Of course, the whipping system already exists in the second Chamber. The right hon. and learned Gentleman comments on the situation whereby those who are elected might be more prone to the persuasions of the whipping system than others, but I am not convinced. Each individual takes a decision according to their own conscience—just as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not always necessarily obey the Whip when it was waved under his nose.
    Mr. Graham Allen: May I urge my hon. Friend to continue his search for a consensus and a scheme for the reform of the second Chamber? It would be unacceptable to go into the next

    149
    election without a clear manifesto commitment from our party on that question. I therefore urge him to meet, if he has not already met, Mr. Billy Bragg, who proposes one form of a scheme that may command a consensus. Will he undertake to meet Billy Bragg and many others who have views on how best to take a step forward with this knotty problem?
    Mr. Leslie: I have already met Mr. Billy Bragg and hon. Members who advocate the secondary mandate scheme, as they term it. That proposal is designed to improve the legitimacy of the second Chamber without direct election. My hon. Friend's point about our manifesto is correct. I believe that we should develop proposals and he should wait and see what appears in the manifesto.

    Freedom of Information Act
    Norman Baker: What progress is being made in implementing the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [180754]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): The Government are making good progress on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. An extensive programme of work is taking place in Whitehall and beyond, and we are confident of full and effective implementation by 1 January 2005.
    Norman Baker: Has the Minister had a chance to consider early-day motion 1269, tabled by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), which has secured the support of 151 MPs? It expresses grave concern about the massive increase in projected costs for accessing information under the Freedom of Information Act. Does the Minister recognise that charging £575 for a piece of information is likely to deter people from using the Act? Is it simply a matter of petty Treasury money-grabbing policy, or is it something more sinister—an attempt to ensure that people do not exercise their rights under the Act so that it is not effective in its operation?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that we will bring forward our plans for the fee regime later in the autumn. He will also know that the Government are aware of their previous commitment that the fees should reflect appropriately on the public purse.

    Electoral Roll
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What assessment the Department has made of the integrity of the electoral roll following the postal ballots in the recent elections. [180755]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The new powers given to electoral registration officers in 2001 have helped to safeguard the accuracy of the electoral register. Further security improvements, including individual rather than household registration, are being actively considered as part of an ongoing review, but not specifically related to one election.
    Mr. Swayne: Does the Minister accept that the robustness of the register is vital to minimising fraud? Does he agree that confidence in our electoral system is not so much determined by a relatively low number of proven cases of fraud as by the perception that our systems largely exclude the possibility for it?
    Mr. Leslie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of the electoral roll. The accuracy of the register is vital as the foundation of our democratic system. We have made improvements by giving new powers to electoral registration officers to demand information and to be able to ask for specified evidence of age, nationality and so forth. Of course, they also have the power not to include people on the electoral roll. In this country, we largely operate on the basis of trust and believe that citizens will fill in their forms correctly, but we have to ensure that we always improve security whenever possible.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: As the Minister said, the electoral roll is the foundation of any smoothly functioning democratic process. If that is distorted, everything that follows risks becoming polluted as well. Suggestions have been made that some electoral rolls are overstated with ineligible names, particularly in urban areas, to the tune of 10 or even 15 per cent. That has serious implications for all-postal voting and for the setting of boundaries for seats in the House. Will the Minister confirm that he will accelerate the introduction of individual voter registration and that, when it is introduced, it will require the person's name, address, date of birth, national insurance number and signature to authenticate genuine voters and remove the ineligible ones?
    Mr. Leslie: That is something that we are discussing, not least with the Electoral Commission, which has proposed individual registration for some time. One problem that needs to be overcome is the extra burden that individual registration would place on citizens. Instead of each household filling in a form, each individual would have to fill in an extra form. That may be necessary and it may have merit, but a possible consequence is that people might fall off the electoral roll, and we would not want that to happen. We must make sure that individual registration is accurate, and that it legitimately enfranchises as many people as possible. I think that we can get that balance right. We are trying to solve the problem and we will bring forward proposals in due course.

    Tesco (Legal Products)
    David Taylor: What representations the Department has received from the legal profession on the legal products the Tesco supermarket chain plans to put on sale. [180757]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): My Department has received no such representations, but it looks favourably on initiatives that offer people wider access to straightforward information about legal

    151
    issues. My Department has been in discussion for some time with retailers about the role that they might play in that process.
    David Taylor: Even experienced purchasers of professional services find it difficult to assess the quality and integrity of their lawyers. The Clementi review of the regulatory framework of legal services might sanction a supermarket approach to justice. If so, does my hon. Friend agree that although a pile-it-high, sell-it-cheap ethos might appear to offer choice and value, in reality it could lead to costly mistakes? That would be not unlike the bogus consumerism promoted by both Front-Bench teams in education and health.
    Mr. Lammy: Clearly, I cannot comment on David Clementi's report, which the Government asked him to produce but which will not be ready until later in the year. Of course I welcome the provision by Tesco, or any supermarket retailer, of information to consumers. That information concerns matters such as tenancy agreements, the writing of wills—something that we all want—and, for people whose family circumstances have broken down, divorce. We should wait and see what David Clementi comes up with, but also recognise that the current arrangements—which mean that the Law Society and the Bar Council are the regulator, the disciplinary body and the representative trade union—are a privilege. At the turn of the 21st century, it is a privilege that we should look into.

  The Leader of the House was asked—
  LEADER OF THE HOUSE

    Modernisation
    Ms Karen Buck: What plans he has to propose the removal of the term "stranger" from the Standing Orders. [180767]
    Ann Coffey: What action he is taking on the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to end the use of the term "stranger". [180772]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I intend in due course to table for the consideration of the House a motion to amend the Standing Orders to remove the references to "strangers". I intend to discuss with you, Mr. Speaker, whether that change might also be reflected in the names used for parts of the Palace and in other usage in the House.
    Ms Buck: When my constituents come to Parliament as my guests, they are treated like royalty and fed lavishly at my expense—at least, some of them are. However, when they make their own arrangements to attend Parliament, all too often they are left queueing in the rain and labelled as "strangers". Although House staff display exceptional courtesy and efficiency, my constituents are treated as the institutional equivalent of the Ebola virus. Is not it time that the House abolished
    152
    the concept of "strangers"? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will make the speediest possible moves to bring this House into the 21st century?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend, in every respect. The prospect of being treated like royalty makes me wish that I was one of her constituents. Interestingly, the "Oxford English Dictionary" states that the parliamentary use of the term "stranger" refers to
    "one who is not a member or an official of the House and is present at its debates only on suffrance".
    That is entirely the wrong message to give to our voters and citizens. This is their House of Commons and we are here at their permission. They are not strangers. They are citizens and voters who are entitled to be here and to be treated properly.
    Ms Coffey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply in relation to the use of the word "stranger", but does he agree that other strange words are used in this place, such as the term "honourable Member"? Is there any support for a change that would allow MPs to be addressed by their names, without the use of that archaic and unmodernised term?
    Mr. Hain: That is a revolutionary suggestion, but we should take matters one at a time. Let us get "strangers" consigned to the history books. I understand that the issue of right hon. and hon. Members has been considered in the past by the Modernisation Committee and the House, but it was not taken forward. My hon. Friend is free to continue to campaign for change.
    Mr. Eric Forth: How many complaints has the Leader of the House had from visitors to this House about use of the term "stranger"?
    Mr. Hain: In the evidence that the Modernisation Committee took, it was deeply resented by virtually everybody—especially younger people—who came to give evidence to us. It emerged as an issue in our inquiries. People queue up to enter the Palace sometimes in the rain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said, although that problem will be overcome by the new visitor reception facility. When they get in, they feel, in the words of one person who spoke to us, like aliens rather than citizens who are entitled to be here as of right. It is their Parliament as much as it is our Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to stay in mediaeval times, that is a matter for him: we are going forward into the modern era.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a vital difference between gesture politics and genuine change? Are we not in danger of mistaking the two? Perhaps it would be simpler to stop applying the word "stranger" to members of the general public—who are now corralled in unacceptable conditions in this place—and apply it to Members of Parliament who increasingly find the Chamber a place of great strangeness.
    Mr. Hain: In the sense that too many Members find it strange being in the Chamber because they spend too much time in their offices, I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. However, I am sure that she will agree that the reforms recommended by the Modernisation Committee will be a huge advance in reconnecting Westminster with the voters.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What steps he will take in response to the report by the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on "Connecting Parliament with the Public". [180769]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I intend to discuss with you, Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues on the House of Commons Commission, and with other parliamentary colleagues, how best to approach the Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I urge my right hon. Friend to give enthusiastic backing to the implementation of the recommendations in the report in their entirety as soon as possible. He must know that the combined forces of bureaucratic inertia, backwoodsmen, backwoodswomen, and old and young fogeys could delay the changes for years and years. I suggest that he give Members an early chance to debate and vote on the proposals, so that they can be implemented before the next general election. Taking issues one at a time as he suggested in an earlier answer could result in the 35 recommendations in the report taking several decades to implement.
    Mr. Hain: I am with my hon. Friend on the need to move as quickly as I can, but many of the decisions are for other bodies in the House, including the House of Commons Commission and other Committees. However, his essential point was that we should no longer give the impression that we are a private club for Members of Parliament. The House of Commons should be open and inclusive, and connect as much as possible. The Committee has made a series of recommendations, including having staff on hand to welcome visitors and encourage them to take the opportunities available to them in Parliament, a new visitors' centre, sending a new voter guide to every 18year-old, modernising our websites and using the education unit for outreach work, as the National Assembly for Wales has done far more effectively than we have so far. The report has far-reaching implications for connecting Parliament with the electorate in a modern way.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: On our electors witnessing what we are doing here on their behalf, I endorse what the Leader of the House has just said. Given that the number of occasions that they may do so may decrease—for example, it may not be possible in future for them to observe the Prime Minister appearing before the Liaison Committee—will the Leader of the House pay particular attention to those elements of the package from the Modernisation Committee that improve access online? That can be introduced relatively quickly and cheaply and is already probably much more useful to hundreds of thousands of our electors than attempting to come here, which is more difficult.
    154
    I also ask the Leader of the House to consider improving the press facilities in the House, which are also covered in the report. If and when there is a visitor centre, can we please get rid of the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is enough for the Leader of the House to reply to.
    Mr. Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on his point that millions of people who may never have the chance physically to visit the Chamber could do so through the internet, through online consultation and a much better website. One of the criticisms made by the Modernisation Committee was of the existing parliamentary website. The Committee suggested that it needed upgrading in various respects. That would enable many more people to make a virtual tour of Parliament, which I know the hon. Gentleman strongly supports, thereby gaining a much greater understanding of our parliamentary democracy.
    On press facilities if the hon. Gentleman is referring to a more co-ordinated media operation for Select Committees, Standing Committees and the other work of the House that goes unreported, we recommend that.

    Broadcasting
    Mr. Graham Allen: What discussions he has had with the BBC regarding its coverage of online pre-legislative scrutiny by the House. [180770]
    The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with the BBC on that subject. However, I have had informal discussions with the BBC about widening access to parliamentary proceedings.
    Mr. Allen: I would like to welcome the fact that the Government have put to online legislative scrutiny almost every appropriate Bill that has come before the House, but unfortunately I cannot do so at present as it would be a little premature. I hope that my hon. Friend will enter serious discussions with the BBC, because its website obviously has an even greater attraction than our parliamentary website and would for the first time open up real law-making to the general public as well as to Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Woolas: I commend my hon. Friend's persistence in pursuing that point. I believe that he realises that we are sympathetic to his point of view; online consultation is opening the scrutiny of law to a much wider public. The website www.tellparliament.net, which is managed for us by the Hansard Society, is becoming widely known. That is not contradictory, and would not exclude the BBC from taking such opportunities further, but I caution that such matters are also for Committees of the House as well as for my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: As the BBC receives public money and has a public service obligation, should not it provide active links from its news and current affairs output, and from BBC Online, to our online parliamentary forums? What do the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House plan to do to ensure that we make the most of online forums, given their success when they have been used?
    Mr. Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I agree that the opportunities that such
    156
    technology opens for us to allow the public much greater access to scrutiny are to be welcomed. That is why we have made developments. As he knows, Select Committees and Standing Committees are available live on the webcast and the BBC follows those events. He will know through the PARBUL—Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd. —Committee that those things have been discussed, and I look forward to a situation in the none-too-distant future where such facilities will be widely available. However, I emphasise that the matter is not just for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but for the House as well.

Points of Order
12.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
This is a gentle and 90 per cent. genuine point of order. In the very courteous and helpful answer from the Advocate-General to Question 17, she said, in relation to the Lockerbie trial and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, that it was up to my ingenuity to find a way of raising the issue in the House and that on the whole it was a question for the Scottish Parliament. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is rather more than that. It is not a question of my ingenuity or lack of it, but of the rules of the House and the delicate grey area in such matters of the relationship between the House and the Scottish Parliament. May I ask you to ask the Clerks to think carefully about the issues raised, in the event of some very interesting and perhaps important conclusions from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the Minister was really saying that the Father of the House always shows great ingenuity anyway. The best course of action is for the Father of the House to go to the Table Office and perhaps discuss this matter. He is quite right to suggest that, usually, his points of order are 90 per cent. genuine—it is the 10 per cent. that always worries me.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be open to the Father of the House or any other right hon. or hon. Member to pursue this point by requesting an Adjournment debate to be answered by the Advocate-General? Would that be in order?
Mr. Speaker: It is in order to try, and then I can come to a reasoned decision.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Advocate-General's questions, the Advocate-General admitted that it is almost impossible for her to answer any question that is put to her because of parliamentary convention. Would it therefore be possible for perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, but certainly the Government to consider what the purpose of that short Question Time is and how necessary it is?
Mr. Speaker: The question rota is matter for negotiation between the usual channels.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. How could I raise Lockerbie?
Mr. Speaker: If I needed advice on how to raise Lockerbie, I would go to the Father of the House.

Antisocial Behaviour
12.36 pm
Mr. Wayne David: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about antisocial behaviour.
Antisocial behaviour is, unfortunately, the single biggest concern of my constituents. Over the past 12 months, I have received numerous reports of unacceptable behaviour in different parts of my constituency. I shall give a few examples. In Ystrad Mynach, there have been complaints about young people drinking in the town centre and about rowdy and abusive behaviour. Recently, it was even reported that an elderly person's front window was smashed and that numerous gardens have been vandalised and garden sheds demolished in the area.
In Senghennydd, a group of young men have been intimidating local shopkeepers and residents, and elderly people find it almost impossible to leave their homes on occasion. Recently, a lorry was even set on fire in the middle of the village. In Caerphilly, parts of the Lansbury Park estate are virtually no-go areas for the local residents. Unfortunately, there has been at least one very serious example of racial abuse. I am pleased that antisocial behaviour orders are at least being introduced, but nevertheless there is ongoing cause for concern in that area.
In Nelson, residents of the Macs Mabon estate have been abused by youngsters from outside the area. Fires have been lit in the streets. Cars have been burned out. Mud and eggs have been thrown at houses. Youngsters have even ridden bicycles on the roofs of senior citizens' bungalows. In the village itself, drunken youths have occasionally blocked the main road. All those are examples of unacceptable behaviour. Of course, what I have cited is not peculiar to my constituency alone. Hon. Members tell me that similar problems are witnessed throughout the length and breadth of this country.
It is wrong to exaggerate the scale of the problem. We are always talking about a small minority of people, particularly young people. It is true that young people simply congregating on street corners can be seen as a problem, and sometimes the perception is that more trouble takes place than actually does. We have also seen good examples of communities pulling together to tackle those problems. Indeed, there is clear evidence that the Government's policies are working and that police action is succeeding.
One of the most successful measures that we have seen over recent years is the introduction of police community support officers, who are uniformed civilians employed by the police. They have been introduced gradually over the past couple of years. By the end of January 2004, we had some 3,219 CSOs in 38 police authorities, and that figure has now increased to 3,300. The number of CSOs engaged throughout the country varies. In West Yorkshire, for example, there are 206 CSOs. There are five each in Dyfed-Powys and Staffordshire. Then are some 50 CSOs operating in my area of Gwent, and it is expected that some 4,000 CSOs will be in place by the end of this year.
We were told about the role of community support officers in the Government White Paper "Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform". It was said that

159
they would empower local communities and individuals so that the police would be able to carry out their functions effectively. We were told that CSOs would provide
"a visible presence in the community with powers sufficient to deal with anti-social behaviour and minor disorder."
From my experience, there can be no doubt that CSOs have a good visible presence. Mr. Neville Davies is a CSO in Caerphilly, and he frequently pops into my constituency office for a chat about how things are going in the area. I recently spoke to a senior citizens' group in the centre of Caerphilly and was reassured to note that all its members knew Neville Davies, saw him frequently and were aware of the good work that he was doing. He relates well to young people, too, and has been instrumental in furthering several antisocial behaviour orders.
Similar feedback has come front other parts of the United Kingdom. Only today, a press release issued by the chief constable of Essex police said:
"The evidence so far suggests we have an effective team of appropriately-trained, well motivated, fully-integrated police community support officers who have made a valuable contribution to the provision of policing within the county … They have been warmly welcomed, not only by the communities they serve, but by police officers and police staff colleagues."
That is all extremely encouraging, but the work of CSOs in Essex and elsewhere could be even more effective if they had more powers.
The powers of community support officers are set out in the Police Reform Act 2002 and subsequent legislation, and we could extend their powers in certain areas. For example, I believe that CSOs should have the power to confiscate alcohol not only when cans are open, but when they are closed. They should be able to confiscate not only from young people, but from misbehaving adults. Fixed penalty notices have been introduced successfully in several pilot areas, so CSOs in all parts of the country should be able to perform the essential function of issuing them.
It is important to consider carefully whether CSOs should have the power of detention. In six trial areas, including Gwent, CSOs have the authority to detain individuals for up to 30 minutes, until such time as a
160
police officer arrives on the scene or an individual agrees to be accompanied to the police station. That important pilot initiative should be extended to all police authorities. I also suggest that CSOs should have the power of arrest in specific clearly defined circumstances relating to antisocial behaviour. If the Government go down that road, as I hope they will, it is clear that CSOs will require more training. They receive only three weeks' training at the moment, so that period would have to be extended significantly. CSOs require far more resources if they are to do their jobs effectively, especially if their powers are to be increased.
At present, there is no financial commitment for CSOs beyond 2006. I think that there should be. It would be wrong if, in 2006, police forces across the country had to choose whether police resources should be allocated to the continued employment of CSOs. There should be sufficient resources for police and for CSOs in all parts of the country, which is the first proposal in my Bill. The second proposal is that CSOs' powers should be extended, particularly regarding the confiscation of alcohol, which is the cause of much antisocial behaviour. Thirdly, the Bill provides for CSOs to be given the power of arrest in clearly defined circumstances, initially in pilot areas.
Antisocial behaviour is a scourge of today's society, and there is no easy to solution to the problem. We need an array of complementary policies, but CSOs should play a permanent part in our policing, and will be more effective if they are given reasonable powers, enabling them to make an even bigger contribution to the ending of antisocial behaviour.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wayne David, Mark Tami, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Tony Lloyd, David Wright, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Ian Lucas, Diana Organ, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence and Chris Ruane.

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Mr. Wayne Davidaccordingly presented a Bill to make provision about antisocial behaviour: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 128].

London Schools
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stephen Twigg.]
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I am delighted to have the opportunity to open a debate on London schools and set out the work of the London challenge. London's future will depend to a large part on the success of its education system. Our task is to make London the world's leading learning and creative capital city, striving for excellence for all, and using all the world-class resources in the city to achieve that objective. There is a clear moral imperative to ensure equality of opportunity for all London students; to provide a chance for each one to reach their potential; and to extend their horizons through education. In a London context, we must demonstrate that the longstanding link between social and economic deprivation and poor educational performance can be broken once and for all.
When the Prime Minister launched the London challenge strategy a year ago, he talked about an education system in London that is
"not merely good, but world class."
We are starting from a strong base in London, underpinned by the enthusiasm and commitment of everyone involved in our schools. The London challenge works on two broad levels. First, it seeks to take up issues that are common to schools across the capital that affect staff, pupils and parents throughout greater London. Secondly, it seeks to recognise that individual schools in particular localities face challenging circumstances, so need extra support, encouragement and challenge.
London is unique because it faces the challenges that face other metropolitan areas as well as those that face other parts of the high-cost south-east of England. Two hundred of the 1,000 most deprived wards in the country are here in London, concentrated in the east of the city, but with pockets of significant deprivation across the capital. In inner London, free school meal eligibility is 43 per cent., compared with 17 per cent. nation wide in England. In London, great extremes of wealth and deprivation exist side by side. London's population is polarised: disproportionately many with incomes in the top 20 per cent. of national incomes, disproportionately many with incomes in the bottom 20 per cent., and relatively few in the middle, where most of our key workers would typically be.
That places great pressure on all our key public services, including education, in the form of problems recruiting and retaining essential workers. Annual teacher turnover in London is around 15 per cent., compared with an England average of 11 per cent. Just when many teachers are looking to move into middle leadership positions such as heads of year and heads of department in schools, the cost of family homes so often drives them out of London or out of teaching.
London replicates many of the divides of other parts of the country in terms of social background, ethnicity and gender, but the greater diversity of the capital city
162
makes that especially crucial in London. Thirty-eight per cent. of the school population in London has English as an additional language, compared with 8 per cent. in England as a whole. London has not one, but 33 local education authorities, some of them very small, with high pupil mobility across LEA boundaries.
It is this unique combination of challenges that made the case for focusing attention and resources here in London, which is why the London challenge was launched a year ago. In many respects, London's schools are as good as or better than schools in the rest of the country. In recent years London's schools have improved one and a half times faster than the national average at GCSE, with just over 50 per cent. of students achieving five or more A* to C grades in London secondary schools. If we compare London schools with schools in the rest of the country in the free school meal band, London schools do better than schools in other parts of the country in every single free school meal band.
In an international context, educational achievement in this country is high, but not in every section of the community. The groups that are left behind are typically those from some of the most deprived backgrounds, especially black Caribbean and white working-class boys. As London is home to such a diverse population, the task is pressing for London schools. The data show unequivocally the great task that we face.
On average, as I said, about half of London pupils get five A* to C grades at GCSE, but for those on free school meals, that figure falls to 30 per cent., and for those from a black Caribbean background it falls to one in three. These effects are cumulative. For a pupil who is poor, black and a boy, the chance of getting five A* to C grades at GCSE is 15 per cent. For a pupil who is wealthy, Chinese and a girl, it is more than 80 per cent. The diversity of London is critical if we are to meet the challenge set out in the strategy.
In recent years we have seen significant improvements in attendance at London schools. The average attendance figures far London schools are now better than the average attendance figures for schools elsewhere in the country, but we know that behaviour remains a massive factor for London schools in the context of the local community, impacting directly on the school. We know the effect that that has on the reputation of the school and its ability to recruit and retain good quality staff, and the impact on children and young people. That is why 20 London authorities are part of the behaviour improvement programme, covering 380 schools across our capital city.
School leadership in London is better now than the national average. According to Ofsted, the percentage of inner London secondary schools rated good or excellent for leadership and management is 84 per cent., compared with 79 per cent. nationally, yet we also know that we have a shortage of middle leaders, and the age profile of heads means that we will lose a significant number of head teachers. We need to replenish the pool from which we draw head teachers.
A striking feature of London is the perceptions of parents and the wider public. Perception of education in London lags behind the reality. We conducted a survey of parents. Parents in London are more satisfied with their child's school than the national average

163
figure: 51 per cent. of parents of secondary-age pupils in London are very satisfied with their own child's school, compared with 39 per cent. nationally.
Mr. Eric Forth: I am very interested in this part of the Minister's remarks, as that finding runs counter to the general perception. Does he have any figures for the percentage of pupils in London who are sent by their parents to independent sector schools, as opposed to state schools? Anecdotally, one is always led to believe that parents in London are so much more dissatisfied with the state sector that they tend disproportionately to send their children to the independent sector.
Mr. Twigg: I do have figures. The figures are collected according to the location of the school, rather than the location of the family home—that is a note of caution—but the indications are that the anecdotal evidence that the right hon. Gentleman mentions is correct. The percentage of pupils attending private schools in London is higher than the national average. It may be as much as twice the national average figure.
Ms Karen Buck: May I advise my hon. Friend that in the boroughs of Westminster and Kensington, where my constituency is situated, around 50 per cent. of all children are educated in the independent sector? As both of those authorities are Conservative-controlled, it would be unwise to read too much into that figure in terms of satisfaction with the Government's management of the education system.
Mr. Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I will come on to some of the broader figures, but the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raises a legitimate point. [Interruption.] I am asked what the figures are. The national figure is about 7 per cent. The London figure is 13 or 14 per cent. I reiterate my word of caution: that is based on where the school is, rather than where the home is. If the figure were based on the location of the home, it might be a little lower. Part of the challenge that we face is to restore confidence in the system as a whole.
I cited the figure for parents' satisfaction with their own child's school. If we move on and ask people's views of schools in their borough, in the local area, the picture is quite different. Nationally, 71 per sent. are satisfied. In London the figure is much lower 53 per cent. That suggests that parents think their own school, generally speaking, is good, but that the schools in their borough are not so good and that schools in London as a whole are often a lot worse. That is a significant part of the challenge that we face.
Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that school funding should reflect the difficulty of teaching those particular pupils? In a borough such as Croydon, about a third of the pupils are educated outside the borough, some in private schools and some in grammar schools in Bromley and Sutton, and a third of the pupils come in from Lambeth, Southwark and so on. The profile of funding reflects the
164
profile of the pupils being taught in the borough, rather than the profile of those who live there, which should be reflected in the funding formula.
Mr. Twigg: I tread with caution into the area of funding, particularly in a borough such as my hon. Friend's, which has had a number of difficulties over the past 12 to 18 months. We have sought to ensure that the funding system treats identical pupils in different parts of the country identically. Per pupil funding generally in London is, rightly, considerably higher than in other parts of the country.
We now have in London more full-time teachers than we have had for about 20 years. There has been a rise in full-time teacher numbers of almost 5,000 since 1997, and a rise in the number of support staff from 19,000 to 32,000 over the same period. The number of teacher vacancies has fallen, but it is still significantly higher than the national figure.
The average per pupil funding in London has increased by more than £1,000 in real terms since 1997, and capital funding has increased considerably, from £80 million in 1997 to about £500 million in the last financial year. Real progress has been made—progress that matters to London's young people and the chances that they will have. The progress is accelerating, but we need to build on it.
Simon Hughes: I do not want to be unfairly critical, but will the Minister confirm that the number of qualified teachers in primary schools has recently decreased, and that the student-teacher ratio has worsened in the past few years? Although the general movement may be in the right direction, two worrying elements remain, namely the pupil-teacher ratio and the smaller number of qualified teachers in our primary schools.
Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues. The latest figures show an overall national increase in the number of teachers in schools, but the number of teachers in primary schools has fallen. The main explanation is a significant fall in rolls—the number of children in primary schools has fallen. The picture on ratios is mixed: the average class size for key stage 1 in infant schools has decreased, but the average class size for key stage 2 is more stable. If we take into account other adults who work in our schools, however, the adult staff to pupil ratio is better than ever. The picture is mixed, and I do not underestimate the challenge in recruiting and retaining the best quality staff.
Some schools in London have achieved great success, and I shall mention one in particular. The Sir John Cass Foundation and Redcoat Church of England school in Stepney specialises in languages, and it serves a deprived community, where the majority of children—56 per cent.—are eligible for free school meals, and where three quarters of the children, 78 per cent., speak English as an additional language. Seven years ago, 8 per cent. of children at that school achieved five GCSEs at grades between A* and C; the latest figure is almost 80 per cent, which is a remarkable testament to what can be done with able leadership and effective teaching and learning in a school that serves a deprived community. That is one example, and I could cite a number of others, although there is no cause for complacency.

165
The London challenge is about recognising that the issues are serious. We have identified two areas of London—the north London boroughs of Hackney, Haringey and Islington, and the south London boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark—where parental dissatisfaction is especially high when pupils transfer from primary schools to secondary schools, and we are working with schools and local authorities to transform the schools in those areas. We have published joint plans with schools and local authorities on investment, new schools, academies, improved sixth-form provision, the use of specialist schools and other diversity programmes and the creation of a more collegiate approach to improving schools.
Good signs are already emerging from those boroughs. Last year, for example, Hackney's GCSE results were up by 8.1 per cent., which was among the best performances in the country, and the other boroughs have also experienced significant improvements that have exceeded the national averages.
Mr. Forth: I do not want to interrupt the Minister's self-congratulatory flow too much, but will he give us his thoughts on the so-called Greenwich judgment? In boroughs such as Bromley, which is rightly proud of the excellence of its schools, parents complain bitterly about the influx of pupils from neighbouring boroughs, who, as the parents see it, displace Bromley children from our excellent schools. What is the Government's view on the Greenwich judgment?
Mr. Twigg: I do not want to be self-congratulatory or to take any great credit for the remarkable achievements of schools, pupils and teachers in the authorities about which I am talking. The Greenwich judgment occurred just before the right hon. Gentleman became an Education Minister, and he did not take the opportunity to overturn it. It creates winners and losers, and, like the right hon. Gentleman, I represent an outer-London constituency, where I meet both parents whose children lose out because of the Greenwich judgment and parents whose children benefit from it.
It makes a lot of sense to encourage effective and successful neighbourhood schools that parents want to opt for, and borough boundaries in London are often irrelevant to that process. The policy that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) launched today would allow schools to change their catchment areas, which means that pupils who live near a school would lose their advantage over pupils who live much further away.
The Greenwich judgment makes a lot of sense, because it enables young people to go to their nearest school. It recognises that the existence of 33 LEAs in London means that a child's local school will not necessarily be in the same borough as that in which they are resident, and it plays a positive part in our strategy to improve London's schools.
I shall proceed with the self-congratulation, or rather the congratulation of the achievements in London, although I recognise that we still have a long way to go. We have identified the schools that face the biggest challenges, which we have described as the "keys to
166
success". The measure of success London-wide will be whether the most challenged schools with the poorest results can achieve performance levels exceeding those achieved by themselves in the past or by schools in similar circumstances. The early indications suggest that many of those schools are making progress, and we are working closely with them to ensure that that progress is built upon.
Some pan-London issues apply to north, south, east and west London and to inner and outer London, and ensuring that London's schools employ the best teachers is one such issue. The high cost of housing in London is one of the biggest challenges, and being able to afford a home is a crucial issue in keeping teachers in London, which is why we have launched a major new housing offer for teachers. The offer is based on the knowledge that many teachers, who have the potential to be future leaders in London's schools, leave London as they enter leadership positions because they cannot afford family homes. We are offering 1,000 of those teachers the chance to take an interest-free loan of up to £100,000 to allow them to afford a family home.
The second part of our package helps teachers who come to London early in their careers, but who leave after a short time because of the high cost of housing. Such teachers will be eligible for interest-free loans of up to £50,000, and they will not repay such loans until and unless they leave London or leave teaching in London. The programme has just begun—the early take-up is high—and will last for at least two years. It will play a critical role in recruiting and retaining the highest quality teachers in London.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I applaud the Minister on the initiatives that he describes, especially given the soaring cost of housing in our capital city. Will he comment on an equally important matter, namely the relationship between London weighting and the high cost of living in London? The approach to inner-London and outer-London weighting must be more sophisticated, because inner-London weighting is resulting in a shortage of applications in some outer-London boroughs.
Mr. Twigg: My constituency borders the hon. Gentleman's constituency, so I am familiar with the issue, which has been raised with me by schools in both his constituency and mine. We must continue to address pay and allowances for teachers and other staff, because although outer-London weighting has improved in recent years, the improvement in inner-London weighting has been more significant. The School Teachers Review Body says that it wants to keep the matter under review, and that it wants to address the concern in some outer-London boroughs that staff are being lost to nearby boroughs that pay inner-London weighting. I imagine that that issue will arise again in the debate, and, if I have the opportunity to do so, I may say more in my closing remarks.
Mr. Andrew Love: My hon. Friend knows the impact that the four rigid pay bands have on schools in my constituency and, indeed, in his constituency. He mentioned the School Teachers Review Body, which has made some recommendations that are currently being consulted on. Those

167
recommendations would introduce greater flexibility in allowing schools to respond to teacher shortages. What is the Government view on those recommendations, and will they take them up when the School Teachers Review Body reports in September?
Mr. Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which it would be most sensible for me to take up in my closing remarks. At this stage, I want to emphasise that it is important to ensure stability of funding in our schools. That has been a priority for the Department over the past year following the difficulties of 12 months ago. For the medium and longer term, we need to consider how schools can be in a position to recruit and retain the best possible teachers and other staff.
I am conscious of the time and will draw my remarks towards a close. In doing so, I want to refer to some of the programmes that are making a real difference in London. I particularly commend Teach First, which is not a DFES programme, although we partly funded it. That is a business-led programme that recruits some of the best graduates from universities across the country. It has cross-party support and support from all the head teacher associations and teacher unions. It seeks out graduates who would not normally go into teaching. They commit themselves to at least two years teaching in London, usually in the most challenging schools, and acquire qualified teacher status at the end of year one. Last September, the first cohort of Teach First graduates—179 of them—started in London schools, and the aim is to recruit 230 for September this year, prioritising challenging schools. That is the kind of exciting and innovative programme that I am pleased to support for the schools of London and that I believe to be very much in the spirit of the London challenge.
Finally, I want to focus on the need to ensure that we have a range of secondary schools in London that meet the real needs of the children and young people of our capital city. London now has 196 specialist schools—nearly half of its secondary schools—with a further 50 applying in the current round, the outcome of which is due to be announced later this week.
Joan Ruddock: Does my hon. Friend recognise the huge success of Deptford Green school in my constituency? When I first became an MP, parents begged me to get their child out of Deptford Green school; today, they beg me to get their child into it. That is a measure of its success. The school has done groundbreaking work on citizenship, and we very much hope for a favourable decision on its specialist school application, which will be largely centred on citizenship.
Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not in a position to anticipate announcements scheduled for later in the week. As she knows, however, I have visited Deptford Green school, which is hugely impressive and has done groundbreaking work on citizenship. It was very much the influence of that school and one or two others that led to our creation of the new specialism of humanities including citizenship. I have every confidence that Deptford Green is a school that will continue to go from strength to strength.
168
Another school that has done very well, partly as a consequence of specialism, is Elizabeth Garrett Anderson school in Islington. Just five years ago, 23 per cent. of its students achieved five A* to C grades at GCSE; last summer, that figure topped 50 per cent. That is a school in the heart of north London. The majority of its students are eligible for free school meals, and they are from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds; two thirds have English as an additional language.
The academies programme is critical to our chances of success in London. We are working with sponsors and local education authorities to broker academy projects across London. Six academies are already open, a further four will open in September, and we aim to have 30 by 2008. The academies have huge value in three respects: first, they break the link between deprivation and underachievement for students and families in the most challenging schools; secondly, they raise standards for the whole area by working with local schools and local government to share resources, facilities and professional development opportunities for teachers; and thirdly, they use the levers of innovation and diversity to bring new ways of working driven by the partnership of professional teachers and sponsors for the benefit of the whole school population.
We have begun to look across London to establish the demand for new schools and places. Our projections suggest that some 20 additional secondary schools will be needed over the next four years. We will achieve that through a mixture of traditional routes, academies, and the "Building Schools for the Future" programme. More widely, "Building Schools for the Future" will lead to the rebuilding or refurbishment of the country's entire secondary school estate over the next 10 to 15 years, and I expect many of the most challenging and deprived parts of London to be involved in the early part of that programme.
The improvements that we need to make cannot simply be left to the schools themselves. London has all sorts of other resources that we can tap into, including cultural, sporting, and business and employer resources. Last year, we launched the business challenge to offer every secondary school the opportunity to forge a high-quality partnership with leading London businesses. More than 100 businesses are currently involved in working with and getting behind the efforts of schools in the capital city. For many areas, notably Tower Hamlets, forging those links has already made a difference, and I am confident that it has the potential to make much more of a difference in the future.
There is a genuine sense of optimism. I recognise that there is an enormous amount to do if we are to recruit and retain the highest quality teachers. I also recognise that some schools that are key to success need to improve, and that we must work with them to ensure that they do. I do not underestimate the challenges that we face, but things are moving in the right direction. I am impressed by the broad support across London for the work of the London challenge. I am grateful to Tim Brighouse, who acts as our chief adviser, and to the London challenge team in the Department for Education and Skills. I invite the House's support for this important work, because that will show that Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that every London child has the chance of a world-class education.
1.17 pm
Angela Watkinson: Having heard the Minister's comments, I am surprised at how much consensus there will be in most, if not all, areas. I suspect, however, that we may have sourced our statistics differently.
In terms of local environment and socio-economic profile, there are widely differing circumstances in the 2,300 maintained schools that serve 1 million pupils in the 33 London boroughs, which range from leafy suburbs in outer London to densely populated inner London. London has the highest levels of child poverty in the country, and its schools have an unequalled ethnic diversity, with 275 languages spoken. The map of London is like a patchwork quilt of affluence and poverty, which are never far away from one another. Not surprisingly, the schools in those areas produce widely differing results, and widely differing challenges face London schools to ensure that each one is the best that it can possibly be. Those challenges do not respond well to centrally imposed policies.
It is important to start by acknowledging the many highly successful schools in London. We should then look closely at why they are so successful and why others are failing their pupils. We need to examine best practice and the factors that lead to success in a school, and to use that information to raise the standard of failing or less successful schools to the same high standard. Levelling must always be up, not down. There is no merit in equality of achievement and opportunity if it is based on the lowest common denominator. The sky should be the limit for the educational aspirations of our school children. The different aptitudes, needs and interests of each individual child should be developed so that they are able to reach their full potential.
The picture across London schools is very patchy. Only one of the nine local authorities in London to be rated as excellent on education by the Audit Commission is Labour controlled, as is one of the lowest rated for comprehensive performance assessment. After seven years of "education, education, education", the performance of some of the capital's schools represents one of the Government's greatest failures. Some have the lowest results in the country.
One in three of London's 14-year-olds cannot read, write or count properly. That is a shocking statistic. Only half the pupils in London's schools pass five or more GCSEs by the age of 16. That means that the other half does not. What of their future career prospects? They must either go on to a further education college if they have the motivation and parental support to catch up on what they did not achieve at school or try to find a job that requires no entry qualifications.
To get secondary education right, we must start at the beginning and get early-years education right. Early-years education plays an essential foundation role in developing children's interpersonal skills in preparation for primary school. Those skills bring long-term benefits to pre-school children that are far greater than any early formal learning. If children arrive in their reception class reasonably self-confident, co-operative, already knowing how to communicate, play, give and take, share and simply get on with other children, their teachers have an ideal base on which to start their
170
formal education. So often, teachers have to teach those essential basic life skills as well as the standard curriculum.
Inner London in particular has many children for whom English is a second language. Children in the same class often have a range of different first languages. My statistic for that was 42 per cent. and the Minister's was 38 per cent., so can we agree that 40 per cent. of children in inner London speak English as a second language compared with a national average of only 8 per cent.? Teaching those children a good command of English as early as possible to enable them to live and learn successfully alongside their peers is essential if they are to realise their full potential.
Seventy per cent. of all African-Caribbean pupils in the country attend London schools. They are concentrated in the boroughs of Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Southwark and Islington. They enter compulsory schooling as one of the highest achieving groups but, by the age of 11, their achievement begins to drop and when they leave at 16, they form the group least likely to have attained five high grade GCSEs. The "Aiming High" pilot project is working on the problem in 18 schools in London. Smaller projects, such as that in Winchmore school in Enfield, ease the transition from primary to secondary school. Developing interpersonal skills is an important part of those schemes. School life would be so much easier for those pupils, as well as their peers and teachers, if they acquired such essential life skills in their early years.
Recent examination results show that African, African-Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi students perform noticeably less well than Chinese and Indian students. That suggests that more individually tailored solutions might work better to raise achievement levels among black students, who also have the highest exclusion and truancy rates. Various other mentoring schemes have been introduced to tackle disaffection, substance abuse, social exclusion, truancy and discipline and, essentially, to involve parents so that one set of standards applies at home and at school.
Mentoring is usually for a defined period and there appears to be a dearth of evaluation of the effectiveness of the schemes in the short and long term and of the accountability of the mentors. However, the Dalston youth project in the London borough of Hackney and the Islington-based "Chance" were found to have achieved some success. Early anecdotal evidence suggests that other projects have had a measure of success in broadening horizons, raising achievement and self-esteem. However, there is a danger that it will be difficult to collate the results of so many concurrent schemes.
It is essential that the 10 new schools—seven of them city academies—that are being built in the five boroughs with the worst secondary schools have the freedom of management to succeed. In Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Lambeth Ind Southwark, new purpose-built schools alone will not lead to the improvements in standards that everyone wants for the pupils in those boroughs.
Choosing a school is an emotive task for parents. It is important to them that they get a place at the school of their choice because their child's future is at stake. Apart from the acknowledged reputation of the school, one of

171
the biggest influences on that choice is the appearance and behaviour of the pupils outside school. Pupils are a school's best or worst advert as they wait for buses or use local shops when they travel to and from school. Responsible parents will not want to send their children to a school whose pupils look scruffy and are noisy and badly behaved in public. Enforceable home-to-school contracts will be beneficial in that regard.
The Government intend to introduce a joint admissions register in 2005 for 41 local education authorities in London and the surrounding areas. They say that that will "simplify and reduce confusion" in the allocation of secondary school places. Well, it might, but for whose benefit? The priority for a schools' admission system should be ensuring that as many parents as possible can send their children to the school of their choice, not making it simple to administer. Far from reducing parents' anxiety, the proposal has increased it.
Are all parents to be punished because some held multiple offers in the past? Parents will be able to express six prioritised choices, but what about those who are offered a place at school No. 6—the school that everyone is trying desperately to avoid; the one with the undisciplined children who could be a bad influence on theirs? The new system might be easy and convenient to administer, but will it leave parents with one take-it-or-leave-it offer from a command-and-control, nanny-knows-best state? That is the opposite of parental choice. I predict that many parents will not approve of the place that they are allocated and that admissions appeal panels will burn the midnight oil to resolve the muddle.
Simon Hughes: We all appreciate that the hon. Lady is considering a hugely important and controversial issue. However, does she accept that it must be fairer to have one system that everybody uses—such as that for university admissions—rather than different systems, whereby those who know more and are quicker off the mark can do better for their children?
Angela Watkinson: I do not believe that we shall ever have a system that is scrupulously fair to everybody. Life is simply not like that. The old system would have worked well had not some parents held multiple offers. We know that some parents held three and even four offers of secondary school places and that that made it difficult for other parents who were waiting for a place to be allocated. However, I should like more rather than less parental choice, and not merely one place being offered to everybody. On the rule of averages, that place will not be in the school that most parents have requested.
Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Lady accept that the problem with the old system was that many people held many choices for a long time so that many others had no choice? The point of the co-ordinated approach is that those with many choices must take one so that the other places become available to other people. It will therefore lead to more, not fewer choices.
Angela Watkinson: The new system will mean that parents will be offered only one school and it may not be the one that they want. Parents will be happy if they get
172
their first or even second choice, but if they get a school that is lower down the list of their six nominated schools, they will be unhappy.
Mr. Love: The Greenwich judgment has stood the test of time under Conservative Governments and this Government. What is the hon. Lady's attitude to it?
Angela Watkinson: I should like schools to take complete control of their admissions so that they decide whom to admit. Popular schools will naturally be oversubscribed and they have to find some method of deciding which children to admit. Selection should be undertaken by the schools, not centrally by providing that parents have to nominate six schools and simply take pot luck. Most people want to send their children to local schools if they are good. They apply elsewhere only when they deem their local school to be unsatisfactory.
One good example of best practice is the Robert Clack school in Barking and Dagenham. This secondary school had a fairly undistinguished past but, with a committed and inspiring head teacher, has raised its standards to the extent that it has just received eight one ratings in its recent Ofsted report. When the inspectors asked the teachers what the school's failing group was, they were surprised to hear that there was not one. So positive is the attitude in that school that it simply would not be acceptable to allow any group to fail. Had there been such a group, however, its problems would have been tackled and the pupils involved would have been helped to improve. Improvements such as these do not come without a huge amount of sustained effort on the part of the head teacher to establish an ethos of high expectations, achievement, good manners and discipline, to which everyone in the school subscribes and which has the backing of the parents. That is the recipe for such success.
Recently, a group of children from the Clore Tikva primary school in Ilford came to visit the House of Commons, and I went down to meet them at what should have been the end of their tour. The tour guide told me that it was the longest tour that he had ever done, and they were only just beginning. The children were asking so many questions that they had not even reached the Chamber. This was another example of a successful school. The children were interested, inquisitive, assertive, polite and well-behaved. The reasons do not require much analysis. That, too, was a school with a dynamic head teacher, high expectations, involved parents and a shared ethos—that same recipe for success.
Pivotal to the success of all schools is the leadership of an especially talented head teacher who can inspire teaching staff, governors, pupils and parents alike to be proud of their school and to aim high. To succeed, however, head teachers must also be given the freedom to set standards of discipline and behaviour in legally enforceable contracts. They must have the right to exclude disruptive pupils who compromise the education of other pupils and breach the bounds of tolerable working conditions for teachers, and their authority should not be undermined by well-meaning appeals panels who overrule their exclusion decisions and force schools to readmit.

173
I am sure that many hon. Members have sat on exclusion appeals panels, and will understand that exclusion is used as an absolute last resort after all other available disciplinary measures have been tried, often on many occasions, and failed. Head teachers need to be freed from the stultifying, centralised top-down control of Whitehall, and from the plethora of inspections, performance targets, testing, and standardised teaching that currently sap energy and morale. They should also be free to allocate their budgets to suit the particular circumstances of their school as distinct from other London schools.
Last year's funding crisis was caused by the extra costs of inflation, the teachers' pay award, national insurance and pension contributions, and the additional administrative duties taken over by classroom assistants. Many London schools faced deficits of up to £250,000 and, of the 3,400 posts lost in English comprehensives, many were in London. Many London schools also spend more on staff than the assumed rate of 60 per cent. on teachers' salaries and 19 per cent. on support staff. Westminster schools' spending, for example, averages 84 to 85 per cent. of their budgets, with eight primaries spending more than 90 per cent.; one, Soho Parish school, spent 110 per cent. last year.
The difficulties of recruitment in the capital have had to be met by offering enhanced salaries, which has had a serious impact on schools budgets. The extended schools scheme—whereby schools open earlier in the morning and provide breakfast and, at the end of the day, homework facilities, among many other things—can be provided only at a higher staffing cost. In some areas of London, there are pockets of falling rolls. Future funding for the pupil-related part of the budgets in those schools will suffer from the decline in the local population, and they will find it increasingly difficult to maintain staffing levels and all these additional services, however popular and successful they may be. Indeed, breakfast at school is growing in popularity, and pupils from homes where breakfast is freely available now prefer to have it at school with their friends. It is becoming a social gathering.
Teacher vacancies across London have soared from 751 in 1997 to 1,020 in 2003, with some authorities, such as Bexley, experiencing a tenfold increase. The outer-London LEAs are feeling the effects of recruitment and retention problems badly. Head teachers from Havering have had to travel the world in search of teachers after repeated unsuccessful advertising, and this is also the case in other outer-London LEAs. Newly qualified teachers often accept posts in an outer-London school, only to find that they are unable to find affordable accommodation. Just a few miles down the road, however, the inner-London allowance is payable and accommodation is cheaper, and those teachers often have to change their plans and accept a job there instead. This is inner London's gain, of course.
There are other pressures on newly qualified teachers' working conditions if standards of discipline and behaviour in a school have broken down. It takes a very resilient NQT to withstand constant challenges to their authority, refusals to conform, or even assaults by disaffected pupils, and many of them change careers and are lost to the teaching profession. Add to this the
174
incessant record keeping and form filling that has escalated beyond all reasonable bounds in the last seven years, and the future does not bode well for teachers. They must be allowed to concentrate on teaching their pupils, rather than writing about them, in safe and acceptable conditions. Even allowances for additional responsibility have little appeal if they lift a teacher's salary into the 40 per cent. tax bracket. After deductions, even the one-off reward of £1,000 for gaining chartered London teacher status will not make a very big impression on the net amount on a teacher's salary slip.
For schools to be able to enforce their disciplinary rules, all London LEAs need to have enough pupil referral units, located separately, to which excluded and disruptive pupils may be transferred and in which they can be taught, full-time, to behave in an acceptable way and to learn, with the aim of returning to mainstream schooling. The inner-London LEAs in which the problems are most pronounced need extensive PRU provision and exceptionally talented teachers to bring about the necessary changes to the behaviour of these pupils. But removing them to a different setting will enable those schools to raise the achievement levels of the rest of their pupils, who will benefit and thereby improve the reputation of the schools themselves and help to reverse their decline.
Truancy in London is above the national average for both the primary and secondary sectors, and it is highest in inner London at 1.11 per cent. and 1.73 per cent. respectively. That might sound insignificant until it is measured against the total of 1 million children being educated in London Quite apart from the missed education of each individual child involved, the dangers to children wandering about unsupervised in London are boundless, as is the temptation of falling into the company of drug users and criminals. Chronic truants are obvious candidates to be helped back to regular school attendance through a PRU, and schools must have an enforceable home-to-school contract with parents, to enable them to deal effectively with truanting children.
Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Lady accept that it is this Government who have required all excluded pupils to have a full five days education a week through a pupil referral unit? Under the previous Conservative Administration, such pupils were taught for only one day a week, and spent the other four days wandering around stealing people's mobile phones, getting into all sorts of trouble and missing out on their education, which would lead to a life of criminality.
Angela Watkinson: I wholeheartedly support full-time education for excluded pupils; they almost need it more than the others.
Like most hon. Members, I spend much of my time visiting the schools in my constituency. That is one of the most enjoyable parts of being an MP, and I am hugely encouraged about the future when I make those visits. The head teachers in my schools are providing dynamic, effective leadership that inspires and motivates teachers, governors and pupils alike. They are entitled to take much of the credit, but even in those advantageous circumstances, a school cannot achieve its aims without the essential ingredient of parental support and involvement.

175
The presence of parents in a school, helping in a variety of ways in addition to the parent-teacher association, and their involvement at home, ensuring that homework is completed on time and simply taking an interest in what has happened during the school day, give children a sense of security that enables them to make the very best of the opportunities that their school is offering. Of course, we all know that some children do not have such benefits, and parents whose personal experience of school was not positive are the least likely to be able to help their own children or to seek contact with their children's school. In schools with a large percentage of pupils who do not enjoy that support and encouragement, enabling those children to fulfil their potential is an additional challenge in terms of pastoral care.
I want to pay tribute to the splendid special schools in London, where pastoral care is especially important. I have three excellent special schools in my constituency, one of which I visited last night, to meet a group of parents of autistic children. The word "inclusion" strikes fear into the hearts of such parents, who rarely, if ever, enjoy an uninterrupted night's sleep, and for whom everyday activities such as having visitors to their home or going shopping are impossible. For such parents, and many others, special schools are an essential lifeline, and inclusion would be impossible. The inclusion of children with special needs in mainstream school needs to be very selective, and is only for those who can cope and for whom it would be a positive experience. Separate provision for many special needs children will always be necessary, and total inclusion would be damaging to them and to the interests of pupils and staff in the receiving mainstream school. I seek the Minister's assurance as to the secure future of London's special schools.
The test of a successful school has less to do with league tables and more to do with the difference between what goes in at one end and what comes out the other. The measure of real success is how much progress those individual children have made during their time in the school and under what circumstances. Nationally, of the 29 LEAs scoring 100 points or more with value added results, 22 were London boroughs, 12 of them in inner London. The head teachers of those schools have best practice to share with weaker schools. They know what works and what does not through practical experience. They must be given control over policies, budget, staffing and how their schools are run.
We have seen a plethora of initiatives in recent times, including the London leadership strategy, London business challenge, "Aiming High", the London Development Agency's education commission, "Presentation", Race on the Agenda—ROTA—excellence in cities, the youth inclusion programme, the national mentoring network, peer mentoring, "Chance", "Talented and Gifted", and the active community unit. But despite all this spending and frenetic activity, teacher vacancies have soared, one in three of London's 14-year-olds and one in four of London's 11-year-olds are still unable to read, write and count properly, and the extra costs facing schools this year put many budgets into crisis.
The Government have spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on initiatives. They need to stop their centralising, command and control style because it has
176
only limited success. The freedom needs to be passed to individual schools, where the professional expertise is based. It is the role of Government to create the most favourable conditions possible in which London schools may flourish, and then to take a step backwards, allow the professionals to get on with the job that they are qualified to do, and provide parents with a range of good schools from which to choose for their children. That way lies real progress.
1.43 pm
Martin Linton: I want to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Minister and Tim Brighouse for the fantastic resources that they have put into London schools. I listened with amazement to the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) talking about her visits to schools in her constituency. When she is there, I bet that she claims some of the credit for the improvements in London schools, but when she comes here, she tells us what a dismal picture it is. I cannot believe that she gets that message from her local teachers.
I would like to pay a similar compliment to Wandsworth, my local authority, for trying hard to improve schools in its area. I am afraid, however, that the report on Wandsworth would have to say, "Could do better." It has done little more than pass on to schools in Wandsworth the money that the Government have given them. On many occasions, it has failed even to do that, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well from talking to Wandsworth. It failed to passport the full income to its schools this year, leaving them £460,000 short. It failed last year, leaving them £1.7 million short of the money that the Government were putting into Wandsworth education, which was not being matched by Wandsworth council. Actually, it held back some of that money for no other reason than to keep the council tax low. Of course, if we consider formula spending share, last year it was £7 million below that. The council has the lowest spending per secondary pupil in inner London.
I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State, in January next year, to use their powers under the Education Act 2002 to force Wandsworth council to spend the money that the Government are investing in Wandsworth education, and to pass on to the schoolchildren of Wandsworth the benefits of a Labour Government, rather than holding them back for its own reasons.
Although Wandsworth does not do as well as it should in terms of secondary education, there is no disputing the fact that the success of secondary schools in Wandsworth has increased impressively over the last few years, by some 12 or 13 per cent. The bulk of the credit must go to the staff, who prepare the pupils, and the pupils who sit the exams. They will be the first to say, as they say to me, that none of that could have happened without the resources that the Government have invested in education. Just in the borough of Wandsworth, the number of teachers is up by 120, and the number of classroom assistants is up by nearly 200, which is an increase of about 59 per cent. That has made such a difference to the effectiveness of schools.
Only last week, I held a small reception out on the Terrace for a dozen members of the staff of Salesian college, a Catholic boys school in my constituency,

177
which has in the short space of five years nearly trebled the proportion of pupils gaining 5 good GCSEs from 18 per cent. to 51 per cent. I would be the first to say that 5 GCSEs is a very crude measure of a school's achievements and does not take account of half the things that a school does for its pupils. But I am sure that that statistic tells the truth about this school and thousands like it that struggled under the previous Government to maintain standards but have blossomed and been able to increase standards dramatically under a Labour Government.
There is only one other secondary school in my constituency. It has also more than trebled its GCSE score over the last five years, but from a much lower base. It started only five years ago at 4 per cent., one of the lowest in the country, and is now up to 14 per cent. That is in no way a lesser achievement, and may be an even greater one—it has burnt out one head teacher, and a superhuman effort has been required from the present head and his staff to get this far. Another superhuman effort will be required to achieve the target of 25 per cent. of pupils with five A to C grades this summer. The school is confident that it can achieve that, and I shall be the first to congratulate it if it can.
But what worries me, and what I want to draw to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention, is the range between different schools in the same borough. That school—let us call it school A, as I do not want the schools themselves to be the issue—has achieved 14 per cent. Another school in the same borough—school B—has achieved 84 per cent. While school A has improved—it has trebled its proportion—school B has improved even more. That is not because school A is in a low-income area and school B is in a high-income area. School A is next to an estate on one side, but on the other side, it is little more than 100 yd from Prince of Wales drive, which is one of the smartest addresses in south London, while school B is in a part of Tooting that, with all due respect to people who live in Tooting, is nowhere near as smart. It is not a question purely of income or area.
What worries me is that we have what educational researchers have identified as the star-school sink-school syndrome: one school on an upward cycle, and the other school painstakingly achieving progress, like pushing a boulder up a hill, but knowing that it is always precarious and unstable, and could so easily roll back down and get stuck in a downward cycle from which there is no escape. Of course, selection plays a role in that. School B was selecting 50 per cent. of its pupils only a couple of years ago. The adjudicator reduced that to 30 per cent., and then to 25 per cent. I want to return to the role of selection.
I think we should consider at a more fundamental level the way in which choice of school works in the inner city. We almost need to consult a philosopher on some of the basic questions, but even without one to hand—my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) is not here—I think we can say that choice is only real when it is a matter of personal preference. A choice between an arts-based and a sports-based school is a real choice, as is a choice between a technical and a musical school; but a choice between a good school and a bad school is no choice at all. By
178
definition, people will choose a good school over a bad one: the definition of a school that people consider good is a school that they would choose for their own children.
Most parents in my area use the league tables as a crude good schools guide. Asking parents whether they want a school with an 84 per cent. or a 14 per cent. success rate is not really asking them a question. That is not the definition of a good school that I would use; I would say that good schools are those that achieve the best results in the light of the pupils that they have, not those that achieve good results by recruiting high-achieving pupils. We should look at the value-added tables rather than the crude league tables.
That, however, does not alter the basic point about educational choice and geography. In a small country town with only one secondary school there is no choice, but the very absence of choice guarantees that the school will have a good ability mix. In a larger town with two, three or four secondary schools there will be a choice, and if one school specialises in art and another in science there will be a real choice.
In London we have some areas where the policy of diversity seems to work, but in other areas diversity has rapidly turned into hierarchy. Despite all the progress it has made, school A is still the last choice for parents in the borough, even—indeed, especially—those who live nearby. Because it is under-subscribed, it is forced to take a higher proportion of hard-to-teach pupils from across the area, which reinforces parents' reluctance to choose it. The adjudicator's recent findings emphasise that over time the current admission rules have created a hierarchy of school and school A is perceived to be at the bottom of that hierarchy.
That has created a situation with which I am sure we are all familiar. Better-off parents can buy their way out of the dilemma through selective schools, aptitude, religion or train fares. In one way or another, they have a wider choice. Lower-income people are forced into the wrong school, which ends up reinforcing the problems of that school.
The challenge from London schools is for the Government to establish a system that encourages the fair distribution among secondary schools of the pool of children available each year, so that no London school need take more than its fair share of disadvantaged pupils, and so that every school in London benefits from a critical mass of high-achieving pupils whose high aspirations will set standards and, in the process, raise the aspirations of the whole school. Only then will parents be able to choose between different styles of school according to their specialism or ethos—all those schools being of equal worth in the eyes of both parents and teachers.
This year in Wandsworth we piloted the new admission system, which will operate throughout London next year. However, while it may be efficient, the new system will not tackle the issue of fair distribution. Secondary school places will still be allocated on the basis of the various existing admission criteria, which are often divisive and tend to be applied in terms of competition between schools for the brightest pupils rather than collaboration to share out those who are harder to teach.

179
We have seen the new co-ordinated admission system in action. The divisive admission policies promoted by Wandsworth over the years have continued to contribute to the polarisation of secondary schools in the borough. At one end are schools that no one wants to go to; at the other end are schools that parents fight to get their children into. At the beginning of April, 194 parents of year 6 children in my constituency were told that Wandsworth could not offer them any of the schools that they had requested, having been asked to offer at least four and up to six. Obviously offers will be made over the coming months, but Wandsworth's initial response was zero. Meanwhile, 670 places in Wandsworth had already been offered to out-of-borough applicants.
If we are serious about raising standards in London secondary schools, which I know we are, we need a system that financially rewards secondary schools with more inclusive admission policies. I believe that the technical term is "weighted capitation". Such a system would send all schools the clear message that adopting admission policies geared towards maximising the social mix is not just socially desirable, but financially beneficial to them.
Geraint Davies: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that much greater weight should be given to requiring schools to take at least a proportion of pupils from their immediate vicinity, and that in the case of voluntary aided and foundation schools with a wider catchment mobility should be limited? Is he saying that there should be more local choice?
Martin Linton: I am not really saying that more weight should be given to how far people live from a school. We have a problem with that in Battersea, which I will explain shortly. I am, however, suggesting that we should consider banding systems to ensure that schools take a certain number of pupils from each ability range and do not end up with a preponderance of more able pupils, which by definition would create schools elsewhere in the system with a preponderance of less able pupils.
I want to say something about the powers of the adjudicator, which are critical to the Government's attempts to allow parents to reduce the level of selection. We have had two or three adjudicator reports on secondary education in Wandsworth, supported by many north Battersea parents who feel that their choices have been artificially restricted by selective schools in other parts of the borough. That has led the adjudicator to force schools to reduce their proportion of selected children on three occasions.
Last year three schools were forced to reduce the proportion. One appealed through Wandsworth council, which took the Government to court and won. The adjudicator approached the position cautiously and conservatively, reducing the proportion incrementally from 50 per cent. to 30 per cent. and then from 30 per cent. to 25 per cent., but, extraordinarily, the few powers possessed by the adjudicator have effectively been overturned by the court. I think the Minister and his colleagues should look seriously at the Education Act 2002 to establish whether it call be strengthened to ensure that the few weapons we have enabling us to create a fairer education system in London are
180
preserved. Otherwise there is the possibility of an appeal from parents to the adjudicator for an increase in the amount of selection in Wandsworth, as well as the possibility of the court's overruling the adjudicator in favour of a more selective approach. After all, that has happened twice already.
My hon. Friend mentioned the distance between people's homes and schools. The situation in north Battersea is anomalous: we have only two secondary schools, one of which is for Catholic boys. The other, which I have described, is still at a low level compared with some, despite its heroic efforts. The adjudicator found in his last report that
"parents and children living in the Battersea area have a much lower likelihood of gaining a place for their child at schools with the highest levels of pupil attainment".
In other words, people who live in north Battersea are in the worst possible position to get their children into high-achieving schools. I would certainly recommend them to consider the schools that are there, because they will often educate their children far better than is realised, but I understand the feeling of many parents that they are in a black hole because there are no high-achieving secondary schools in their area.
Those are the people who lose out on distance grounds. A map in my office shows the radius from which the different secondary schools in Wandsworth will take pupils, and very few of those concentric circles, all based in Putney and Tooting, reach as far as anywhere in my constituency. On distance grounds, people living in north Battersea have no chance of qualifying for any secondary schools in the area except for the one or two that are so undersubscribed that they have no alternative but to accept any child who applies.
That means that parents have very little choice. We have to understand the special way in which school selection operates in a city such as London. Every child probably has 15 or 20 schools to choose from within an easy travel area. Many of those schools will rule them out on distance grounds, but there is still that possibility. The statistics suggest that on average, middle-class children in London travel 3 miles to school whereas children from lower-income families travel 1 mile. What prevents school choice from being a reality for many people in my constituency is not only that they do not have any high-achieving secondary schools near them but that they could not afford to pay the fares if they applied for a school in another borough or a long way away. My constituents are caught in a double bind, and it is very difficult for them to have the options that we want all children to have at their disposal: a choice of schools, a diversity of schools, well-resourced schools and high-achieving schools. I look forward to hearing the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister.
2.2 pm
Simon Hughes: This is a welcome and timely debate for London Members. I pay tribute to the way in which the Minister and the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made their contributions, and I shall seek to follow in their positive, constructive style and manner.
I declare my interest: beyond being a local Member of Parliament, I chair the governing body of St. James's primary school, a Church of England primary school,

181
and I am a trustee of Bacon's city technology college. Just so no one picks me up on this, I opposed the setting up of Bacon's city technology college, but I now think that I was wrong. However, I was not wrong about the fact that it should have an appeals system against refusal to admit a pupil. The Government still have not conceded that, and if I could have one small wish granted it would be that there should be an independent appeals system for all non-fee-paying secondary schools in London, including city technology colleges. That has been bouncing around on the Government's agenda for a while, and it is really disgraceful that it has not yet happened. I hope that it will happen soon for every London secondary school, whatever its name, title or status.
I join the Minister and others in paying tribute to all those who work in schools and for schools: the teaching staff and all the other staff making up the increasing numbers in the school family. We all agree that we have in London the biggest challenges of anywhere in the country, not just because of the diversity of our population and our language mix but because of the fantastic mobility of the teacher and pupil population. My constituency has about 25 per cent. mobility, so about one in four families move home every year. In looking at a school's success, that means that teachers there do much less well in adding value, because they have each year a huge churn of pupils with whom to work, than those in stable communities in rural England. When looking at relative performance, we have to be honest about the differential factors that apply, of which that is a crucial one. Informed people know about it, but it is easy to be ignorant of it.
I pay tribute to the Government, who since taking office in 1997 have clearly identified a need to examine and sort out London education. They have given great commitment to that, and I express my unqualified gratitude. The London challenge programme is very welcome, and local education authorities and local authorities of all political colours have sought to respond positively and constructively to it. I say that, too, without qualification. However, I will list, because it is my team duty to do so, those boroughs that are led by my colleagues, although they are doing the same as Conservative and Labour boroughs. They include two different types of borough. Kingston and Sutton have very different academic profiles and issues from Lambeth, Islington and my borough, Southwark, but all those boroughs are seeking to get much better education for all their pupils.
Some separate groups of people deserve to be applauded. The Minister rightly applauded the Teach First initiative. I have seen the initiative at work, and I second that. However, I shall list another four groups which make a huge difference in all our schools, certainly in my experience, and shall signal one example of good practice in each category. The first is the business community, which often comes into schools. At London Bridge in my constituency there is a large PricewaterhouseCoopers office, which has contributed phenomenally to the education system by bringing in business people to assist in mentoring and other ways. It has made an excellent contribution. The second group is the cultural community. An English National Opera
182
production is being put on today at the Coliseum, involving lots of London schools who have been working on it for months. ENO has done brilliant work in schools all over London for many months, raising the sights and aspirations of people who would never even have thought about opera, let alone considered going to or taking part in one. They have realised that that can give them great added value.
The third group is those at the other end of the cultural spectrum. Millwall football club has been brilliant at going into schools in the community, with community programmes in and after school. Other football and sports clubs have also done that. Fourthly, there are faith groups. A Christian group which received the Queen's Jubilee Award in the voluntary sector, XLP, based in Peckham, goes to schools in lunch hours and undertakes assemblies and out-of-school activity. It has done brilliant things in getting youngsters to take part in all kinds of music and arts, and helping them to do so with a pride and quality that they might not otherwise have had. There are all sorts of people who make up the community of energy in our schools, to whom we must pay tribute.
We are obviously discussing at all types of school, including nursery, primary and secondary schools, sixth forms and pupil referral units, but, following the hon. Member for Upminster, I want to mention special schools as well. Throughout my career, I have always said that there is a good place for special schools and a good case for them to remain. A brilliant school in my constituency, Spa school, deals with children and young people with autism, and is excellent—a high-quality, caring school. A school for children with severe learning and other disabilities, including physical needs, Cherry Garden school, does work of huge quality in all sorts of ways. I would defend to the last ditch the right for special schools to exist and the right for parents to choose them, rather than have every special school pupil integrated where that is inappropriate.
We need to assess how we are doing, and I want to reinforce the plea that we should not just look crudely at league tables. They are an unfair, inappropriate way of making assessments. It is value added that counts: assessing children as they arrive and as they leave. Only that can be the measure of a school's success, and even that must be qualified by the variations in the school community when people move in and out of the school.
What has been happening? The Government have been going down the road of having different types of school, and I do not dissent from that. We are in the middle of a period of debate about choice. More different types of school, with more names and characteristics, are going to be proposed by different parties. In itself, that is not a bad thing. A city technology college that does its job well and enhances technology learning is a good thing, and the Minister knows that I supported the city academy idea before many of his colleagues in Southwark. I visited Ministers and people in Downing street about that, and the City of London academy, which happens to have been built in my road, although not by my choice, is a hugely welcome initiative. It started on a temporary site in Peckham and is moving to Bermondsey later this year. That is a brilliant development, involving nearly 700 new places, of which all but a few go to Southwark children, with a few going to the City of London.

183
Other schools have changed their status, including Warwick Park, which has become a city academy. I pay tribute to Lord Harris of Peckham, a Conservative peer who has put money into schools in his borough and into schools elsewhere in London. In doing so, he has begun to transform them into schools which people want to go to, rather than the opposite.
On recognising value, there are more such schools in the pipeline. Notre Dame Roman Catholic girls school near the Elephant and Castle has twinned with Sacred Heart school in Camberwell. Notre Dame and Sacred heart have language status, which is really important, because its community consists of people from all over the world. There is a huge Latin American community, for example. Archbishop Michael Ramsey school draws people from all over Southwark, and Aylwin Girls school is seeking new status. I should also mention St. Michael's Roman Catholic school in Bermondsey. Such developments give schools status and recognition, which is welcome.
I want to pick up on a hugely important point made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton). Every year, I go through the trauma and grief of having many families come to see me about their choice of London secondary schools. Such choice is often a tragic delusion. To say to London parents, "You have a choice" is just not true. At this time of year, there are thousands of families in this capital city who have made their choice of secondary school, but have not been given a place in any of the schools that they have chosen. Having more independent schools with a greater number of independent admissions policies does not produce a fair choice of schools for the pupils and families who are applying. It does not necessarily produce greater equality of opportunity for the people whom we seek to represent.
I am absolutely clear, therefore, that Londoners need a diverse variety of schools—so that they can choose one that specialises in sport, languages, technology, arts, science or whatever—but they must also have a common admissions system. Nobody would seek to argue that there should not be a common university admissions system; indeed, it would be bizarre to argue that there should not be equality of process. London schools must also have such equality, but all must take part. It would be completely unacceptable—I say this as a member of the Church of England—for Church schools not to take a full part. Church of England schools, Roman Catholic schools and all other faith schools must take part; indeed, it would be selfish and immoral of them not to do so.
I sincerely hope that such schools do play a full part, because it would be quite wrong for them to seek a status that separates them from the rest. The city academies and the city technology colleges must also take part, and all secondary schools in London must be part of that process; otherwise, it will not be fair. and the intended outcome will not be achieved. Our university admissions process does not take the view that, because Selwyn college, Cambridge had an Anglican foundation, or because University college London had a secular foundation, they should not be part of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service. The reality is that one has to go through the system, and all London schools should do so as well.
184
Of course London needs to build new schools and to re-start failing schools, but success in this city will have arrived only when every parent and youngster is happy to go to every single school. We will know that we have arrived when every parent says of every school in Battersea, Bermondsey, Southwark, Upminster, Chipping Barnet or anywhere else, "It may not be exactly where I wanted, but I am very happy that my child goes there."
If we are going to have a common admissions system for all non-fee-paying schools, I hope that it will apply to all schools, process applications quickly and prevent people from holding on to more than one place, as currently happens. However, a second step is needed: to ensure greater reconciliation of admissions policies in each borough. As the hon. Member for Battersea rightly said, at the moment, if one conducts admissions by distance, the anomaly arises whereby places in certain boroughs do not get nearly as many opportunities as others, because they do not have as many schools near to them. In a borough such as mine, which has a lot of Church schools, one has a much better chance of getting into a secondary school if one is a Roman Catholic or an Anglican. Other boroughs have almost no Church schools.
Kate Hoey: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. Would he also argue that schools should not be able to select on the basis of sex?
Simon Hughes: No. There needs to be choice: we need boys schools, girls schools and mixed schools. As we know, the issue is that more parents of girls want their children to go to single-sex schools than do parents of boys. In Southwark, we have ended up with a shortage of boys schools, because the former Inner London education authority closed some of them. Now, we have suddenly realised that there is an imbalance. The issue is difficult. In my judgment, it is better to go to a mixed school because such schools are more like society in the real world; however, people should be able to choose.
Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that all Church schools should be part of a co-ordinated scheme, or that the current common admissions policy should apply, whereby they cannot use religious criteria to filter out certain people? Is it by definition fair if they simply join the co-ordinated scheme?
Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right, and there are two issues. First, all schools in London should be in the system. People should not be able to get into a secondary school unless they apply through the common admissions policy. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman and I well know, we are long way from having a common set of admissions criteria. My personal view—I say this a Christian, a member of the Church of England and the chairman of governors of a school—is that no faith school or non-community school should be allowed to have more than 25 per cent. of pupils from the faith or denomination in question. Otherwise, there is disproportion, and problems can arise if one sets up Buddhist schools, Muslim schools

185
and so on, because they can lead to racially divided schools. That is not my party's view, but it happens to be mine.
Angela Watkinson: I was dwelling on what the hon. Gentleman said about admissions to faith schools. Does he agree that one main reason for the success of denominational schools is that everybody—pupils and parents—subscribes to their ethos? If a significant proportion did not, the whole nature of such schools would change.
Simon Hughes: I understand that argument, but I do not accept it. I visited a Muslim school in Brent the other day and I have visited many other such schools. In my view, many people buy into a school's ethos even if it is not their own personal ethos. Many people who do not go to church want their children to go to a Church school because they like the ethos, and because they want their children to be brought up in a school that is run according to Christian principles. It is a matter of judgment as to whether 50 per cent. of pupils need to be practising Christians. In my judgment, one can sustain the ethos of any school—be it a Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim school—provided that a quarter or more of pupils come from the background in question. That said, the issue is of course open to debate.
I am clearly against the Greenwich judgment, which is wrong. It is sad that the Tories and Labour did not repeal it— [Interruption.] If I might have the Minister's attention for a second, I encourage him to repeal that judgment and I shall tell him why. Of course, there are schools that are near boundaries, but one builds up communities by allowing people to go to a school that is in their borough. A school must be able to say, "You live in this borough, so we are going to give you priority." At the moment there is flight all over London, as we all know, which does nothing to enhance community.
Of course people must be expected to travel to school; indeed, in rural areas there is often only one school and people have to travel for miles. But the Greenwich judgment is bad for communities and for community building, and I ask the Government to look at it again seriously. To do so would be of equal benefit to the much more prosperous boroughs such as Richmond, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) is the Member of Parliament, and to boroughs such as Lambeth and Southwark. It is not going to be more disadvantageous to inner London.
Kate Hoey: I agree wholeheartedly with that. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the effect can be seen in the new academy in Lambeth, which was fought for and campaigned for so strongly by Lambeth parents, who were so short of secondary places, only for them to discover that nearly half the pupils would come from Wandsworth, making it no longer feel like a Lambeth school?
Simon Hughes: As so often, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and her neighbour agree across the borough divide.
186
During the year, people also arrive in London and seek school admission. We need the ability to tell a school that it must up its numbers to accept pupils who are without a school in the middle of the year. Only small numbers are involved, but taking a rigid view that no child can ever be admitted because the school is full is not right. In fact, the school may be full in notional number terms but net physically full and I hope that attitudes can be changed in that respect.
On pupil and staff numbers, recruitment and retention, I want to reinforce the point that I made earlier: we must look seriously into the falling number of qualified primary school teachers. I have the Government figures from parliamentary answers and it is clear that the pupil-teacher ratios are worsening in primary schools. Yes, school assistants and others are available, but at the end of the day we need enough teachers to do the job. How do we recruit more of them, and what are the priorities?
There is a real need to recruit more men to teach, particularly in primary schools. There is a real need in London to recruit primary school teachers from the minority ethnic communities and from the black community so that we have an ethnic mix with appropriate role models. There is also clearly a need to do something about senior management. The Government are alert to the view that some school principals, heads and senior staff are brilliant, but some, bluntly, are not. My view is that there should be a five-year contract, which would allow us to get rid of senior staff after five years if they were not up to scratch. We have to be ruthless about that. Unless there is a good person leading the school, the school will not do well. I hope that we will look further into that problem. Finally, we need to provide more housing in London. The Government have made a good start, but we are not nearly there yet.
I now have time only for a shopping list in respect of what further needs to be done. Please will the Government pick up on the point that one of the Minister's predecessors acknowledged was important some years ago—starting mentoring in the last year of primary school so that it follows through into the secondary school when, for all sorts of reasons, initiative may drop off?
Secondly, let us go on encouraging play and sport, recreation and swimming. The old political correctness of the 1980s—that competitive sport is no good—has left a sad legacy. Schools desperately need things for energetic young people to do. To be honest, the more swimming and other sports that schools can offer, the better.
Thirdly, the Minister is right—and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has been brilliant on the issue—that unless we improve the performance of black teenagers and white working-class teenagers, London is in big trouble. In that context, we have to bring down the number of exclusions, particularly of black teenagers, because otherwise we will create an enormous social problem. I disagree fundamentally with what appears to be the new Tory policy. There should always be the possibility of appeal against a decision to exclude. Occasionally, schools can get into a mindset against a particular pupil without very good reason. In those circumstances, there must be an independent appeals system.

187
We must remember that, at 14, a non-academic pupil may want to go out and do some work. Sitting at the back of a boring class is not much use for such pupils and the more chance they have of gaining work experience from 14, the better.
New buildings are great and we should support the Government in replacing the poor buildings, but we need the buildings and facilities to be open throughout the week, not just in school hours. We also need genuine community facilities.
Finally, my colleagues in Southwark would never forgive me if I failed to mention the need for more money. We are waiting for the comprehensive spending review and I gather that the building schools for the future programme has not sorted out the funding gap between the resources provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and those provided by the Department for Education and Skills. My colleagues are awaiting the reconciliation that will allow the schools to be built.
I finish with the point that the best investment is not in the buildings, but in the people—the heads, the staff, the teachers and then the pupils. We can make do with a relatively ropey building if the right people are in it. We are moving in the right direction. I salute the Government, but I hope that they get admissions and appeals right and that we get the Greenwich judgment repealed. We will then be moving even further in the right direction than we are now.
2.24 pm
Roger Casale: I welcome the Minister's remarks and his invitation to rise to the London challenge. Some people visiting my Wimbledon constituency today may believe that the only person facing a serious challenge is a certain tennis player called Tim Henman. However, not just Tim Henman, but every single child in our schools is important.
I hope that the people entering my constituency this week will take the opportunity to look around it. If they did, they would see a great deal of energy, adrenalin and excitement being expended in a range of activities in our primary schools. They would see the Priory Church of England school, which recently was awarded a gold arts mark for promoting arts activities for young children. A silver award was won by Merton Park school. They would see, as I have seen, citizenship classes taking place in primary schools to further citizenship education for young children. That is happening in Wimbledon Park school, Wimbledon Chase school, Dundonald primary school and many others. They would see AFC Wimbledon, the football club owned and managed by the fans, helping to promote sporting activities in schools such as Poplar first school, Joseph Hood primary and Hillcross primary.
Many activities are taking place that are enriching the curriculum and promoting a more rounded education. They are all taking place in an environment in which school buildings have been rebuilt, the infrastructure has been refurbished, class sizes reduced and much more care and attention have been given to the needs and aspirations of individual pupils. All that is a direct result of seven years of Labour Government providing the necessary investment and reforms—and long may that continue. I hope that all those who come to Wimbledon
188
this week to see the tennis will see the improvements that I am describing in my constituency's schools and will also understand that the Labour Government are responsible for them.
The London challenge, as I understand it, is an invitation to take all that on to the next stage. Many hon. Members have been able to point to success and achievement in their constituencies and we celebrate the contribution of parents, children, teachers, governors and the local education authorities. The challenge now is to ensure that that achievement, that success and those new opportunities are available to all children from every community in London.
We need to tackle the barriers that are holding back certain parts of our community, not least the ethnic minorities. We know that Asian children, of which there are many in my constituency's schools, are performing well and above average, not least thanks to the great value that the Asian community itself places on education, parental assistance and back-up at school. Sadly, though, we know that in other areas, not least in respect of the Afro-Caribbean community, those rates of achievement have not yet been attained.
One of the most exciting aspects of the London challenge is that we learn to look at London as a whole. There has been a tendency to think of my borough of Merton, for example, as being a relatively affluent outer London suburb. Of course some parts of my constituency are affluent. Those looking down on St. Mary's church on people eating strawberries and cream at Wimbledon tennis and seeing the green around the area could not fail to think that it is affluent. However, one needs only to visit different parts of the borough to see some of the most deprived wards in London. The formula by which money is distributed in London, and the way in which we look at educational challenges from a strategic point of view, does not always properly reflect the special needs of pockets of deprivation within certain areas of London in the best possible way. I hope that the London challenge will give a new strategic focus to the Merton challenge—the challenge that my borough of Merton faces as we work to take forward improvements in our schools. It is the key to ensuring the life chances of the next generation of people in our communities, but it is also a very important political challenge. That is because there is a relationship between the decisions that Government take about funding and the reform of public services, for instance, and the results that are achieved.
In my constituency, many people voted Labour for the first time in 1997. They told me then, and afterwards, that they did so because they wanted improvements in our primary and secondary schools, and in the whole range of educational services. There are independent private schools in my constituency, and people continue to send their children to them. In my experience, they do so not for some sort of snob value, but because they feel that that is the only way to get the best possible education for their children. Our aim in government in the longer term must be to make sure that the best education is provided in state schools. That is why we must invest and make sure that we do not settle for average or second best. We must keep going, with new challenges being set year after year and Government after Government. It does not matter too much to me what the challenges are called, but we must keep finding

189
a peg and a focus for the investment of more money. We must renew our determination to improve education standards, so that people want to send their children to state schools because they are the best.
We need to make a concerted effort, and there is no room for complacency, despite the many achievements that have been seen already. We can start by looking at the schools where there have been great successes and drawing lessons from them. I was pleased to be able to attend a special evening in honour of the outgoing head teacher of Wimbledon college, a voluntary-aided Catholic school for boys in my constituency. Father Michael Holman is retiring after 10 years of service, and the evening was truly inspirational. It showed how one man, through the care and attention that he devoted to each boy in the school, was able to achieve so much in such a short time. However, Father Holman openly acknowledged that those 10 years had included periods of both Conservative and Labour Governments. He knew that, under a Conservative Government, he did not have the resources that he needed to underpin the changes and improvements that he was making to the school. That has not been the case under a Labour Government.
The investment made by the Government has been important, but I also want to highlight the leadership shown by Father Holman as head teacher. During his incumbency, the number of students at the school has doubled, and there have been dramatic improvements in standards. Also, the facilities for all-round education—including for music, sport and the arts—have been expanded. We should acknowledge, of course, that there has been help from the Catholic Church, but that has been underpinned by the Government's commitment to education. That must continue.
Many other schools in my constituency have achieved dramatic improvements. Ricards Lodge girls school has achieved beacon status, Rutlish school is improving strongly and both it and Raynes Park high school are applying for specialist school status. In addition, the Ursuline convent high school had outstanding results in the most recent school year.
I want to pay tribute to all the head teachers of those schools, and to their governors and staff, for the results that have been achieved. Although those results have been underpinned by the substantial new investment that the Government have put in, they have been achieved at a time of great transition and change in Merton.
In contrast to other boroughs in the London area, in the past few years Merton has undergone a once-in-a-generation upheaval in the organisation of its school system. We used to have a three-tier system, made up of first, middle and high schools, but now we have primary and secondary schools, with the age of transfer at 11.
In 1998, the Merton local education authority finally decided to enter into the period of transition, and we are still feeling the effects. The final modifications and improvements to school buildings and infrastructure are still being made, and the new secondary school buildings will not be handed over until 6 August.
I shall devote my remaining remarks to the lessons that can be drawn from Merton's experience of providing new school buildings and taking forward the
190
transition by means of the private finance initiative process. There is much discussion about how best to lever-in new resources and invest in new school infrastructure, but Merton has hard-won experience of having done that the PFI way. I want to share some of that experience with the House, and I hope that the Minister will respond—either when he winds up the debate or at a later meeting—to some of the concerns that have arisen about how the PFI scheme was put together.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and I sent a letter to head teachers and chairs of governors of all the secondary schools in Merton, and their responses provided much information for us about the PFI process—how it came about, how it has worked in practice, and how it looks for the future. The Catholic schools were not part of the PFI project but they also responded, and their experience means that, in a sense, we have a useful controlled experiment. If similar infrastructure renewal schemes are proposed in other parts of the country, Merton's experience offers important lessons.
My letter received very detailed responses. I shall not go into them now but, if I may, I shall forward them to my hon. Friend the Minister for his comments. I stress that although I say that lessons can be drawn from the Merton experience, I do not mean that I—or anyone who responded to the survey—think that the PFI is either good or bad in itself, from a philosophical or ideological point of view. My aim was to determine how it has worked out in Merton in practice. We have discussed PFI-funded public projects in the past, and all hon. Members who have an open mind can see the potential benefits. However, what are the real benefits of the initiative for an organisational change on the scale that we have experienced in Merton?
The benefits have included the radical redevelopments that I have described. We have upgraded a school infrastructure that in some cases was 40 or 50 years out of date, and we have prepared it for the 21st century. The sums of money involved have been extraordinarily large, and have included amounts of public money that have risen throughout the life of the contract. However, one head teacher—Ian Newman of Raynes Park high school—told me this morning that he considers it hard to avoid the impression that it might have been possible to do better with the amount of money that was involved.
One particular concern is the total cost of servicing the capital expenditure on the PFI project. It is now taking up 11 per cent. of delegated budgets from schools, whereas before only 8 per cent. of budgets was spent on maintenance. A further 3 per cent. of the schools budget is paid by the LEA. All that money comes out of the overall pot available to the LEA to fund improvements and changes in our schools. Another concern that has been put to me is that when the various funding streams are consolidated, will the proportion of 11 per cent. remain the same or will it fall? If it remains the same, the actual amount schools pay from their budgets will increase. Those moneys are badly needed in schools, but they would go to finance the PFI contract.

191
The head teachers who have written to me also said that the administrative savings that they thought would accrue to their schools as a result of outsourcing the management of their facilities have not yet materialised. On the contrary, several frustrations have occurred in the building and design phase and with the running of the facilities. That has resulted in increased administration costs in terms of the time that teachers and head teachers have had to spend writing to the facilities management company—in this case, Atkins—to try to resolve the problems.
The point has also been made that the PFI partners lack a community vision. For example, small changes could have been made to a sports hall that would have allowed wider community use of the facility, but they were not allowed by the PFI partner. Ricards school, which had another new sporting facility built, was forced into having girl-only changing rooms, which again means that it will not be available for wider community use. While we appreciate the extra investment and improvements, we are concerned about how they are financed and the way in which contracts have been put together. Those factors need to be examined, so that if the exercise is repeated elsewhere, the same problems do not recur.
I have described the problems of the management of the PFI contract, and I am grateful to Ricards school, Rutlish school and all the schools, who responded to my inquiry. The problems were compounded by the age of transfer changes and perhaps one of the key lessons to be learned is not to attempt a huge PFI project—I do not know whether any others are planned in London to improve school infrastructure—at the same time as undertaking a large reorganisation project, as has happened in Merton. Despite those concerns, we are now on the other side of the changes. The buildings are in place and we are starting to see the desired improvements, including better results at key stage 3 last year. The borough is now working strongly with Kingston LEA within the context of the London challenge, and has hosted the key stage 2–3 transition collaborative working group for several London boroughs. I believe that we can overcome the difficulties and see further improvements in the future.
The latest census figures demonstrate that my constituency has one of the highest birth rates in the country. I declare an interest as I have two young daughters, so my wife and I are partially to blame. Alongside the increase in the number of children in the borough, we need an increase in the provision of primary school places. Several hon. Members have referred to similar problems, but it is especially acute in my constituency—and has been so for several years, as my hon. Friend the Minister is aware.
Such difficulties can be exacerbated by building developments. New houses are built to encourage families to move into the area, but corresponding provision—such as primary school places—is not made. We have had acute shortages of places in Pelham primary school for exactly that reason. Hollymount primary school has suffered similar problems as a neighbouring site was sold off by the council to fund school expansion in other parts of the borough. The numbers were wrong, and the council had to strip primary school classes out of a different area and continued to face pressure on places at Hollymount.
192
As we work to improve education provision and standards, and to encourage people back into the state school sector by giving them more confidence in it, we need to take a long-sighted view of where and how expansion can take place. In particular, we must have more joined-up thinking by local authorities and in London as a whole to ensure that services—especially school provision—expand in line with new housing developments. I am sure that other hon. Members can point to examples where that unfortunately has not been the case.
As my constituency rises to the challenge that my hon. Friend has set forth, I can point to several exciting and positive developments. We are just leaving a difficult period of transition that was made more difficult by the way in which it was funded, including the way in which the PFI was put together. However, it was the only option on offer at the time. We are pleased to have the new investment, but we had no choice about how it would be funded. The way in which it has worked out has created some unforeseen difficulties and it remains to be seen whether they can be ironed out. It has also created extra costs that exacerbate the perennial problems of outer-London boroughs, such as the funding of teachers' salaries. As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, we pay inner-London weighting to teachers in Merton, but no account is taken of that in the funding formula. All those cost issues will worsen with the passage of time.
My hon. Friend the Minister is familiar with many of those issues because we have corresponded and had several meetings about them. The problems are difficult to resolve, and many need London-wide solutions. We need a strategy for and a focus on London as a whole, not individual campaigns for each area. The schools in my constituency continue to face very real problems, including funding problems, some of which are getting worse.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look carefully at the experience of PFI in Merton and some of the lessons that can be learned from our experience. I hope that he will also look again at the overall London formula in the light of the representations that have been made to see what can be done to improve the situation not only in Merton but across London.
I finish on my first point: the exciting achievements and gains that we have already seen in our schools and rightly celebrate will not be sustained, or made for everybody in our community, unless we find new ways to tackle the problems that still exist and unless we convince everyone that we have the right focus to provide the best education for children throughout the capital, from Merton to north London and from east to west.
2.50 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale). I am told that London's population is rising again; it has certainly gone up by about 400,000 over the past 25 years and the hon. Gentleman is clearly playing his part in that happy event.
I should be interested to learn whether the school population is rising, too. I have not been able to find statistics on that so it would be helpful if the Minister

193
could tell us, as I understand that people are having fewer children, and at a later age. We used to think of the typical British family as a couple with 2.4 children, but the number is now nearer 1.6.
I come from a family of teachers, at least on my late mother's side. She was the head teacher of a state primary school, as was each of her two sisters and two brothers. It is with great pride that I tell the House that my daughter, too, has recently become a teacher and teaches in the state system in Puckeridge in Hertfordshire. It will thus come as no surprise to the House to hear that I believe that teaching is the most underpaid and undervalued of our professions and that that is a bad thing. I am also tempted to observe that my family has changed George Bernard Shaw's untrue, outdated and overworn adage; in my family, those who can, teach and those who cannot are sent into politics, although I must admit that I was for six years a teacher in a technical college.
We were almost assaulted by statistics from the two Front-Bench speakers, but one or two of those figures are worth repeating because, to put it neutrally, great challenges face the education system in London. The population is rising. There are 2,300 maintained schools, of which more than 400 are secondary schools, catering for 1 million pupils—a fair number.
I want to pick up on a point on which I have heard the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) wax eloquent—the extremes of wealth and poverty in our capital city. In some cases, a ward of immense wealth is cheek by jowl with a poverty-stricken area. Again, I shall rehearse one or two statistics to indicate the wealth of parts of London. Nearly a quarter—24 per cent.—of all households in London have a weekly income of more than £750, whereas the national average is 16 per cent. To take the obverse face of that coin, parts of London have the country's highest levels of child poverty and, as we have heard from both sides of the House, 43 per cent. of secondary school pupils in London are entitled to free meals, while the national average is well under 20 per cent.
Another important point is the unequalled ethnic diversity of our capital. I understand that 42 per cent. of children in inner London speak English as a second or additional language and I am told—although I cannot believe it—that 275 languages are spoken in London's schools. To be perfectly honest, I did not know that there were 275 languages in the whole world. Those points underline the immense challenges facing our capital city in the education of its children and the special need for extra consideration and extra financial resources.
One tends to get one's information and experience, and to draw one's conclusions, from one's own community and there is nothing wrong in that. We have teacher shortages and vacancies, although in fairness the situation has improved and the problem has lessened over the past year. However, the number of vacancies went up by 36 per cent. between 1997 and 2003, although I think the Minister will confirm that the problem has eased off. However, teacher turnover is well above the national average and in some schools it can be more than 50 per cent. a year, which brings particular problems.
194
Truancy remains a problem. The Minister said that there had been a slight improvement over the past year and I am glad to hear it but, on average, 50,000 London children are not going to school every day. Sadly, the Government have failed to meet the target for reducing truancy that they set a few years ago.
There are literacy problems. I am told that one in three of London's 14-year-olds is unable to read, write or count properly. That is an appalling statistic and it demands urgent action. Furthermore, one in four of London's 11-year-olds leaves primary school unable to read, write and count. However we look at those figures, even allowing for the ethnic diversity of London schoolchildren, they are appalling.
London has an extremely mobile population, which is reflected in the fact that the number of children changing from one school to another, whether in the primary or secondary sector, is double the national average. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), said that he was very much against the Greenwich judgment and made representations to the Government to overturn it.
My current view of the Greenwich judgment is equivocal. I certainly was against it and thought that action should be taken to legislate, because in my constituency it seemed that a high proportion of secondary schools were close to the borough boundary. As the Minister knows, Ashmole school is literally on the border; his constituency encloses two sides of the school's curtilage, while my constituency encloses the other two sides. More than half the pupils are from Enfield, with slightly less from Barnet. I can understand the argument that it is better for pupils to go to a school in their own community, which is peopled from their community, but sometimes London borough boundaries cut across communities. If the Greenwich judgment was got rid of and Barnetonians were given priority to attend schools such as Ashmole, which is essentially in Southgate, although its address is Barnet, there is a strong argument that the community would be split. So it is horses for courses, and I continue to remain ambivalent about the issue.
I am not here to score petty political points—education is a very serious issue, and we want to find out how far we can achieve consensus—and I very much welcome what the Government have called the London business challenge to ensure that every secondary school has a link with a leading London business. For far too long in my political career, I have felt that our country's education system has been totally divorced from what children do when they grow up and, I hope, go into employment. I do not think that the linkage started with the London business challenge, but I very much welcome the greater social intercourse—I think that that is the unhappy phrase to use—between schools, business and, indeed, the rest of the community in which they exist.
I feel very deeply, and I am somewhat critical about this, that my borough has had a very bad deal in education funding from the Government, if not this year, particularly last year, but the problems remain this year. I want to rehearse the crisis that we faced at the beginning of the 2003—04 financial year, and I honestly do not believe that the Government realised the bad

195
impact it would have on our schools in Barnet. Just to use the simplest statistics that I can, Barnet received from the Government an additional £8.1 million in revenue support grant for all services last year. That £8.1 million may be a meaningless figure, but it represents an increase of 3.5 per cent.—slightly above the then rate of inflation.
Although we received £8.1 million extra, we were required to pass an additional £14.5 million to the schools—equivalent to a 7.6 per cent. increase in funding. We did so because we value education very highly, but much of the huge, 24 per cent. increase in council tax was caused by the need to ensure that Barnet's schools received that extra £14.5 million. However, even that was not enough. The schools told me in no uncertain terms that they needed not a 7.6 per cent. increase, but at least an 8.1 per cent. increase to stand still. In other words, Barnet had to cover not just inflation and the above-inflation increase in teachers' pay, but find another £4.4 million for the increase in their contribution to teachers' pensions, and it had to find another £1 million on top of that in employer's national insurance contributions. All that happened when the previous year's specific grants were withdrawn and when the Government, rightly or wrongly, decided to change the schools revenue formula. So whatever happened in Barnet, some schools were less worse off, but other schools were even more worse off. Frankly, it was very difficult to find a solution to the problem.
When Barnet was criticised by Ministers, the local education authority called in independent experts who confirmed the state of play and that Barnet was in no way to be blamed. Of course, Ministers will also recall that the Audit Commission considered the problem and discovered that places such as Barnet—I do not know how many other London boroughs were affected—had a bad deal because of the policy to transfer funds from London and the south-east to the midlands and the north. So that was a very great problem indeed, and it resulted in the schools finding in April last year that they had a budget shortfall totalling £3.7 million, even though Barnet passed on the £14 5 million extra.
Twenty schools were forced to set deficit budgets, and the consequences were threefold. There had to be staff reductions. Although 34 redundancies are 34 too many, fortunately in one sense, 32 of them involved support staff, rather than teachers, but the tremors reverberated for many months. The schools had to resort to using so-called devolved capital, with the Secretary of State's permission. In other words, they spent less or nothing on capital development to pay for running and maintenance costs. Of course, there were reductions in school repairs and the training programme to prevent more redundancies. All that was very unfortunate. Things have improved slightly this year. The shortfall is only £1.9 million this year, but even so, 15 schools have set deficit budgets. The local education authority is working closely and carefully with those schools to discover whether those deficits can be got rid of over the next three years, but I shall return to that point shortly.
The Minister kindly let me intervene on his speech to mention this, but the staffing problem in Barnet relates to London weighting and it is exacerbated by the fact that it is not only too low, but not so high as it is inner London. I realise that that is an immensely difficult issue. In Potters Bar, which is just down the road from
196
the Minister's constituency and mine, people do not get any London allowance. Lines have to be drawn somewhere, but we need a much more sophisticated approach to that issue. I just repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said from the Conservative Front Bench: the tremendous increase in the costs of living and housing in London are playing havoc with ensuring that the vital public services have an adequate number of people. The only way to deal with that problem is to consider the whole weighting system.
The House will know that that average price of a house in the United Kingdom is now into six figures, but it is £250,000 in London and, indeed, it is £289,000 in the borough of Barnet and it is approaching £750,000 in Kensington and Chelsea. I welcome the housing initiatives, but they are only a start. The problem with London weighting must be tackled, as it is far too inadequate today, as compared with yesteryear. Of course this may be obvious, but pensioners in London receive just the same state pension as equivalent people in any other part of the United Kingdom, even though costs are much greater in London. I can only implore the Government to consider the growing problem of London weighting, especially in view of the fact that the number of applicants for teaching posts in Barnet has fallen.
I do not know whether other London Members have experienced a problem involving out-of-year children that has surfaced in Barnet and caused a great deal of anxiety. Some parents are told that if they want their children to attend a specific secondary school, the children must either go into the second year of secondary school, or miss a year of primary school. That is caused by the 1 September factor, because if children are born before 1 September, they may go to school at the age of five, but children who are born in the middle of September effectively miss a year. That is not the fault of parents, although I concede that some make a deliberate choice to keep little Johnny back from school for a year. However, it is wrong for local education authority policy to say that a child born after 1 September cannot start in his or her peer year and to insist that such a child must miss a year of primary or secondary school. The Government and local education authorities must work with schools to resolve the problem, and I know that the Minister received a delegation from the borough of Barnet last week.
I understand that the Government use broad indicators of deprivation and exam results to target capital funding, and there is nothing wrong with that, in theory. However, I would have thought that a major component behind decisions on capital funding levels and grants should be the state of the fabric of schools in a LEA. There is a desperate need to renovate or replace large parts of Barnet's primary school estate.
The Government have the right to boast that they have increased expenditure on education. Although that had increased during previous years, they have accelerated the rate of increase. However, when I look at the problems in Barnet, I sometimes think that the money is not reaching the coal face. The extra finance does not seem to be getting into the schools. The situation in the classroom is the all-important matter, and that will be the litmus test that my constituents and the people of the country will use when the Government

197
try to persuade them that they are increasing funding in education, as well as in the health service and in public transport.
There is a London-wide problem that Governments of whatever hue must address in the years to come. The Minister will know that each year the people of London collectively put into the Exchequer through taxes £20 billion—the figure is certainly £15 billion, but it is £20 billion by my calculations—more than they receive for London's public services. If we say that we have a fair tax system, the situation occurs because London is richer than many other regions throughout the country, if not the south-east. However, in the interests of the whole nation, London, as its capital city, needs a decent system of infrastructure, and decent hospitals and schools. The £20 billion gap is becoming unfair on London, and Londoners are beginning to mind the gap—if I may use that phrase—between what they contribute to the rest of the country and what they receive to make their public services and transport systems work properly. Given the tremendous contribution that London makes, it deserves better from the Government, which is surely emphasised by the great disparity between wealth and poverty in our capital city. I started my speech by talking about that point, and I thank the House for listening to me.
3.15 pm
Geraint Davies: It is a great pleasure to follow the 25-minute contribution made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). I appreciate that he took a little time because he is the only Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber for this enormously important debate, despite the fact that the Conservative party is launching its manifesto pledges on education today.
Our children's life chances are built on our educational investment and the standard of teaching delivery in our local schools. It is clear from the debate that we all know that London faces many specific challenges, such as the cost of housing, inadequate wages, the problems with London weighting that the hon. Gentleman outlined, the environment, multiculturalism, multilingualism and the problems of mobility mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). It is important for all those factors to be considered when calculating London's financial weighting, but despite the critical problems and the growth of costs and pressures, it is interesting to note that the formula spending share for London—the amount of funding for our schools in relative terms—has converged with that of the rest of the country over the past couple of years. Spending on London's schools is thus no longer obviously greater than that on schools outside the area, despite the fact that challenges remain.
I take this opportunity to congratulate warmly all people who are involved in our schools because, as the Minister suggested, evidence from the London challenge shows that despite the problems that I cited, more value has been added to our primary and secondary schools in London than to those in the rest of the country. That is of great credit to those who work in the profession in London.
198
We have made a lot of progress in London and elsewhere, especially on primary schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) talked about the possibility of people moving from the private to the public sector in the future, and I think that that is happening in primary schools. We have invested in provision for three and four-year-olds, and we are beginning to see the fruits of investing more in secondary school provision.
Recruitment and retention have always been big challenges for London, so I am pleased by new incentives to encourage further recruitment, which are making a difference in Croydon. I give a great welcome to the £100,000 grants, or interest-free loans, that are available for teachers who have spent between four and seven years in their posts, yet might move elsewhere in the country. That scheme is beginning to make a difference in Croydon. The new agenda to encourage face-to-face youth work is being embraced and represents a valuable re-engineering of the previous budget. I welcome the co-ordinated admission approach on which the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) commented. The bottom line is that a common application system with data shared among all schools will lead to pupils getting school places earlier because people will not hold on to an excessive number of places, which denies other pupils any place at all. The system will become more transparent and efficient, and although that will not deliver more choice in itself, choice will become available earlier.
In Croydon each year, about 1,000 pupils at secondary level—a third—move into schools in the borough and 1,000 move out. About 1,000 pupils come down from Lambeth and Southwark, while 1,000 move out to Sutton, Bromley and the private sector in three equal tranches. The pupils who go to Sutton and Bromley enter the grammar school system, so parents living in Sutton and Bromley whose children do not get into grammar schools and do not want them to enter the secondary modern system send their children to Croydon. In other words, Croydon takes some of the rejects from grammar schools in Sutton and Bromley, and people also drift down from Lambeth and Southwark. Funding is organised not on the basis of who goes to school in the area but who lives in the borough, which can cause problems. In recent years, the disparity in standards attained by children leaving Croydon and those arriving has narrowed significantly. The standard attained by children from Southwark and Lambeth, for example, has improved following the Government's investment in primary education. At key stage 2, for example, most children leaving Croydon and those arriving achieve level 4 or 5.
Despite capping, there is still a problem with funding in Croydon. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet alluded to the basic cause—a formula change at a time of rising pensions and salaries and the requirement that teachers work a little less to focus on their core duties. I am, however, happy to report to the Minister that despite the worst fears of heads in Croydon, there were no compulsory redundancies last year, the overall school balance did not fall from £11 million to £3 million as predicted—in fact, it is stable at about £10 million—and only two schools drew on their capital. Government money has been passported to Croydon schools, but we

199
have other problems. Council tax has been capped and the formula change has resulted in less funding for schools, but the squeeze is harder in other areas. Croydon schools have enjoyed many successes, and New Addington education action zone—now an excellence in cities project—has been particularly successful under the leadership of Pat Holland. Various schools are pushing up their standards. Recently, Addington high school achieved improvements in pipeline results. Ashburton school is using the private finance initiative to regenerate itself. I hope that the lessons described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon will be taken on board.
Pupil referral units were mentioned by the hon. Member for Upminster, but it is important to remember that under this Administration all children who are excluded will receive full-time education and will not roam the streets, as they did in the Tory days, committing crimes. Seventy per cent. of children in pupil referral units in Croydon go on to further education and do not, as they did under the Conservatives, take up a life of crime and repeat offending. The Minister and other Members said that we need to focus on how well black boys in particular do in school. We need to consider whether education is successfully delivered to those children, but we also need to consider whether there is a pervasive culture of it not being cool to study. Children must be told that their future financial welfare and what they can do with their life chances will be determined by their educational output, and we need attractive role models to deliver that message.
Other Members wish to contribute to our debate, so I shall conclude. In Croydon, the Government have invested in provision for three and four-year-olds, primary classes and secondary schools. It is crucial that we get it right in secondary schools if we are to fulfil our ambition of getting 50 per cent. of people into university. People opt out of the state sector and take up private provision so that their children can have a launch pad for university. The challenge for us is to bring those people back, as we have done in the health service and primary schools, through proper investment and quality control in secondary schools, and I am sure that we will rise to it.
3.24 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) for making a brief speech. There have been some long speeches, so he has provided me with an opportunity to speak, and I shall try to speak for less than 10 minutes so that other Members may speak.
Our debate has clearly demonstrated a diversity of experience. There is an enormous gulf between the problems in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and those in Twickenham. None the less, our conclusions are broadly similar. My constituency highlights not merely the different problems of inner and outer London, but the differences between primary and secondary education. We have the best results in standard assessment tests for 11-year-olds, not just in London but in Britain, which is a remarkable performance. There is a sense of excitement and achievement in local primary schools, where positive thinking is in evidence. The population is highly
200
educated and the staff are drawn from a large pool of highly educated, professionally qualified women. The council—Liberal Democrat for many years, but now Conservative—has funded the primary school sector above standard spending assessment levels, and that is one of the many reasons why our primary schools have done extremely well.
The secondary sector undoubtedly includes some very good schools and displays some good teaching standards, but a key statistic shows that 40 per cent. of parents migrate to the private sector. They are not escaping from bad schools—their experience is very different from that of parents in central London—but are going to the private sector because of head-to-head competition with some of the finest private independent schools in the country, including St. Paul's, Lady Eleanor Holles and Hampton. There is a graphic visual image in Hanworth road in my constituency, where two independent day schools—Lady Eleanor Holles and Hampton—are sited side by side. Next to them is a local community school, Hampton community college, which is much smaller and less well equipped. There is some good teaching there and some good pupils, but there are also challenging pupils. For a local parent with enough money to afford private education the choice is therefore a no-brainer. It is extremely difficult for the state secondary sector to maintain effective competition with the independent schools in the circumstances, and the problem is percolating down to primary schools. I recently had a slightly surreal interview with the head teacher of a highly successful junior school, whose SATs results are among the best in Britain. He was suffering from falling school rolls, because parents are taking their children out of his school to prepare them for common entrance, so that they do not miss out on an independent education.
What are we to do about that problem? We are long past the stage of arguing that we should get rid of the independent sector. That is not going to happen, and many independent schools are fine educationally on their own terms. What is the Government's agenda on collaboration between the independent and state sector? How can that be managed in a constructive way? There have been token efforts in the past, such as the joint use of rowing clubs. There have been attempts at joint projects, none of which, as far as I know, has led to anything. Is there any way in which the currently rather competitive and destructive relationship can be made more positive?
There is a link between that problem and the second problem, which is the Greenwich judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned that, and I echo his remarks about its damaging effects on constituencies such as mine. It just happens that there is a perfect symmetry between the large-scale migration of pupils into the private sector and the scale of migration into the borough from other boroughs. About 40 per cent. of all places are filled by out-of-borough pupils. The two problems are linked because as more out-of-borough pupils—many of them challenging, to use the jargon word—come into the secondary schools, growing numbers of local parents send their children into the private sector. The problem becomes cumulative.

201
The Greenwich judgment is damaging in several respects. Large numbers of parents feel a strong sense of grievance that they cannot get their children into local schools, whereas others from across the border can do so. That leads to a great distortion in the school building programme, because the local council of whatever party is unwilling to build schools near the frontier because they will be filled with out-of-borough pupils, so school-free zones are being created artificially by the Greenwich judgment problem. There are also serious anomalies in funding, as the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) said in an earlier intervention. Often, the migrant population coming in from other boroughs has totally different characteristics from that of the host borough. It just happens that in my case in the Hampton area, the migrant population is a deprived population, which is funded at the level of the host borough, not at that of the migrating pupils.
Martin Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some local authorities encourage high achievers from neighbouring boroughs to come into their schools, and export low achievers from their own borough to other schools?
Dr. Cable: I am sure that that happens. It is the opposite problem from the one that I am describing, where challenging pupils coming into a borough clearly need extra funding, but are not getting it. The border schools are therefore seriously under-funded and have serious educational difficulties. I raised the issue in a debate three years ago with the then Minister for School Standards, now the Minister for the Arts. She agreed that there was a problem and cited an experimental arrangement in Solihull, I think, to try to overcome the problem of cross-border movement and funding arrangements. I urge the Minister to give it his attention.
The third issue that I shall touch on is the broader philosophy of choice and what it means. We have had sufficient examples during the debate to show the ambiguous and confusing way in which the word "choice" is used. Most of us think it means parents on behalf of their children having the right, in some sense, to choose a school. The Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), seemed to mean the opposite—the school having the right to choose its pupils. Even the choice of a school by the parents is an ambiguous concept, as we have heard. Preference and choice might mean quite different things—cross-border or not cross-border, faith or non-faith schools, for example.
I agree with the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that we need if not standardised systems of admission, at least compatible principles. The only reasonable arrangement to reconcile the demands of different groups of parents applying for different types of school is a criterion based predominantly on distance and possibly on sibling connection, or some mix of those two factors. There would be significant drawbacks to any other arrangement, such as a lottery—it was recently proposed that applicants should be chosen by lot, which has enormous disadvantages because it breaks down any sense of geographical identity and greatly adds to
202
transport costs and all the environmental problems associated with that. What is needed is a common set of rules based on distance and sibling relationship. If that principle were applied, much of the sense of injustice would be substantially diminished.
I shall mention two other points briefly and then allow another hon. Member to speak. On capital funding, I echo the cautionary words of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale). For many years my borough was unable to achieve any capital funding whatever. In the Conservative years it was effectively barred. With the new Government we have had a considerable amount of capital spending, which is welcome, but the only basis on which that could be arranged was the private finance initiative. No other vehicle was available.
On a purely pragmatic basis, I and my former Lib Dem council welcomed that and worked with the PFI programme. It has worked relatively well. Schools have been built and they have been completed on time. Ours is one of the few boroughs from which Jarvis emerges with a moderate degree of credit, but the programme is storing up problems. We should be frank about that. The hon. Gentleman spelled out the problems. Many schools have a commitment to a fixed set of repayment obligations, amortisation and maintenance costs that will have to be maintained, come what may.
We are currently in a good phase of school funding—that may be partly a reflection of the Government's resources being put into schools—but there will come a time when schools are seriously squeezed for funding and they will not be able to make any economies on the maintenance side. All the cuts will have to come out of teaching. I can see the crisis looming ahead. Many of our teachers are apprehensive about it. It may be useful to hear from the Government how they would deal with the rigidity in the funding of PFI schemes.
Finally, I shall ask the Minister about a sector of education that we have not touched on at all in the debate—the pre-school sector. There is a great deal of emphasis on the early years. I strongly support all the research showing how crucial that is to subsequent performance. My borough, together with Croydon, is one of the two that have not complied with Government requirements for free nursery education for three and four-year-olds. What action does the Minister intend to take to make sure that boroughs do comply? How does he intend to help them overcome their problem? There is a political issue. It is a Conservative-controlled council so I do not want to make excuses for it, but I am told that the council cannot meet the funding requirements for the Government's stipulations. Perhaps the Minister will explain the balance of the argument and how the council can be helped or made to comply with the statutory requirements for pre-school provision.
Geraint Davies: For the record, Croydon had a problem with compliance, but I understand that it now provides the pre-school places following negotiation with the Government.
Dr. Cable: In that case, my borough may be the last in the line. On that note, I shall allow another hon. Member a chance to speak.
3.35 pm
Jon Cruddas: Like the two previous speakers, I shall be brief, which should allow my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) to speak.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss education and schools in London and want to examine empirical data on outcomes. Debates about public services are too often based on an abstract conception of the efficiency of public or private provision. In contrast, I want to examine what is happening locally on the ground, with reference to education and attainment in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, where a dramatic change, which throws up important issues on the links between attainment and class, is occurring.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) touched on that point when she discussed Robert Clack school, which is situated in the middle of a series of housing estates and has experienced an extraordinary transformation under the headship of Paul Grant and his senior management team. The school is an example of good practice, which I am sure figures heavily in the Minister's approach, and it has broken some assumptions on class and attainment.
I shall briefly rehearse a couple of economic statistics about Barking and Dagenham, which is traditionally seen as a predominantly white, working-class community, but which is now one of the fastest-changing boroughs in Greater London. With a population of approximately 150,000, however, Barking and Dagenham is the smallest borough in London. Only 3.5 per cent. of its adult residents have a higher education qualification, compared with a London-wide average of 18.5 per cent. Poor levels of adult numeracy and literacy are recorded among the borough's population—it is respectively the second and fourth worst borough in the country on adult numeracy and literacy.
The long-term track record on GCSE results in Barking and Dagenham is poor—in 1992, only 15.5 per cent. of pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at grades between A* and C. Overall, the borough may be characterised as having historically low levels of attainment. The consequence of that record has been the production of stocks of unskilled and semi-skilled workers, who work in car assembly or construction in the immediate community.
Dagenham and Barking sits at the centre of the so-called Thames gateway. East London is beginning to experience an economic and social transformation, and Dagenham is at the centre of that process. Ford has diversified from car assembly to high quality engine production, and tens of thousands of jobs have been generated in docklands and Canary Wharf, which throws up skills-based challenges for my constituents.
On the role of the state, the two key transmission belts to enable local people to plug into that economic transformation are first, capital infrastructure to enable people to travel to the sites where jobs are generated, and secondly, the creation of a training and skills profile to allow local communities to access those economic changes. The real problem is that that unique opportunity for my constituents will be missed if we do not secure the right balance between capital infrastructure projects, skills provision and investment in education and training.
204
The evidence of change in the borough is overwhelming and dramatic. In 1996, 27 per cent. of pupils obtained five of more GCSEs at grades between A* and C. At that time, the national average was 45 per cent.—in short, the borough was 18 per cent. behind the national average. Last year, 49 per cent. of pupils gained five or more GCSEs at grades between A* and C and the national average was 53 per cent. The point is that the borough is only 4 per cent. behind the national average, and that the gap has been reduced by 14 percentage points since 1996. The key stage 4 results are paralleled by developments at key stages 1, 2 and 3. Overall, between 2002 and 2003 the borough secured a 7.4 per cent. increase in five A* to C grades—among the highest in Greater London and, indeed, the country. The average for Greater London was some 3.1 per cent.
Six of the eight secondary schools in the borough are in my constituency. I pay tribute to the heads—Des Smith, Paul Grant, Anne Brooks, Roger Leighton, John Torrie and Stephen Smith—for all their hard work. Last year, all those schools improved, and the A* to C grades of one, All Saints, improved from 68 per cent. to 87 per cent. Two others—Roger Clack and Sydney Russell—jumped by more than 10 per cent., and Priory and Eastbrook schools jumped by 5 per cent. Those statistics demonstrate that we are witnessing a major transformation locally. Our comparators now tend to have a different socio-economic profile from those of the past 10 years.
At the same time, a major push is occurring on adult learning. We are confronting the numeracy and literacy problems that I mentioned earlier, and the borough is working closely with the trade union movement to enhance the education and training that is available to its staff. For example, over the past 12 months, 75 out of 76 refuse collection workers signed up to a basic skills course. I pay tribute to the groundbreaking work of the borough's union learning representatives, especially those in the GMB.
A transformation is under way that is beginning to break the link between poverty and attainment—or at least to challenge some of the assumptions about that link. It is redistributing life chances to people in the borough and allowing them to plug into the process of regeneration that leads to better jobs and a material change in the conditions that they and their families experience. People often say that the Government are not radical, but what is happening as a result of the education and skills agenda in my borough is genuinely radical. I do not say that as a shameless advocate of all Government policy: I have problems with top-up fees and some aspects of academies, but those can be saved for another time.
I pay particular tribute to Roger Luxton and his team at our local LEA. They have done an extraordinary amount of work over the past few years and are trying to confront the long tail of under-achievement among many working-class white children in my community. There is a long way to go. It is a long-term process that takes time—there is no big bang—but the hard groundwork for implementing durable change year on year has been established. The focus is on basic literacy and numeracy, with resources and a strong strategic lead provided by the LEA. Staying-on rates are improving. Turning the situation around will take time,

205
but we have found that change is possible. I believe that this agenda is consistent with the objectives of the Labour party in terms of delivering material, economic and social change for working-class people. For my constituents in London, our schools agenda fulfils that historic objective, and I very much welcome it.
3.43 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) for being brief. I want to make only a couple of points.
I come to this subject not only as a politician representing a constituency that, despite its leafy-sounding name, has the ninth-highest entitlement to free school dinners in the country, but as the parent of a 10-year-old who will go into secondary school transfer in the autumn. From that perspective, I can see the best and the worst of the issues that affect London schools.
The best is represented by the state primary school that my son attends. My hon. Friend the Minister visited it a short while ago. Although it rarely troubles the upper echelons of the primary school league tables, it is a happy and successful learning community. In response to the negative coverage about multi-ethnic London that has recently appeared in the press, especially The Sunday Times, I would say that my son, who attends a school where his closest friends are Iraqi, Algerian, Libyan, Congolese and Kosovan, is not only accommodating as best he can a burden of multiculturalism, but experiencing the single best, richest and most life-enhancing aspect of education that any child could have. We must recognise that a multi-ethnic and multi-language community can enhance learning in schools. I am happy to say that The Independent wrote a good story about that at the end of last week. Although the mobility and poverty that are sometimes associated with the change to a more multi-ethnic educational environment can present problems, such an environment offers children an opportunity to enhance their learning ability and we should cherish it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) presented far better than I could the important argument that the advance towards the range of specialist schools that we are developing entails a genuine risk that a minority of schools will compound disadvantage. Speakers from all parties said that we want to capture whatever makes a successful school environment and ensure that that quality is disseminated more widely. I am not sure that we can capture that quality easily and without change when successful schools draw on selection and, in some areas—for example, in central London—there are single-sex schools and faith schools. Parents of no faith, those whose faith is not compatible with existing faith schools and parents of boys in areas where the gender balance in schools is distorted by the existence of single-sex schools nearby do not have such a range of choice.
My main point is about behaviour—we have heard much about that subject. Today, the Conservative party launched policies on exclusion and pupil referral units, although we did not hear about that in the debate. We
206
all know that behavioural problems exist, especially in some schools. One school in my constituency struggles with an almost insuperable burden. More than a quarter of its children are looked after. That is a complete distortion of a balanced school environment.
The pressures and problems in schools that can lead to exclusions do not need to be solved by the removal of a stratum of pupils and their effective abandonment. Good pupil referral units can make a valuable contribution, but children should not be removed from a learning environment and abandoned in units or marginalised schools unless it is absolutely essential. An alternative exists in my constituency and I invite the Minister to visit it. Indeed, the Green Paper, "Every Child Matters" mentioned it. It offers a way through behavioural difficulties and exclusion, and, in my constituency, mental health problems, refugee trauma, alcohol and drug dependency and domestic violence. All those problems affect a child's behaviour and capacity to learn. The Marlborough education unit works to tackle that.
The Marlborough unit provides a superb support system to schools. It deals with some of the most disturbed children and families and provides an environment that allows them to cope with learning. It receives 20 family referrals a week and can cope with 60 family assessments a year. The scope for opening up such a provision so that it can conduct outreach work in schools and have pupils and families attending its service, thereby giving our most damaged pupils high level therapeutic support, is enormous. Investment in such facilities, especially the Marlborough unit, which has a superb record, but also many other sorts of facility throughout the capital, could do more to help our schools, reduce exclusion and enable our most damaged children to gain from their learning environment than any other measure.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will at least recognise that such valuable services are being provided in London and that there is massive scope for more. Assistance for that is as important as anything else we can do to invest in schools, welcome and necessary though such investment is. We need to look beyond the school environment as well as in it if we are to tackle some of the problems.
3.49 pm
Mr. Stephen Twigg: With the leave of the House, I shall endeavour to respond to as much of the debate as I can in my 10 minutes. It has been an excellent, wide-ranging and good-humoured debate, mostly characterised by consensus and constructive discussion about how to meet some of the challenges that we face.
There were two main issues up for debate, particularly in some of the earlier contributions, the first of which, the role of the Government, was introduced by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), whom I welcome to her new position in opening for the official Opposition. That issue strikes at the heart of the debate on education policy generally that is going on beyond the Chamber. She used the phrase "command and control", but what we are doing with the London challenge is very different from that. It is about sharing the best practice in what is happening in schools and communities in London, and it is critically important

207
that that should he conducted in a spirit of collaboration. A concern that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members share about Conservative policy is that it seems to represent a return to a competitive ethos between schools in an era when we are increasingly encouraging collaboration between them.
The second issue is choice in our London schools. The small amount of time that I have now does not enable me to deal with all the thoughtful contributions that have been made by Members on both sides of the House on this issue. However, we can agree that, for real choices to be available in communities across London, capacity is required, and in many of our communities that capacity simply is not there. Diversity is also required, because if all the schools are the same, there is no choice. Information is required, because if information is not available to everyone, the process becomes very unequal; and for the process to be really effective, it requires collaboration Choice is not only about which institution parents decide to send their child to at the age of 11; it is also about the choices that are available within the education system for children and young people themselves, and that will be critical as we take forward the 14-to-19 curriculum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) made a powerful case for the benefits that a multi-ethnic London brings. I totally agree with what she said, and I shall also take up her offer to visit the Marlborough unit in her constituency to see what lessons we can draw from it.
Our debate has mostly achieved consensus, but I want to take a moment to respond to some of the party political points that were made, perfectly legitimately, by the hon. Member for Upminster. I concur with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who said that a feature of the policy announced by the Conservatives today about choice was a move towards schools having more choice about which pupils they took, rather than parents having more choice about the institutions that their children could attend. That would be a deeply damaging development and a move in entirely the wrong direction.
The hon. Member for Upminster also raised the issue of appeal panels, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) responded. It is worth getting this issue into perspective. I respect the fact that schools are concerned when they lose appeals, but there were only about 1,000 such appeals in the last year, of which 200 were successful. If we did not have independent appeal panels to address these issues, there would be a real danger that at least some of the parents involved would go to the courts. Do we really want to tie up our head teachers in defending their actions in the courts? The independent appeal panels provide a sensible way forward.
The hon. Members for Upminster and for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) referred to the number of children who cannot read or count at the age of 11 and 14. In doing so, they repeated some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. We all recognise the challenge of improving literacy and numeracy in our schools; too many young people leave primary school at 11 unable to read, write or do maths to the expected level. However, it does not help the debate to describe them as being "unable to read" or "unable to count", or by denying the very real
208
progress that has been made in our schools. Last year's key stage 3 results in London were the best ever. We have moved from the position that we inherited in 1997, when the number of children leaving primary school unable to reach the expected level in English and maths was two in five, or 40 per cent. The present figure was rightly described by the hon. Lady as one in four, or 25 per cent. Twenty-five per cent. is too much, but it is a lot better than the 40 per cent. that we inherited from the Conservative party.
More consensually, the hon. Member for Upminster made a number of powerful points. She referred to the work that we are doing in relation to ethnic minority achievement with "Aiming High", and gave a plug to Winchmore school in my constituency. I want to reassure her on special schools, and the important role that they will continue to play within inclusive education, as they can contribute to an inclusive approach to education in London and other parts of the country. She praised Robert Clack school, and her comments were reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), in whose constituency the school is located. She raised a concern about the new London school admissions service, and asked perfectly reasonably who will benefit. Her test is right—it is not about a more efficient bureaucratic process but about benefiting parents and pupils. All of us, as constituency MPs, will have visited schools in which there is a child in the front row who has three school offers, and a child sitting next to him or her who has none. Months of anxiety are suffered by that child and his or her parents and family, which is what we seek to address with the new admissions service—it is not a cure-all, it will not solve all the problems, but it will lessen the anxiety in the process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) raised the question of the School Teachers Review Body and its consultation process, and several related points were raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) on London allowances. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton was referring to proposals that the STRB has made on regional pay, to which, as he rightly said, the Department must respond in September. We are examining with interest the proposals on regional pay, including proposals for greater flexibility, on which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have made points. We will respond in the autumn. As a Department, we will examine the different challenges faced by inner and outer London in formulating that response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) reminded me of the position with regard to Wandsworth and school funding this year. I concur with him that what we seek is for Wandsworth to passport all the money next year when it makes its budget. He spoke of measuring success and the importance of value added, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made the same point. I agree that a robust measure of the real progress made by children in a school is the best way of holding schools to account. It is not the only way—we need to examine all sorts of other factors, too—but the availability of that is important.

209
I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for his positive remarks about the London challenge generally, and was struck, listening to him in his constituency capacity, by how some of these strands are coming together positively to benefit the people of his constituency, particularly through the academy programme, but also in the broader sense of schools serving their community. I differ from him on the Greenwich judgment, very much for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet: communities in London do not necessarily match school boundaries. He gave an example from our constituency boundary, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) gave an example from Clapham, part of which is in Lambeth and part of which is in Wandsworth. Another recent example was of Camden trying to change its admissions practices, which would have had the effect that schools on the Camden-Islington border that traditionally served both boroughs might have served only one of them. The position in respect of the Greenwich judgment is more complex than the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey set out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon asked specific questions about the private finance initiative in Merton. I undertake to respond to him on that. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned funding in Barnet, and the issue of out-of-year children, with which I am involved—as he rightly said, I met a delegation on the matter last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) talked about some of the progress in Croydon, and how Croydon's schools have dealt with some of the funding difficulties a great deal more successfully than had been feared. The hon. Member for Twickenham asked about collaboration between independent and state schools, which is fundamental to our chances of success on the London challenge. I will write to him with more detail about how we are bringing that about, so that we can tap into all the educational success and excellence in London.
I thank everyone who has taken part in what has been a wide-ranging and important debate. I am confident that we will be able to take this area—
It being Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order [24 June].

Public Accounts
4 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the 1st to the 16th, and the 18th and 19th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2003–04, and of the Treasury Minutes and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memorandum on these Reports, Cm 6130, 6136, 6155, 6175, 6191 and 6244.
It is a great pleasure to move a motion that stands in my name and those of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who is present. I welcome Members to what could be described as part two of the Public Accounts Committee debate. We thought that February's debate was successful, and decided there should be a sequel. We hoped that splitting the debate between two afternoons would make it more topical.
I think that PAC members will agree that the year continues to be successful for the Committee. Obviously, public sector efficiency is high on the political agenda. We have had reviews on accommodation from Sir Michael Lyons, and will shortly have one from Sir Peter Gershon on efficiency. Their efficiency agenda chimes with ours, and is always on our radar. On behalf of Parliament, we attempt to hold the Executive to account. We make recommendations for savings and improvements in public services, and we are ideally placed to report on whether the savings sought by Government have been realised.
I want to take this opportunity not just to go through all our reports, but to explore a couple of themes. Others may wish to draw on that. The main theme is delivery of efficient and effective public services, and making them relevant to the citizen. We believe that our work over the past three years has saved upwards of £1.5 billion. Every year, 90 per cent. of the Committee's recommendations are accepted by the Government, because we eschew any party political recommendations. We think that we do hold the Government to account, but we try to do so from a positive perspective. We try to congratulate the Government when they make a success of things, and when mistakes are made we hope that our warnings will help them to ensure that those mistakes are not repeated. We hope that the good practice we identify will be heralded and shared as widely as possible in Whitehall.
It has been a busy year for the Committee. So far we have published 26 reports, and we shall probably have published nearly 50 by the time the Session ends—far more than any other Select Committee. Our work covers almost every part of Government, from the major Whitehall Departments such as the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence to much smaller agencies that do not normally appear on the political radar, such as the Forensic Science Service and the Veterans Agency. We could not do any of that work without the help of our able Committee staff, headed by Nick Wright, and the 800 staff of the National Audit Office, headed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn. We pay tribute to Sir John: we could not do our work at all without his help.
We also try to be topical. Earlier this year, we took evidence from those operating in Iraq. I shall not deal with Iraq in detail; we can return to it in our next debate

211
when the Government have replied. Just over a week ago we had a hearing on visa entry into the United Kingdom, and tomorrow we shall consider the Home Office's work on processing asylum applications.
There have been some changes. Sadly, we have had to lose my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who has become a Front-Bench spokesman. On this Committee at least, we have preserved the principle that spokesmen from the main Opposition parties should not sit on a Select Committee. I consider that an important principle. I know that it is often difficult for the Conservative party to provide people to serve on Select Committees, but I think it is important for the Public Accounts Committee—which is nonpolitical, and is the main vehicle for scrutiny of the Government in terms of economy and efficiency—not to include Opposition spokesmen. I hope that that principle will continue to be followed. Because we hold to that principle, however, we have acquired a couple of good new members from the Conservative party: my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). I should say that we welcome back my right hon. Friend, because he served on the Committee before the start of his distinguished ministerial career.
At the heart of our work and hearings is our interrogation of senior Government officials. The PAC is a testing Committee, but we were rather amused to hear that one of our witnesses had paid up to £1,500 an hour to be coached on how to appear in front of it. I am pleased to say that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is in his place today, immediately offered to provide on his retirement—something that we regret, because he is a very worthwhile member of our Committee—a far cheaper service to the witnesses who appear in front of us in future.
The Committee is testing, but I make no apology for that. It is extremely important that permanent secretaries, who often live in a rarefied atmosphere, should be held to account. It is also important that key contractors to the Government should be held to account for how they have used or misused public money. At the same time, we try to be fair, to give praise where it is due and to help the Government to highlight good practice.
We have also continued to visit the front line. For example, we had a successful visit to a drug treatment and testing order centre in Ealing in May. I hope that we can continue those visits.
It is easy to be complacent in these debates, but I hope that we are never complacent about our Committee. I was interested to read recently in Anthony Sampson's "Who runs this place: the anatomy of Britain in the 21st century," which is an update on his earlier work:
"Debates in the Chamber have always been a distraction from the more continuous duty of MPs: to supervise the executive over which they theoretically have sovereignty, and to call it to account—as Gladstone had told them in 1869",
which was shortly after he founded this Committee. Mr. Sampson says:
"The central instrument of parliament for enforcing accountability is the Public Accounts Committee"
and I am pleased to say that he described it as
"much the most prestigious of parliamentary committees".
212
However, that is where his praise for the system ends. So that we do not become complacent, I must say that Mr. Sampson says later:
"The effectiveness of the auditor-general depends on the Public Accounts Committee, which suffers from the same weaknesses as other select committees, with their party-political agendas and their short horizons; in any case, the PAC is no match for the complexities and obfuscations of Whitehall."
I say that because I do not want this debate to be just a pat on the back, and I want to reply to that charge straight away. It is important not to get into the groove of party politics; we should avoid that. A book, by David Lipsey, "The Secret Treasury" makes the mild criticism of the PAC that we deal with events after they take place. However, I think that we have to do that, otherwise we would be involved in the party political process. Mr. Lipsey says that we should devote more resources to publicising our reports. We already get more press publicity than any other Select Committee, but we can and must do better. He also says that we can still look at modernising our procedures. We try to be modern and up to date, but it is important that we recognise what commentators are saying, that we are open-minded and that we constantly try to improve the way in which we do our business.
Select Committees need to respond to what emerged from Hutton. They need to be more vigorous. They need to be prepared to test the Government more, and to call for papers that have hitherto not been in the public domain. We will do all that with the help of the National Audit Office, and it is my hope—and the hope of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West—that other Select Committees will in time gradually increase the resources available to them so that they are similar to those that we have in the Public Accounts Committee. There are things that we could do better, but we take very seriously, and are very proud of, our record in holding the Executive to account.
Let me deal with my two themes, the first of which is service delivery and its relationship to efficiency. Everyone—from top officials to those at the coalface—needs to make the recent increases in Government spending count. Regardless of which side of the political divide members of the Committee come from, we do not take issue with the Government on whether or not these increases are right. That is not our business; rather, we are concerned with ensuring that these massive increases in public spending, particularly on health and education, actually count. They must be translated into a clear improvement in front-line services.
During this debate, we can look at many of the reports that address this issue, so let us consider one or two. We followed up a previous National Audit Office inquiry into the medical assessment of incapacity and disability benefits. We found that, as result of our recommendations being implemented, the average time taken to process medical examinations had fallen by seven weeks, so that is an example of a delivery gain actually being achieved. Recipients of incapacity and disability benefits now get a decision more quickly on the benefits that they need and to which they are properly entitled. I should add, however, that such improvement in service is entirely compatible with making efficiency gains. By reducing significantly the backlog of delays in making decisions about benefits,

213
the Department has saved the taxpayer £29 million. The improvements, if sustained, will lead to future savings of some £21 million each year, so that, too, is a gain.
Improvements in public services are not just about what the customer gets at the end of the process, be it a benefit payment or a new passport; the actual experience of dealing with government is also important. Our 26th report, on difficult forms—it was published this morning—makes a number of recommendations that will hopefully help to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on the citizen. Forms need to be shorter and easier to complete, and people should not have to provide the same information to several Government Departments, let alone several times to the same Department. Forms might sound a boring subject and perhaps it is; but it would add enormously to the happiness of many people if forms were short, and easy to fill in and to understand.
So I emphasise again that better services and efficiency improvements can be two sides of the same coin. At the same time as improving the experience of the customer, Departments can reduce their own administrative costs and therefore do more for the public. For example, the Inland Revenue's introduction of the short tax return for some customers should result in more efficient processing. It is a shame, however, that the Revenue does not yet know the relative costs of processing the short form and the standard one. Perhaps bureaucracies have a rule whereby all forms, however long or short, take the same time to process—I do not know.
I am afraid to say that the claim by some public bodies to place the consumer at the heart of their work is somewhat exaggerated. As our report "Helping consumers benefit from competition in telecommunications" shows, customers are still not getting as good a deal as they could on their telephone bills. Twenty years after the telephone market was liberalised, British Telecom still has a staggering 70 per cent. of the market. Customers could save money by switching supplier or changing their tariff.
When we published the report, some apologists for BT had a go at the Committee, but I make no apology for standing up for the customer and the consumer in this instance—or, indeed, in all instances. The truth is that people find the telecommunications market confusing. We found that Oftel was remote from consumers. It did not do enough to help them to make properly informed choices, and it spent only a tiny fraction of its budget on publicity. Its successor, Ofcom, must now disseminate guidance on how to identify the best supplier, and do more to draw public attention to the savings available by switching supplier.
Two of our more recent reports looked specifically at agencies' efforts to improve their service delivery. Our fourth report was about the Forensic Science Service. The service's direct customers are the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and Customs and its work is increasingly important. Any delay in forensic analysis can mean suspects being bailed, charges being dropped and court cases being jeopardised, but the timeliness of the agency's performance is very disappointing. It has missed targets every year since the Committee last looked into the subject. DNA samples, for example, were waiting on the shelf for two weeks before being
214
analysed, even though the analysis takes less than a day and a half. The agency must turn around its performance and maximise the use and efficiency of its laboratories.
Our 20th report looked at the Veterans Agency and was published shortly before the nation commemorated D-day. We found that, by and large, veterans were receiving the service to which they were entitled, but in some areas the agency can and should do a lot better. For example, we found that the targets placed on the agency were undemanding and we were particularly concerned that new claims for war disablement pensions took a staggering 131 days to complete—more than four months and well in excess of the agency's own target. Surely veterans who have suffered injury on behalf of their country deserve a better service than that.
I was particularly concerned about the treatment of Gurkhas. I received a letter from the Minister this week, emphasising that Gurkhas would be eligible to receive pensions under the war pensions scheme, so I believe that we have made some progress.
No Public Accounts Committee debate is complete without someone talking about information technology disasters. In the last debate, I noted that Libra, the national IT project for magistrates courts, was the latest in a long list of public IT disasters. Sadly, in our 14th report on the Inland Revenue's new tax credit system, we had yet another sorry tale to tell. The introduction of the new system was nothing short of disastrous for public service. Hundreds of thousands of claimants were not paid on time, which led to hardship among some of the most vulnerable people in society. Inconvenience was created for employers and employees, and other aspects of the Revenue's business were disrupted. The accounting officer, Sir Nicholas Montague, admitted that public confidence in the Revenue had been severely dented.
I believe that IT systems need to work effectively to serve the public properly, but we also need to ensure that we avoid wasted public spending. In fact, considerable sums could be saved. Under the old tax credit system, the Revenue was making overpayments that could total as much as a staggering £700 million a year. In that case, roll-out happened, even though people knew that the pilot studies were inadequate.
David Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and various members of the Committee over the years on their IT reports, in which I have taken considerable interest. Is the hon. Gentleman surprised that, in the face of all the evidence of failing large-scale public sector IT projects, large Government Departments such as Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are still wedded to the idea that outsourcing is necessarily the best way to obtain IT facilities? Does he believe that Departments should draw more heavily on the recommendations of his reports and those of previous Committee Chairmen?
Mr. Leigh: I very much hope that they do draw heavily on our recommendations, of which there are many. Clearly, IT is one of the most difficult areas for the Government. To be fair to them, the systems that they have to deal with are far more complex and much larger than those in the private sector. We have to accept

215
that. However, lessons are sometimes not learned, and the Government often try to bite off more than they can chew. Often, new Ministers arrive on the scene and load new policies and new burdens on to IT systems that simply cannot cope with them. Frankly, those lessons have to be learned and the Government have to be more conservative and more cautious in dealing with IT in the future.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Although it does not relate to the reports in the list, one big failure from many months ago that has still not been put right—it is about time that it was—concerns the Child Support Agency IT system. There are two separate systems operating—one for people who came into the system at an earlier stage and another for more recent entrants. Frankly, the lack of progress made there is quite outrageous. Different rates of maintenance apply to people in basically similar conditions and no progress at all seems to have been made. It is another failure of IT, and perhaps one day we could get round to doing something about it.
Mr. Leigh: I hope that we do. As the hon. Gentleman says, that is not the subject of any of the reports being discussed this afternoon, but the CSA's IT system is of enormous importance. It has been one of the greatest disasters in the public delivery of services over the past 15 years, and I hope that the National Audit Office will look into it again so that we can make further recommendations.
I shall digress for a moment to discuss the subject of fraud, a topic with which we are always concerned. In our third report, we examine the payment of EU support to sheep farmers in Northern Ireland. I should say that we are now the PAC for Northern Ireland as well, as Stormont, of course, is suspended. We found a catalogue of errors and control failures in the payment of some £24 million a year in subsidy that pointed to a particularly slack regime. I can also tell the House that that hearing was notably strong.
Key requirements of the scheme had been repeatedly ignored. The Department involved had consistently neglected the interests of taxpayers over a long period, and that had contributed to unacceptably high levels of fraud. For example, we found evidence of payments for sheep that were either figments of the fraudsters' imagination, or which had died some time earlier. There was evidence that some departmental staff were complicit in allowing farmers to claim more money than they were properly due.
The accounting officer has assured us that his department now operates a policy of "zero tolerance"—his words—in respect of fraud, and that attempts to cheat the system are being tackled much more vigorously. We look to progress.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the fact that some of the sheep were dead when they were counted did not necessarily prevent them from voting in the recent European elections?
Mr. Leigh: Perhaps we should not delve too deeply into the intricacies of electoral politics in Northern Ireland. However, we are all finding our experience of being the PAC for Northern Ireland very illuminating.
216
I have spoken about service delivery, and I want to devote the second part of my remarks to a brief discussion of better project management and procurement, which is a key part of our work. To avoid the problems encountered with the introduction of the new tax credit, the Government must get their act together on project management. Improvements in that and in procurement—where we are starting to see some notable successes—could save the taxpayer millions of pounds, and would free resources for public services.
I believe that the Committee has a valuable role to play in encouraging improved project management across Government, and that we boast first-class credentials. In recent years, we have published more than 30 reports on private finance initiative deals alone. That is a controversial subject, about which people have strong views. I hope that our reports have got down to the nitty-gritty of PFI, and have shown whether its use in individual cases stands up.
David Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Earlier, he said that the PAC commented not on the ends of policies but on the means by which they were delivered, and the efficiency of that delivery. Does the hon. Gentleman consider the PFI to be a means to Government ends, or to be the end of Government? I am of the latter opinion, as the medium and long-term impact of PFI cannot be justified, either in terms of finance or in respect of the services with which it is associated.
Mr. Leigh: Recently, we held an interesting seminar with senior Treasury officials. The members of the Committee sought assurances from Government that every case of procurement would be looked at on its merits. There should not be an assumption that we must go down the PFI route for ideological or political reasons. Sometimes, traditional or conventional means of procurement can be better, and provide better value for money, than the PFI route. Equally, however, the Committee is not prepared to say that PFI is wrong for political or ideological reasons. We recognise that, in some cases, it has delivered schools and hospitals on budget and to time.
In general, we are prepared to look at every PFI project on its merits. I do not think that we can do anything else, but I know that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) takes an interest in these matters and I assure him that we will continue to keep a beady eye on the subject. We shall not allow any Government to proceed down the PFI route merely because they feel that they must. For instance, we looked at the new GCHQ building, which was a PFI project. The new building was built under a PFI deal, while GCHQ retained responsibility for moving its technology into it, largely for security reasons of course. However, over two years GCHQ's cost estimates for that element rocketed from £41 million to £450 million.
A number of lessons can be learned from that report that are pertinent to other Departments. GCHQ failed to spot that the development of IT networking during the 1990s would hugely complicate the moving of its technology. It also continued for far too long to perceive

217
the matter as a building project rather than a major change programme. The taxpayer lost £400 million as a result.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that in the case of GCHQ it was not the PFI project—the building itself—that was over cost and over time, but the moving of the equipment. Serious doubts remain in my mind about whether GCHQ took the opportunity to update the equipment on the back of the move.
Mr. Leigh: Well, GCHQ had to update its equipment. It is not giving away national secrets to say that it is obvious that there have been massive advances in information technology that have had a huge impact on the work of GCHQ. The sheer cost of installing the new computer systems in that superb new building was, unfortunately, underestimated. I hope that lessons have now been learned. Incidentally, our hearing on an acutely sensitive matter of national security was an object lesson in how Members of Parliament can concentrate on the lessons to be learned without compromising that security. I hope that we can make further progress on such matters in other areas, because the public spotlight should fall on GCHQ as much as on any other part of Government.
The new Home Office building in Marsham street should be an object lesson in the need for Departments to think carefully about their real requirements. Our 18th report found that the new Home Office building was planned on the basis that numbers of Home Office staff in London would fall. In fact, the numbers have increased and by the time the report was signed, the Home Office and Prison Service staff numbers were 1,500 in excess of the capacity of the new building. The Home Office is considering accommodation options. I hope that it will take seriously our recommendation that it should consider moving more staff out of London. It may be an inevitable rule of bureaucracy that a new building for a Department will never be large enough. In any case, the planning should have been better.
I pat the Government on the back for a positive example of procurement that they mostly got right. Our 10th report examined the success of the Office of Government Commerce negotiation of the memorandum of understanding with software companies. It sounds an obscure subject, but the Government saved £600 million of public money. The new arrangements have already saved the taxpayer £50 million, and it is important that the OGC keeps up that momentum. I pay tribute to Sir Peter Gershon, who has now left Government service, for his work and the considerable savings that he achieved of £1.6 billion in Government procurement. It just shows what can be done.
The Committee has produced many other reports that hon. Members can discuss. For instance, we had hearings on Warm Front, and we found that the targets were so weak that they could be met simply by installing a couple of light bulbs.
Mr. Jenkins: The Chairman will be aware that the report on the memorandum by the OGC said that 10 per
218
cent. of Departments are still without an up-to-date IT list and were unaware of the memorandum. I know that that means that 90 per cent. were aware of it, but we are interested in the 10 per cent. and improving that figure.
Mr. Leigh: I am sure that Sir Peter Gershon's successor, John Oughton, will continue to make enormous savings. There is no point in excellent recommendations being made if they are not followed through, and perhaps the Minister will address that point when she winds up. Some Government Departments appear to be able to evade their responsibilities, but we look to progress.
I was briefly running through a list of other subjects where targets are weak. I mentioned Warm Front. The saga of the Wembley stadium is well known so I shall not go into details. Our report on hip replacements found that there was a dangerous tendency for too few operations to be performed by consultants. We also looked at the performance of secondary schools.
I mention those subjects to show the enormous breadth of our work. It is a great privilege for all members of the Committee to deal with it and to try to make sense of it and, with the help of the National Audit Office, to make sensible conclusions and recommendations.
I conclude on the same theme with which I closed my speech during our last debate—making increased investment in public services count. I make no apology for returning to that, as it is a central issue for the Government. In April, we held a hearing on the capacity of Departments to spend the £61 billion increase in resources. Not surprisingly, we focused on health, education and transport and discussed five key risks that need careful attention. Unnecessary complexity in bureaucracy must be removed from the delivery chain; delivery organisations must have enough capacity; resources must be targeted where they are really needed; risks to delivery must be identified and managed; and performance must be properly monitored and evaluated.
Unsurprisingly, the permanent secretaries—distinguished gentlemen in charge of health, education and transport—agreed with the Committee. Perhaps that is blindingly obvious. But again and again we came across instances where one or more of those key factors had been left out. That is when the public can suffer, so we must continue to make our voice heard.
We shall continue to scrutinise the efficiency with which Departments and other bodies spend our money, and the improvements, or failings, in the services that they provide us and our constituents. It is clear to members of the Committee that many lessons can be learned and we hope and believe that our reports will be high on the reading list of officials. In the Committee, we shall work together in a spirit of bipartisan consensus, not going for the lowest common denominator but producing hard-hitting reports that hold the Government to account in delivering better public services for all our citizens.
4.32 pm
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: As the Chairman of the PAC said, this is our second debate this Session and I reiterate everything I said in my last speech

219
on the subject a few months ago, especially relating to the National Audit Office, the PAC staff and the Chairman himself. I thanked everybody and congratulated them on their performance. Members will have listened so carefully to my speech that they will of course be able to remember what I said and it will be clear in their minds, so there is no reason to repeat it. I shall not go into great detail, but repeat my thanks to everyone for their work since our last debate.
It shows how much I enjoy the work of the Committee that, this afternoon, I could have been at the centre court at Wimbledon—watching, not playing. However, I declined the invitation as I felt that it was important to participate in the debate.
The Chairman has gone through almost all the reports and has explained the role of the PAC, so I shall not repeat that. We consider about 50 reports a year and he gave an excellent picture of our work. I want to concentrate on two reports.
Each report that we consider has a bearing on our constituents' lives—some have more of a bearing than others. Very often, our constituency postbags include letters from constituents who, frankly, have been given a very bad deal by Departments. In particular, we often receive very harrowing letters about decisions that have been taken with regard to social security benefits and the consequent appeals, as the Chairman of the PAC mentioned in his excellent speech. Very often, that is linked to stories about how people have been treated in the medical assessment procedures according to which their incapacity and disability benefits are determined. So we recently investigated those issues and produced two reports called, "Getting it right, putting it right: Improved decision-making in appeals in social security benefits" and "Progress in improving the medical assessment of incapacity and disability benefits." Those reports were vital to many of my constituents and demonstrate that. frankly, if such things are not done fairly and correctly, a huge amount of misery can be caused to people's lives.
Millions of those benefit decisions are taken each year, and many are very complex. Most people accept the decisions that are made, but others appeal, as they have every right to do. In 1999, the appeals system changed owing to the concerns that were expressed in Parliament. In fact, since then, the number of appeals has reduced by 15 to 20 per cent. and waiting times for appeals has also reduced; but, unfortunately, we found no proof that the standard of decision making has improved. At least 20 per cent. of those decisions still contain serious errors, and 45 per cent of the decisions that relate to attendance allowance and disability living allowance are incorrect. That is not a very good story, particularly for the people about whom wrong decisions are made. Incidentally, 38 per cent. of income support decisions were incorrect in 2002—the last year that those cases were looked at. Decisions that relate to medically assessed benefits have the highest rate of overturn on appeal.
The 1999 reforms abolished the role of the chief adjudication officer and transferred responsibility for decision standards to the Department's agency chief executives. At the time, that was a very controversial decision. Under the new rules, the Secretary of State is now required to report to Parliament on performance in benefit decision making, yet the first two reports in 2001
220
and 2002 were both published about 15 months late and the exercise cost the taxpayer £62 million. So there is still room for much improvement.
Disability living allowance is a self-assessed benefit, but the decision maker can seek medical evidence from other sources, which may include a medical examination. The claim form is 47 pages long and is undoubtedly onerous to complete. Obviously, we found that it needs simplifying. Some 90,000 cases—one in 12—go to appeal, which is not surprising given the methods involved, and 50 per cent. of them are found in favour of the appellant. Since the 1999 reforms, the number of appeals has risen—obviously, more mistakes are being made.
The Department's officials do not see the client face to face when they make their initial decision and the decision letters sent out are often confusing and unhelpful. Again, that needs rectifying. There are very large variations—about an eight times difference between the best and the worst—in the time taken by Jobcentre Plus districts to prepare appeal submissions. Appellants may attend the hearings and meetings, and the evidence shows that people are more likely to receive a favourable outcome if they are present face to face. The figures show that 61 per cent. of people who turn up win their cases, while only 34 per cent. of those who do not turn up win. However, people are not told that it is better for them to attend the appeal meeting, so that problem should be put right.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman is right. Does he agree that we lack an advocacy service for people who attend appeals? Individuals often need people to attend such meetings with them and although the citizens advice bureau and other voluntary organisations can offer a degree of advocacy to assist with such cases, we simply do not have sufficient advocacy services throughout the country.
Mr. Steinberg: I agree with the hon. Lady. People have the right to take a third party to such meetings, but many people who make appeals are not told that. As she says, it is sometimes difficult for people to find individuals to accompany them. I have often been asked to represent people at appeals, but that is difficult if one does not know the case personally and must get time off to attend.
It is unacceptable for people to have to wait 90 days for a hearing given that they have probably waited about 10 weeks to reach that stage in the first place. As I said, people are not told that their appeal is more likely to be successful if they attend the hearing.
We found several examples of people not pursuing an appeal because the process was too distressing and demanding. I am greatly worried that often only people who are sufficiently articulate make successful cases, which means that the process has little to do with the validity of cases and more to do with an appellant's ability to construct and present an argument. I know of two cases in my constituency, and I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of similar examples, which showed me that people who were persistent and able to construct an articulate case were more likely to be awarded a benefit than those who are less articulate. On

221
the face of it, such people might be more worthy of winning their cases, despite the fact that they are less orally gifted.
For example, I knew of a highly intelligent individual with an undoubted ability to present an argument who was successfully awarded incapacity benefit following an appeal. I am not suggesting that that decision was not right, but saying that the appeal was successful and that he was articulate. On the other hand, I met a cleaner in a community centre who was unable to move or lift tables and chairs after she had had a colostomy reversal, but whose appeal was turned down. Again, I am not making accusations, but it seemed peculiar that the person who was articulate made a successful appeal while the cleaner who was in tremendous difficulty did not.
I turn to the second part of the report regarding progress made on improving the medical assessment for incapacity and disability benefits. Those benefits cost the taxpayer about £18 billion a year, so we must get things right. Apart from that, however, people should get the benefits to which they are entitled. Part of the test for eligibility is a medical assessment, and although claimants' doctors provide some evidence, more than 1 million medical reports are produced each year by Schlumberger medical services, which holds the contract for medical appeals. The situation worries me greatly because it is clear that the quality of the service provided to claimants by the company's doctors varies greatly.
David Taylor: Like me, my hon. Friend might well have had contact with Schlumberger Sema regarding miners' compensation and its performance can be patchy. Will he comment on its recent performance when dealing with people with mental health problems? Such people find it especially difficult to get a fair deal and to obtain the right decisions at medical appeal tribunals. Is he happy that the company's doctors are appropriately trained to deal with such cases?
Mr. Steinberg: No. One of the complaints by citizens advice bureaux concerns the standard of doctors' assessment of people with mental illness, and it gave us some shocking examples in which such people were failed. Our report makes some recommendations, so I suggest that my hon. Friend read it.
Citizens advice bureaux, which are involved with the claims process, report that across the country personal capacity assessments are throwing up a large number of benefit withdrawals, despite fact, as detailed in the PAC's previous report, that the Department for Work and Pensions is establishing more rigorous targets for the quality of Schlumberger's medical reports. Although the proportion of reports rated substandard has halved from 6 per cent. to 3 per cent., that is still a huge number of mistakes affecting 30,000 cases. Schlumberger doctors underestimate miserably the severity of claimants' disability. Citizens advice bureaux have dealt with scores of such cases, most of which arise because examining medical practitioners employed by Schlumberger fail to provide a correct PCA score to decision makers in the Department for Work and Pensions. For example, a man in the east midlands with
222
cervical spondylosis and heart disease who had received incapacity benefit for 10 years was exempted from the PCA on the ground of severe illness in 2000, but not in 2004, even though his condition had deteriorated. The examining medical practitioner awarded him only six points—15 is the threshold—even though the client disagreed with five of the zero scores, and his GP and consultant said that he must not work.
In the west midlands, a man with severe heart disease was told by his GP that he should not work, but the examining medical practitioner thought otherwise and decided that he had failed the PCA. He did not start work again, but he had a heart attack five months later and needed a coronary artery bypass, suggesting that his GP was right and the Schlumberger doctor wrong. A man in the north-west with severe arthritis in all his joints who had received incapacity benefit for 10 years was not awarded any points at his medical examination, which lasted 10 minutes.
Such cases must be looked at so that tests are done properly in future. One questions whether the EMPs are merely going through the motions in an assessment or are genuinely concerned about the people whom they assess. It is a great concern that the withdrawal of incapacity benefit, which may have been someone's only income for many years, may result from a short, sloppy examination by a Schlumberger doctor. We were told that 22 doctors have been sacked and 40 have been told to improve, which is a poor record. The report shows that it is not just Schlumberger doctors who need to improve—many GPs are reluctant to complete medical reports for their patients because it may harm the patient-doctor relationship. I find that a weak excuse. Perhaps they do not like filling in forms or having their normal procedures disturbed. I have regularly found that to be the case with some GPs.
When an individual fails the personal capability assessment, incapacity benefit stops immediately and there are knock-on effects: income support stops because the person is expected to claim jobseeker's allowance, having been declared fit to work. Housing benefit and other benefits may stop. The individual can do one of two things—appeal and claim jobseeker's allowance, or claim 80 per cent. of income support until the appeal is resolved and reapply for housing benefit and the other benefits. That can all be traumatic. People's income could drop to as little as £44 a week. For those under 25, it could drop to less than £35 a week. That causes stress and could endanger health, so benefits should be stopped only on sound evidence, not on the basis of sloppy findings by a doctor who may just want to get the case out of the way.
We found that there were administration problems with the Schlumberger doctors. When that happens, the stress and the inconvenience caused to disabled people can be worse than one imagines. In many cases the effect is made more serious by benefits being stopped as a result of an unjustified decision. I shall give examples. The client of a London citizens advice bureau informed Schlumberger that he would be unable to attend a PCA examination and his invalidity benefit was stopped. The problem was compounded because although the Department for Work and Pensions agreed that the

223
invalidity benefit should be reinstated, the computer system went wrong and he never received it. Such administrative errors are not at all helpful.
A citizens advice bureau in East Anglia reported that a young man with severe learning difficulties and behavioural problems missed two appointments for his assessment, the first time because he was ill, and the second time because his mother was too ill to take him and he needed to be accompanied. Each time his mother had informed the medical centre of the reason and was told that it was okay. What happened? His invalidity benefit and income support were stopped and he had to apply for a crisis loan for food. That is not good enough. The administration must be better than that.
Most medical examinations relating to disability living allowance and attendance allowance are carried out at clients' homes by doctors who are not employees of Schlumberger, but have jobs elsewhere as GPs. They often try to fit their medicals outside their working hours, which can result in phone calls to clients inappropriately late at night or early in the morning, and requests that can appear to be demands to carry out medicals at weekends or in the evenings. For example, an 80-year-old asthmatic man received a phone call at 7 pm on a Saturday to say that the doctor would call at 8 am the following day—Sunday—to examine him in his own home. He found it difficult to be up and dressed by 8 am, he was distressed when he was asked to go up and down the stairs several times, but he was afraid to tell the doctor that the time proposed was inconvenient. That is no way to do business, is it?
Also in the south-east, a mentally ill woman was telephoned at 7.20 am by a Schlumberger doctor who wanted to conduct a medical the same evening. The client was naturally confused and distressed by the call. That cannot be fair on the patient, who made an appeal. As far as I am concerned, such GPs are moonlighting. The conduct is not appropriate and needs rectifying.
Notwithstanding all the problems, improvements have been made, but the Government still have a long way to go. I am confident that the two reports that we produced on these matters will lead to further improvements and will consequently give a better deal to people who, unfortunately, have to apply for benefits.
4.54 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: Unlike the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), I have not refused Wimbledon tickets, but I like to think that I, like him, would choose Westminster over Wimbledon this afternoon.
This is the second occasion on which I have participated in the debate on Public Accounts Committee reports. I became a member of the Committee last autumn and am still enjoying the experience, although it can be challenging. I found it particularly tough to get my head around resource accounting, my momentary understanding of which disappears as soon as I leave Committee Room 15 or 16, where the Committee meets. I pay tribute to staff from the Committee, the National Audit Office and the Treasury, who try hard to help us understand concepts such as private finance initiatives and resource accounting.
224
I joined the Committee because I am interested in information technology. Sadly, I have not been disappointed, because IT failures are a recurrent theme in our deliberations. Rather than discussing IT failures, however, I want to remark on two forward-looking technology reports and the Government's responses to them. The 10th report "Purchasing and managing software licences" and the 11th report "Helping consumers benefit from competition in telecommunications" examine how we can improve things rather than what went wrong in the past. The 10th report is important for the Government, and the 11th report is important for consumers.
The 10th report seeks to secure better value from Government investment, which, as our Chairman rightly mentioned, is a key theme in Committee. In the software arena, better value could be obtained in three ways. First, prices from existing suppliers could be driven down through mechanisms such as the memorandum referred to in the report. Secondly, new ways to license software—specifically those offered by open-source software—could be explored. The third option, which is not a feature of the report but is important, is software asset management, which involves knowing what software one has and whether it is being used correctly.
Those three options interrelate to a significant degree. I have no doubt that the pricing of commodity software, which is covered by the memorandum, has been affected by the growing success of open-source software, which offers a genuine route to competition. Until recently, no significant competitor offered desktop software, but competition is increasing and is affecting prices directly. Multi-million pound savings have already been credited to the memorandum, and the credit for that should go to thousands of friendly hackers, who have produced open-source software alternatives that provide real competition for some of the established players.
Credit is especially due to Richard Stallman, who is the philosopher of the free software movement and the author of the general public licence, which is also known as the copyleft licence rather than the copyright licence, and which has been critical in developing competition. The participation of thousands of people around the globe in such work has resulted in significant savings to the public purse.
The alternative licensing model for free software is described as "free as in speech, rather than free as in beer", which is American shorthand to describe a completely different approach to software production. The Government response refers to their open-source software strategy, which will be updated in the autumn, and I hope that the public sector takes an increased interest in that software development model as a result of that review.
Mr. Jenkins: When I asked a question about that matter in 2002, the Minister said that a level playing field for open-source software had been achieved, but the pilot survey has still not been completed.
Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. I am lobbied weekly by people who are keen to promote greater use of that form of software in the public sector but find that there are still barriers to it. There are also

225
questions about the nature of the pilots, which tend to involve large companies instead of the smaller companies engaged in this field. We need to keep our eye on this very technical area.
The changes have borne fruit in the shape of £50 million in savings. If we trace that back to where it came from, we can see that it results from competition starting to emerge in a market that was previously locked down and uncompetitive. We should do everything we can to encourage that trend. Relevant to that are some important technical decisions concerning intellectual property legislation in relation to patent law and copyright law at the European Union level. Many in the sector fear that established players will use legal methods to shut out competitors and to stifle competition before it arrives by making it dependent on expensive licensing legislation. I hope that the Government will follow through the report by saying, "We are making these savings, and we could make more if we took an enlightened approach to intellectual property legislation that encouraged, rather than discouraged, a competitive market." There is plenty of action on that front, especially at EU level.
All these methods of getting more software more cheaply are useful, but I hope that they will be complemented by effective software asset management systems to ensure that we are not buying too much software. There is a fear that the mechanism could be counterproductive. If it is cheap for an organisation with 5,000 employees to buy a mass of 5,000 licences, it may be encouraged to do so, but if only 3,500 of those employees have a use for that software, the remaining 1,500 licences, although bought more cheaply, represent money down the drain. The most simple waste of all, which occurs on a weekly basis in the public sector as it does elsewhere, is to pay good money to upgrade a software product that has not even been deployed for use. I hope that we will be able to balance our pleasure at being able to buy more software more cheaply against maintaining a rigorous approach towards ensuring that we buy only what we need in the public sector.
The other report that I want to consider is the 11th report on telecommunications. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who served on the Public Accounts Committee in relation to that report, made a suggestion that I promised to pass on. He believes that fixed line telephone providers could help consumers to work through the mass of call bundles that are on offer—that was one of the themes that came out of the report—by ensuring that once their call patterns have been established they are offered the most appropriate call plan. Instead of the consumer having to figure out which call plan is right, often getting it wrong and being frustrated to be told that they could have got it cheaper if only they had ticked box A instead of box B, we should encourage the telecoms companies to take some of that responsibility. That is what happened in the highly competitive mobile sphere when mobile operators responded to competition by giving commitments always to go for the lowest-priced bundle for any particular user. I hope that that idea will be considered.
226
So far, the verdict of Ofcom, the critical player, is that companies are doing a reasonable job, but much of the report is directed towards trying to give it a steer as to how the Committee think that the competitive market can be developed. The art is to try to maintain a balance in the debate, which is taking place against a background of commercial companies fighting desperately for business. As the largest incumbent provider, BT—naturally for a business—is trying to fight off new entrants into the market. Given that most of our constituents are still BT customers, the quickest benefit for most of them usually comes from improvements to its packages for consumers. When BT announces changes to the "Together" packages or line rental, it frequently does so with a fanfare about how good they are to consumers. It is true that in the short term—today, tomorrow and next month—BT improvements are often the best way to get cheaper telecoms out to the largest number of people. However, that may make life difficult for competitors such as carrier pre-select operators, so the long-term effect is to act against competition. We need to try to strike a balance. We should not be too churlish about the goodies that are offered today, but at the same time we should not allow them to discourage us from seeking a longer-term competitive market. Ofcom has to try to hold the ring in all this.
We will know where Ofcom is going when we see the outcome of the telecoms review later in the year. We have encouraged people to go out and sell alternative telecoms packages more forcefully, but I agree with BT when it says that rogue operators often take that too far and sign up people without their consent. Events in the gas and electricity markets are already being echoed in the telecoms market. I am sure that constituents have approached hon. Members who are present to say that their suppliers have been switched but that they did not believe that they had consented to that. We must be firm and emphasise that we do not want to encourage inappropriate sale techniques and that we expect Ofcom to tackle that.
However, I am also in sympathy with alternative operators who say that it is extremely hard to describe the market as a level playing field when one operator can change at a stroke the rules of the game for everybody and introduce, for example, line rental charge changes. That alters the business model for carrier pre-select operators in a way that requires more long-term consultation and consideration. Such changes should not be thrown into the market, thus allowing people simply to sink or swim.
As always with Public Accounts Committee debates, there is plenty more to say. I shall confine myself to a final point about the tax credit system, which, again, could be the subject of a huge debate. However, I want to highlight one aspect. The technical problem with the implementation of the tax credit system is that the testing time scale was shortened so that all the tests that should have been undertaken were not carried out. When we questioned witnesses, we were told that there was an information tree. The supplier, Electronic Data Systems, told officials in the Inland Revenue that it would have to shorten the time scale for testing. It said that it thought that that would all right but that some inherent risk was entailed. It claimed that there would be no difficulty at any stage in warning people all the way

227
up to the top—ministerial level—that problems might occur. That is an unsatisfactory method of decision making.
The solution—if one exists—to avoiding the tax credit problem would have been to take a serious political decision to delay the implementation of the system on the basis of insufficient testing. That may have been a better alternative to the method that was chosen: to go ahead without the testing. I was not satisfied that sufficient political courage existed to make such decisions.
The Child Support Agency system has already been mentioned. Again, all sorts of delays and problems have occurred with it and it is perceived that politicians declare that they will set up a system on a specific date and, when technical problems arise, there is insufficient willingness to admit that, although they want to deliver it, they cannot because of those problems. We therefore go ahead and end up with a cocked-up, discredited system. We all have constituents whose attitude to tax credits, and consequently the operation of the Inland Revenue, is negative.
I raised a tax credit query on behalf of a constituent last week. The fax from the office that deals with such queries from Members of Parliament had a space for printing a header. It stated "War room", which is perhaps not entirely suitable to be passed on to a constituent, but sums up the feeling of Inland Revenue staff that they are engaged in some sort of conflict, fending off hordes of angry Members of Parliament, who are dealing with distraught constituents. Unresolved issues about the decision-making process remain and I am sure that that applies to other matters.
The reports are useful. My time on the Public Accounts Committee has been most well spent and I commend the reports to the House.
5.8 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for being slightly late. As the Chairman knows, I had a meeting with the Comptroller and Auditor General preparatory to next week's Public Accounts Commission meeting to consider the corporate plan.
It is not generally realised that the National Audit Office is monitored as it monitors others. When we consider the list of reports on the Order Paper, I am not sure how many people realise that, on average, those value-for-money reports cost £180,000 each. The collective year's output probably costs approximately £9 million. That accounts for only a small part of the NAO's public work in auditing all the Departments. It has been argued for many years that it saves the taxpayer money because it makes eightfold savings on every public pound that it spends.
That argument had become rather axiomatic, however, and we had not challenged it. A year ago, therefore, the Commission decided to ask for an audit of the National Audit Office. Haines Watts carried it out for us, and the report arrived on my desk the other day. It confirmed what the NAO has always claimed—this was after consultation with Departments that had been studied by the NAO—which was that it did indeed save eight times its annual cost. I can think of no other
228
organisation that can make such a claim. In fact, its efficiency is improving. Up to 1998, it saved only seven times its annual cost, so it has now improved on what was even then a remarkably good performance. The Commission now intends to ensure that we monitor annually the rate of return from the work of the NAO.
Hon. Members can see the number of reports that we have produced already this year. In the past, we have produced only 50 reports a year, so, with £650 million worth of public expenditure and income, we can only ever look at a minuscule proportion of the total. It seemed to me that, with such a good rate of return from the NAO, it would be a good investment to have more reports. For this year, therefore, my Commission has authorised an extra 10 reports. This has an advantage for the Committee, in that we do not always want to monitor those who have gone wrong; sometimes we want to monitor those who have done well and pat heads when they deserve to be patted. The extra reports will allow the Committee to have some choice over which 50 reports it will hold hearings on in the current year.
I do not pretend that we have any concept of what the optimum output of the NAO would be. With the rates of return that I have mentioned, we must ask whether even further investment might be practicable. That, however, places a further problem before the Public Accounts Committee. The more we expand the output of reports from the NAO, the more difficult it would become for us to monitor all of them and, some time in the next year or two, we might have to consider the way in which the Committee works. We have already had brief discussions about that.
Like all members of the Committee, I sometimes get very annoyed when I meet obstruction from the Departments that are being examined, and I have been particularly annoyed this year, as have other members of the Committee, about one issue. We were promised a report on the royal finances from the NAO, and a draft was put to the Committee. Its members were not satisfied that it was comprehensive, so we submitted extra questions. I myself submitted two pages, containing 20 to 30 supplementary questions. That was months ago, yet we still have not had answers to those questions from the Palace.
As some hon. Members will know, I have shown a modest interest in Palace finances over the past 12 to 15 years, so foot-dragging is not exactly unknown to me. I am amazed, however, that the Palace is treating the Public Accounts Committee with such contempt, and I hope that it will quickly make the information available to the NAO, to enable it to prepare its report. There are areas that we never look at; we are not allowed to, although we should be. The royal collection, for example, which is probably the largest single collection in the country in terms of value, is so organised—no doubt by coincidence—that the National Audit Office cannot examine it. It is organised as a charitable trust, and the NAO cannot examine charities, and its commercial wing is the Royal Collection Trust, and we have had trouble, up until Sharman, getting powers for the NAO to examine companies. It is an enormous collection, of which there is no catalogue—we were promised one 10 years ago by Sir Michael Peat, and it still does not exist. Only yesterday, I received an answer from the Financial Secretary confirming that at least she

229
is satisfied that there is an inventory of the collection. If there is an inventory, it is a short step to producing a catalogue and making that available to the public as so many museums do. In the next couple of months, I hope that we will have the information that we require from the palace.
It is no secret that I am probably devolution's most consistent enemy in the House of Commons. I must confess, however, that I have found one merit in it. The breaking down of the auditing function between the constituent countries has increased the access of auditors to the working of Departments. Therefore, as my colleagues know, I hope that the next stage for us will be to start working co-operatively as auditing and monitoring bodies, and to produce comparative reports where appropriate. Health is an obvious example. I asked Sir John, and I think that there will be a report in the next month or two, to carry out a comparative study of hospital waiting lists in relation to hip and cataract operations. If different systems are in operation, we might as well ensure that we not only look for what is wrong but for what is best, and that we analyse the different systems, the way in which they work, and the products that they provide to the consumer. Where one part of the country has a good idea, that can be used by other parts, and where one part of the country is dragging its feet, as Wales is currently doing on health, that can be exposed.
I have nothing more to say other than to thank my colleagues. I am a PAC addict—I have been on it so long that I cannot leave it. It is so good to see new members coming on to the Committee, despite its work being difficult, numerate and time-consuming. Each report is about 70 pages, as we all know, and there is all the supplementary briefing, so when doing two of those a week, Members are probably putting in more work than on any other Committee. I congratulate my younger, newer colleagues—everyone is younger nowadays—on the enthusiasm and thoroughness with which they carried out this year's work.
5.19 pm
Mr. Richard Bacon: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—a doughty member of the Committee from whom I have learned a great deal in my three years on it. He mentioned the royal family, and the evidence shows that the Committee's scrutiny of the royal family has been very useful. I remember the report on royal travel by air and rail, which had the wonderful performance indicator, "cost per royal mile". Costs fell from £17 million to £5 million, and the amount of travel stayed the same by rail and doubled, I seem to remember, by air.
As ever, I pay tribute to the National Audit Office and to the team led by Sir John Bourn, and also to our Committee staff, led by Nick Wright and the Committee assistants Leslie Young, Ronnie Jefferson and Chris Randall, for all their hard work in keeping the Committee running so smoothly.
I want to concentrate on an issue that of enduring interest to the Committee—the planning, procurement and management of Government information technology
230
projects. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said earlier. I shall not duplicate any of his remarks, but he made some valuable points about IT, although I think we approach the topic from different angles.
It is a commonplace that mankind learns from its mistakes. We can think of many areas of human activity, from the building of bridges to the manufacture of aircraft, in which the consequences of failure led to improvements. The philosopher Karl Popper once said that all human knowledge was, in one way or another, the result of human beings' learning from their mistakes, and that is broadly true. The great and obvious exception to that principle is the planning, procurement and management of Government information technology projects. The Government appear to be condemned, or perhaps have condemned themselves, to repeat the mistakes of the past in an endless cycle.
I was looking forward to a reply from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—not because I am not pleased to see the Financial Secretary, for it is always a great pleasure to see her but because during our February debate I suggested that the Economic Secretary that should start to publish the gateways reviews of the Office of Government Commerce. He said he would reflect on that suggestion, and I was looking forward to hearing the results of his reflection this afternoon, but I feel confident that the Economic Secretary has briefed the Financial Secretary on the result of his reflections on the benefits of publishing gateway reviews. I shall be interested to hear her conclusions—or his conclusions, on the basis of that briefing.
Just in case the Financial Secretary has not devoted as much time to the subject as I might have hoped, let me offer her one or two hints.
"There are still far too many projects and programmes reviewed by Gateway teams where, frankly, project planning is little better than something on the back of a cigarette packet."
Those are not my words; I found them on the OGC website. They are, in fact, the words of Sir Peter Gershon, the former OGC chief executive, uttered when he spoke at the project and programme management, or PPM, awards ceremony on 23 October last year.
I firmly believe that if we are to improve things we need more scrutiny, more openness and more accountability in the system. Last week's issue of Computer Weekly—always a good read for those who want to know what IT disasters are in the pipeline—set out what was described as the life cycle of a public sector IT failure. It goes something like this.
First, there is the project design. The design accords with the best-practice project principles, but there is an expansion of the objectives and the costs as interested parties give their views on what the new systems could do. In the second stage, an invitation to tender is issued. Civil servants faithfully reproduce the often unreasonable and, in some cases, simply ignorant demands of Ministers that the project be delivered at superhuman speed, when to anyone who knows anything about the subject the timetable looks completely unrealistic. However, the commitment to the time scales and to the project design is too great for heed to be paid to warnings from prospective end users, from trade unions, or indeed from any of the reputable prospective suppliers who are considering bidding for the project that the timetable is too tight or the scope unrealistically ambitious.

231
The third stage is when contracts are awarded. After that, fuller consultation with potential end users begins, but it is usually inadequate or self-selective. In the fourth stage, the supplier begins to realise that it has overestimated its ability to understand the customer's business, and to convert that into IT systems, and the customer realises that it has overestimated the capability of the supplier. More often than not, the supplier also realises that it has not asked enough questions before signing the contract, and that the customer has not understood its own business sufficiently well to explain its work practices, the complexities of the project, the risks of failure and the real costs to the supplier.
Now we reach the fifth stage, and the timetable begins to lengthen. The projected costs start to increase, but commitment to the project is now far too great for any indecision or U-turn to be allowed, so the Department ploughs on.
The project starts to founder in the sixth stage, which is characterised by the beginnings of the cover up. In this stage, failure is depicted as success, and Members of Parliament do not get well-rounded answers to questions. In the seventh stage, the failure becomes apparent anyway. It is impossible to hide it because the public or the departmental end users are affected by the fact that the contract is being abandoned, changed, rewritten or even reawarded to another supplier. In the eighth stage, often years later, there are sometimes reports from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. In the penultimate stage of the cycle, the Department says that it has learned the mistakes from the past, and those who give the assurances that lessons have been learned move on to other jobs, often in different Departments. Finally, those people are replaced by new personnel who embark on other projects that repeat the mistakes of the past, and the cycle begins anew.
That summary is all too realistic. Over the years, the PAC has examined scores of projects that exhibit those characteristics. The Inland Revenue tax credit system, which has already been referred to, was a classic example of a supplier being pushed into adopting a wholly unrealistic timetable and of a system being launched even though the contractors knew that it did not work properly. It became impossible to hide that failure when hundreds of thousands of citizens started to complain to their Members of Parliament that they were suddenly not receiving payments that hitherto, under the old working families tax credit, they had been receiving quite smoothly. Another classic example was the passport office fiasco, where after the expenditure of many millions of pounds on a new computer system, people suddenly could not get their passports on time—something that one tends to notice if one is just about to go on holiday, no matter what smooth reassurances one gets from a Minister or computer contractor.
Sometimes the failure is not quite so obvious to the pubic at large, but it usually comes out in the end. In Operation Telic, the UK's military operation in Iraq, when containers arrived with equipment for our armed forces in Kuwait and platoons of soldiers started to break into the containers to see what was in them and to obtain the kit that they needed—breaking in was the only way to find out what was in them—it became clear that the Ministry of Defence did not have proper asset-tracking or consignment-tracking software. It could not
232
track its equipment as it was delivered around the world and into theatres of operation for our armed forces. Notoriously, that meant that there was not enough body armour available for our soldiers in the right places in the recent Iraq war. Let no one say that that was a cost issue: the body armour cost £169.70 per set and the MOD spent a mere £2.9 million on body armour for the recent conflict. The issue was one not of cost but of basic logistics.
In our hearing on Operation Telic, the MOD mentioned, almost en passant, that it had spent £120 million on a bespoke tracking system before it was scrapped four years ago—incidentally, 41 times more than it spent on the body armour for the recent deployment. There was the usual story about how the money had not been wasted because it was being rolled into the next project, but the fact is that 13 years after the lack of decent consignment-tracking software was first identified in 1991, after the first Gulf war, that problem has still not been fixed, even though there are all kinds of commercially available off-the-shelf systems that tell users all that they need to know about exactly where their supplies are. For example, the American firm Caterpillar can deliver a spare part for one of its customers anywhere on the planet in 48 hours. We are familiar with firms such as Federal Express and DHL, which can routinely tell customers exactly where in the system their deliveries are at any one moment in time.
With Government IT projects, it is endemic that there are problems that do not get solved and mistakes from which lessons are not learned—it is the same story wherever one looks. There is a fundamental inability to learn from mistakes. Apart from the cases that I have already mentioned, we had the infamous Wessex regional authority case, and the London ambulance system case in which the suppliers warned about potential problems and were ignored. We had the mess over Inland Revenue self-assessment and the mess over the Central Veterinary Laboratory database for tracking BSE. In the case of the national insurance recording system, the contract extension was double the price of the original contract, and with the caseworking system for the immigration and nationality directorate the supplier was paid for not writing software.
In the Libra project for magistrates courts in England and Wales, which has already been briefly mentioned, costs quadrupled. The old Lord Chancellor's Department, before it was scrapped, paid some £232 million merely for 11,000 PCs, the printers and the "associated support"—whatever that means. I know that it does not include software, because that was clearly set out in the NAO report. That works out at about £20,000 per PC, or £10,000 even if we include the replacements, when it would have been perfectly possible to go down to PC World and buy the required kit for a few hundred pounds per desk.
There was the implementation of the national probation service's information systems strategy, which had seven project managers in seven years, five of whom knew nothing about project management. The result was a system so poor that no one wanted to use it. There was the recent Criminal Records Bureau fiasco, whereby the prices quoted by potential suppliers to do the same job varied so wildly—from £250 million to £380 million—that the CRB got in another consultant to

233
assess the relative merits of the bids, and to see where the discrepancy had arisen from. It still managed to end up paying significantly more than the highest bid.
We have already heard about the moving of the GCHQ computer, the cost of which, according to the management's own assessment, was £40 million. However, they told the board that the cost would be £20 million—do not ask me why because I do not know—and, of course, the actual cost was £400 million. Despite the fact that the National Air Traffic Services system at Swanwick cost £337 million and supposedly offers a superior service and an immediate 40 per cent. increase in capacity, it plainly is not up to the job, as became painfully clear when all the nation's aircraft ground to a halt the other day because of problems with the West Drayton system—a system that the new Swanwick system was supposed to replace.
Very topically, Sir Michael Bichard says in paragraph 35 of his recent inquiry that
"although national Information Technology (IT) systems for recording intelligence were part of the original National Strategy for Police Information Systems (NSPIS) as long ago as 1994, no such system exists even now. It was, in fact, formally abandoned in 2000 at the same time as the launch of the National Police Intelligence Model (NIM), which sought to place intelligence at the heart of policing. There are still no firm plans for a national IT system in England and Wales, although, in contrast, such a system will be fully operational in Scotland by the end of this year."
Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman share my fear that, in looking at all the IT failures, we might develop a very risk-averse culture whereby public authorities that do need new IT systems—the police are the classic example—do not invest in them because they are scared of what will happen down the line? That, too, would be very retrograde.
Mr. Bacon: I agree that that would be retrograde. I do not think for one moment that anyone can say that the public sector is risk-averse when it comes to IT projects. The public sector takes huge risks in respect of such projects, and in the main it does not know the size of the risks that it is running.
I want to mention two more examples. The first is the joint probation service and Prison Service offender assessment system—OAS—which is still in the pipeline. The report on that system, on which we were supposed to have taken evidence, was due in July but was postponed until 15 September. We learned as of yesterday that it has been postponed still further. Secondly, there is the national programme for IT in the health service. Key aspects of what are multi-billion pound contracts—the initial assessment was £2.3 billion, but the latest Financial Times report suggests a figure closer to £6 billion—had to be reviewed within mere months of their being signed.
The project has seen Professor Peter Hutton, the chief clinical adviser, resign as chairman of the clinical advisory board, and until extremely recently the views of GPs had been largely ignored. Indeed, in respect of many of the other projects that we have considered, the advice of the National Audit Office concerning the need to consult early was also totally ignored. The NHS has contracted to buy far more systems in phase 1 than there
234
is demand from hospital trusts, and in phase 2 the contractors will almost certainly be unable to meet the likely demand. Finally, GP magazine described the programme as
"more likely to be a fiasco than the Dome".
Mr. Jenkins: I listen with interest, as always, to the hon. Gentleman. Ho provides a list—too long a list—of near-disasters, but such contracts have been taken out with some of the best private sector companies in this country. Can he suggest a solution? Where are we to look if not to the best private sector companies in the country?
Mr. Bacon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his extremely timely intervention, because at the top of my next page it says, "What can be done?" He is right: we are talking about some of the finest and biggest computer contractors in the world. The Financial Secretary must therefore consider the possibility that something systemic is going on. It simply is not the case that everyone wants to get things wrong or to have as many disasters as possible. Something deeper is going on, and two areas deserve immediate attention, including from the Financial Secretary. To do so would not cost any money—she should be interested in that—and there would be an immediate benefit and a significant chance of improving the situation.
The first, which I briefly mentioned in our last debate on the subject, is the publication of gateway reviews. With a record as appalling as the one that I have just cited—the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) is right that the list of mistakes is far too long—the burden is not on me to show why the Government should publish gateway reviews, but on the Government and the Financial Secretary to say why they should not publish them. What possible justification could there be for not publishing them?
Departments often bleat about commercial confidentiality as a reason for not publishing reviews. They say that they have an agreement with a supplier and that the commercial interests of that supplier would be threatened by greater openness, but that is not necessarily what suppliers themselves say when given the chance. It was interesting to see that in the public evidence given to the Work and Pensions Committee in its ongoing inquiry into IT systems, the supplier stated that it did not have any problems with the publication of gateway reviews. On the contrary, the supplier said that it would welcome them. At the moment, it is not necessarily the case that suppliers are even aware that a gateway review is being undertaken. Amazingly, it is not a given that they know that a gateway review is happening.
Mr. Allan: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful to see the early gateway reviews—those on feasibility and all the technical issues that do not necessarily involve suppliers—when we are debating legislation? For example, when we debate the draft identity cards Bill in this place, it would be helpful to have the early gateway reviews before us, to help us think about the feasibility of implementation.
Mr. Bacon: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. While we are on the subject of ID cards, I read in

235
Computer Weekly just recently that senior figures in the industry—including, I am delighted to say, the Government's new chief information officer—have poured scorn on the feasibility of the ID card scheme. Before the Financial Secretary goes off with her Treasury colleagues and spends thousands of millions of pounds on an ID card system, she should listen to the people in the industry who are saying that the Government's business case for ID cards is vapid. A great deal of money could be saved and spent on something that people want their taxpayers' money to be spent on. I utterly agree that the answer is to have more transparency at as early a stage as possible.
It would be worth comparing the position that I have described with some of the well managed projects. It was noticeable that some common themes for successful projects emerged at the recent corporate IT forum—Tif—awards presentation for excellence in IT projects. I quote:
"The successful short-listed projects all had exceptionally close links between the business leader and the project team. The 'business customer/IT supplier' approach was all but absent, and the judges saw development of integrated teams, based around common goals, with each individual or group contributing something of value to the project. There was genuine collaboration, with the programmes adding something significant to the business."
Yet far too often with Government projects, far from having such close collaboration on the project that the business customer/IT supplier approach was all but absent, the suppliers do not even know that a gateway review is under way.
It is not the case that suppliers are wary of such openness. It is Departments and their officials who are so wary. They are far more protective of the so-called need for commercial confidentiality, because it helps protect them from future criticism.
Mr. Jenkins: I want to be clear about this in my own mind. The hon. Gentleman is intimating that the difficulty lies not with the suppliers, but with the customers, and that the customers do not want the transaction to be transparent because it may be difficult to specify the exact requirements of the project from the outset. That may result from a lack of technical ability or understanding of how the system will work. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the projects in the light of the rigour of transparency to follow?
Mr. Bacon: I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The lack of procurement skill in government is quite widespread. However, I would not want to pretend for one minute that some suppliers do not also get things horribly wrong. In the case of the Libra project, for example, it was not only the Department that was responsible for the scandal, it was also the supplier—ICL/Fujitsu. To return to my earlier point, in successful projects there is close collaboration between the supplier and the Government, such that it works like a seamless collaborative integrated team.
The hon. Member for Tamworth brings me to my next point. The Chairman mentioned Mr. John Oughton, the new chief executive of the Office of Government Commerce. Ten years ago, he was in charge of the Cabinet Office efficiency unit. He led a
236
scrutiny study that led to the publication in August 1994 of a report called "The Government's Use of External Consultants". The frontispiece of the report carried a quotation directly relevant to what the hon. Gentleman said. It stated:
"It is difficult to do good consultancy for a bad client, and it is difficult to do bad consultancy for a good client."
That is true, but suppliers and Government need to be in an informed loop where they can learn from each other. Too often, suppliers are not trusted in the adult way that makes close collaboration and success more likely. Part of the answer is to publish gateway reviews, so that everyone can see where they stand—or, in some cases, simply what is going on.
My second suggestion is more wide ranging, and it draws on experience in the US. When that country was faced with similar problems, Congress passed the Clinger-Cohen Act 1996, which provides a statutory framework of accountability. The US Government recognised that the lack of accountability, particularly in IT projects, and a culture of secrecy and cover-up had contributed to major failures in IT projects. The Clinger-Cohen Act, in essence, requires Departments to report contemporaneously to Congress on the progress, or otherwise, of projects, and to disclose any deviations from standing orders.
If we had a similar system here, following a gateway review that revealed a red light on a project, it would— as a matter of course and at an early stage—become public knowledge that the Department concerned was facing a red light. In particular, it would automatically become public knowledge if a Department went through a red light.
Last week, the Committee published a report on Customs and Excise and its use of electronic delivery to transform its services to customers. The report refers to the fact that Customs faces an OGC gateway review, as many Departments do. It also notes that Customs should have had a sensitivity analysis, but that it plainly did not. It says that there should be proper management of consultants, and that there should be an overall, senior responsible owner.
It is extraordinary that, even now, we must tell Departments that they should have proper management of consultants and that they should have overall senior responsible owners for their projects. However, we still do not know for certain whether a red light was flagged up by the gateway review process that Customs and Excise then went through. That is how it appears, but we do not know for certain, because the OGC's gateway reviews are not routinely published. I think that they should be.
Legislation that provides a clear framework for accountability would be an important step in forcing the searchlight into some of the darker corners of IT projects, where the natural tendency is to cover up mistakes. There is an important contrast with what happens in the private sector. People often say that mistakes are made in the private sector too, and they are right: there are many such mistakes, but there is an important difference.
I spoke at a conference for IT suppliers a few months ago. The Committee's Chairman gets many invitations and is very kind in refusing them and palming them off to other members of the Committee. It is a matter of

237
duty, I suppose. Before the conference, I was talking to a supplier who worked in both the public and private sectors. I asked her what was the main difference between the two sectors, and she said there were two differences—speed and commitment.
In the private sector, greater speed applies to decisions, and to the rapidity with which the plug is pulled if it becomes clear that circumstances have changed, that the market has moved or that the project has been rendered irrelevant by other changes. The supplier said that commitment is what top management in the private sector devotes to a project. That commitment is far too often lacking in Government projects.
I repeat my two proposals for the Financial Secretary's consideration—that gateway reviews should be published as a matter of course, and that a statutory framework for openness and accountability should be introduced, building on the lessons of the Clinger-Cohen Act.
The Financial Secretary may say no to my proposals, and she may assert that they are not necessary. However, given the public sector's catastrophic record in procuring IT projects under Governments of all political complexions, the Treasury has to do more. It must say whose side it is on. Is it on the side of taxpayers and citizens, who expect good value and service for the taxes that they pay, or not?
Unless the Treasury is prepared to change, the IT disasters will continue to happen—not because anyone wants them to, but largely because there are no real obstacles in the path of failure.
5.44 pm
Jon Cruddas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) and I shall cover some of the points that he raised later in my remarks. I have a few general comments about the work of the Committee before making some specific remarks about public expenditure. Like other members of the Committee, I wish to place on record my appreciation of the work of the people who service it. Nick Wright and his staff do a tremendous job, especially for newer members of the Committee. I joined just before the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who joined in late autumn last year. In those early months, the staff walked me through the methodology of the Committee and an impenetrable series of reports, and I bear witness to the work that they do on behalf of all of us.
I also wish to praise the work of the National Audit Office. It is commonly understood that every £1 spent by the NAO saves the taxpayer some £8, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out. The NAO also provides a key check on Government activity by its own existence. That is demonstrated by the seriousness with which accounting officers take preparing to appear before the Committee as witnesses. That itself is a check on the activities of Government.
The volume of work carried out by the Committee was mentioned earlier. It covers a staggering amount of territory across all Departments. It covers the general
238
and the specific, the macro and the micro elements of public expenditure. As such, it proves the uniqueness of its contributions. No other Committee can provide the rigour of analysis that the PAC does in terms of the conclusions it draws about Government activity.
The civil service comes out well from the deliberations of the PAC. Time and again, I am impressed by the commitment to public service that we witness in our deliberations. I also respect the tradition whereby civil servants take responsibility for the actions of those who preceded them and who, more often than not, took the decisions that we are investigating. To me, that remains an honourable tradition, and it is displayed week in and week out. I have one slight caveat, however, and that is the recent incident when reports on the public-private partnership on the tube were issued very late for our hearing last Wednesday. That was regrettable, because the impression was given that someone was holding off signing off the report to put more pressure on the NAO as it came up against the Committee's deadlines. It would be a concern if such pressure were to blur the edges of any NAO conclusions, although I have no specific evidence that that has been done.
Overall, I find being a member of the Committee and its work deeply rewarding, although it is difficult at times to assimilate the data and research projects that await us in our folders every week before the Committee meets. I find the politics of the Committee fascinating. It operates in a non-partisan way, which is especially impressive when we consider that it covers the key political battleground between the two main political parties—the efficiency of the Government in using our constituents' tax revenues. No votes are taken in the Committee: its conclusions remain unanimous. Indeed, if an outsider considered the workings of the Committee, it would be difficult for them to ascertain the political loyalties of a specific questioner in any given debate. That reflects well on the Committee and strengthens the conclusions it reaches.
None of that is to say that Committee members cannot draw their own conclusions for use outside the Committee. For example, given the speech today by the hon. Member for South Norfolk, I eagerly await his next article in The Daily Telegraph to reinforce his argument in an earlier article that
"if we stopped the haemorrhage of cash from our public sector we would have to worry less about extra taxes and borrowing".
In terms of waste, the hon. Gentleman is correct to list examples that the Committee has considered and that are contained in the reports before us. For example, there is the £7 billion to £10 billion in unpaid VAT lost to Customs and Excise. Several hon. Members have mentioned the £400 million spent on the new GCHQ building, when the management were informed that it would cost some £20 million. The sorry tale of equipment at the Child Support Agency has been touched on. Last week, we heard about the extraordinary amount of money spent on establishing the public-private partnership for the London underground and we shall look at that again. A general leakage of public money to consultants, financiers and middlemen is evident in the PFI projects we consider. There is the sorry tale of the refinancing of British Energy and the costs of specific items of kit in the Ministry of Defence—the list could go on and on.

239
The issue is not waste alone, however; it is waste alongside reform. At times, there is a danger that we may look at the work of the Committee in a slightly unbalanced fashion, considering only the failings in Government strategy, expenditure and management of resources. That is only one side of the equation. Analysis of waste must be considered alongside the evidence we receive of changes in the expenditure strategies deployed by the state. That is all the more important when we have a Government who believe in the role of the state and who are investing a further £61 billion of taxpayers' money in public services.
The NAO report, "Managing Resources to Deliver Better Public Services" provides balance when considering the reports put before the Committee. The NAO suggests a greater focus on delivery and an attempt to grapple with short-termism, through annual cash accounting with money handed back at the end of the year. It suggests a new emphasis on performance outcomes and that, among other things, we should consider whether the move to accruals-based accounting would better inform state expenditure. It considers the relative effectiveness of three-year comprehensive spending review periods, the flexibility to carry forward budgets and so forth. It will be interesting to see how those changes improve the relative efficiency of the state in managing and spending our resources. As the NAO stated:
"new flexibilities and changes in the way resources can be managed, if used effectively, should make an important contribution to improving public services".
Against a changing background, where the Government are trying systematically to rebuild the public services of our country, the work of the Committee is centre stage and is even more important in terms of the general political debates that arise from its deliberations.
The Committee considers the most important domestic political issues and the key political battleground for western market economies—how public resources are utilised and the efficiency of the public sector.
Mr. Howard Flight: I wholly agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is it not sad that more Members did not turn up for this debate which is at the centre of the issues of our times?
Jon Cruddas: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but before I became a member of the Committee I did not realise how penetrating its proceedings were and the fact that they form the cornerstone of all political discourse in terms of the core issues of tax expenditure, perceptions about the role of the state—which divide political parties—the role of intervention versus markets, devolution, centralisation, central planning versus more devolved decision-making and the like. All those issues will be centre stage over the next 12 months, if there is an election, and they all have a route back to the core terrain over which the PAC presides every week. That makes our work more rewarding, but also more complex, given the amount of information on which we have to deliberate.
The conclusions of the Government efficiency review—part of the overall spending review about which we shall hear soon—will be of interest in the
240
process of debating waste and reform. We know that the general shape of that work is to release more money down to the front line. We hear a lot of talk about that, as we do about reducing bureaucracy. In general, we know which changes are being considered: a focus on procurement, given Sir Peter Gershon's work at the OGC; a look at emptying back-office functions, given technological change; better use of IT in the delivery of services; examination of the devolved agencies—for example, their regulation regimes; and a look at bureaucracy in the public services.
I presume that those factors will inform a lot of the Committee's work in future. Indeed, they will inform a lot of the political battleground right up to the next election, which we touched on earlier. It will be interesting to see how the Committee's work can remain separate from heightened political debate and controversy about investment and reform in the public services and the role of the state itself, as we move into a heightened election gearing.
I want to make a simple final point about how the Committee's work and general political debate about the respective economic efficiency of state activity interrelates with what may be described as spatial economic development. One aspect that has tended to be underplayed in the debate about investment and reform in the public sector and the Government's strategy is whether it is cross-referenced with the dynamic spatial economic change in our country. At times, our sittings imply a static model of resource allocation on the basis of a certain population distribution.
I shall give an example that has been the subject of questioning during some recent sittings. It is estimated that London will grow by some 700,000 people in the next 10 to 15 years. For example, my borough's population is 155,000—the smallest in London—but it will grow by an estimated 50,000 in the next 10 to 15 years. It sits at the geographical centre of the so-called Thames gateway—a key growth area in the Government's sustainable communities agenda. I simply flag that up to make a number of simple points.
The Committee considers the complex issues of resource allocation and expenditure. We find that those issues become even more complex when analysed alongside current and projected population movements. For example, the Department of Health accepts, as did Sir Nigel Crisp during one of our recent sittings, that the budget allocations for the primary care trusts in my borough are underfunded by about £24 million. That figure was calculated before taking account of the major changes in population that are anticipated for the next 10 years. The comprehensive spending review will presumably consider both that structural underfunding and future budgeting, given the growth in that illustrative borough.
Let us take another example. The Government are setting up new delivery vehicles for economic regeneration. Last week, we processed the order to establish an east London urban development corporation to work alongside the London Development Agency and a host of other regional and sub-regional economic partnerships to spend public money. At times, it looks as though a jungle of structures and responsibilities operates within a positive sum game of financial investment by the state. How all

241
that works through to public service delivery on the ground will be the real test of Government strategy in my constituency during the next 10 years.
We as a Committee are starting to study some of those interrelationships, but they will provide a rich seam of work in the next few years. I do not underestimate the difficulties for the state in its various manifestations, given the relative efficiency of its activities. Everything else being equal, cutting waste and boosting efficiency is a tough job, but when the population is radically changing, an even more complex task is at hand. To cut short my comments, I very much enjoy the work of the Committee. It provides a unique service to this country's taxpayers, but I do not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead in monitoring the activities of the state in its various manifestations.
5.58 pm
Mr. Brian Jenkins: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas). I always find PAC debates fascinating; they are some of the best that take place in the Chamber. In fact, I congratulate every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate, particularly the Chairman of our Committee. Although from the Opposition, he has always been a very good Chairman in his manner, attitude and diligence, and I know that he will maintain that stance. He has brought credit to our Committee. I also thank the staff of our Committee, without whom we would not be able to work, and, of course, I thank the NAO.
As I am speaking towards the end of the debate, I do not want to repeat arguments made by other hon. Members—four pages of my speech on computers and software have gone for a start. I decided to take a new tack, so as I sat redrafting my words, it struck me that we are not opposed to innovation. We support and welcome innovation and risk taking in Departments, because if things do not work, at least they tried. We must overcome risk avoidance and complacency in Departments. Are Departments complacent and do they still know best? Ninety per cent. of the work done by Departments goes well, but they have no discipline in the marketplace. We, the members of the Public Accounts Committee, must search to achieve improved efficiency for the taxpayer and to help each Minister to achieve departmental delivery. National Audit Office reports are often enlightening, even for departmental heads, as we found when producing our reports.
What of complacency? Is Sir Humphrey alive and well in Whitehall? I have picked two reports at random, so we can determine whether our recommendations were accepted. First, I shall address the report "PFI: the new headquarters for the Home Office". I am glad that the Financial Secretary is in the Chamber because I know that she will make notes on what I say and take them back to the relevant people. The Committee's first conclusion said:
"Under-forecasting of staff numbers leads to bad decisions on accommodation … departments have assumed much lower staff numbers than they have subsequently employed. The buildings have … not been large enough to hold everyone. Yet such projects are often justified … by the advantages of bringing everyone under one roof. The Home Office assumed that staff
242
numbers would reduce … Instead, numbers increased dramatically between 1998 and 2003 … Similar stories arose at … the Ministry of Defence, and the former Department of Social Security."
Was that recommendation accepted? The Home Office said:
"The Home Office notes the Committee's conclusion. While good forecasting of staff numbers is important … there are bound to be uncertainties in any forecasts for long timescales."
I think that the period between 1998 and 2003 fits in with a five-year plan well. If the Home Office cannot administer the numbers over five years, we are in trouble.
The next part of the Home Office's response is very illuminating because it says:
"The current plan is to use 2 Marsham Street to accommodate those staff … expected to remain in central London".
However, it says that it intends to relocate
"the National Offender Management Service away from London … That will be achievable if funds are available to meet the cost of relocating … and a move offers value for money."
I say, "Thank you, but no thank you."
The Committee's second recommendation said that if Home Office numbers fall, it
"should identify other Government departments whose staff can fill up the new building."
However, the Home Office response was:
"The Home Office currently anticipates that all the accommodation in 2 Marsham Street will be required at the time it takes possession of the building in early 2005."
So, No. 2 Marsham street will be full of Home Office staff.
Mr. Bacon: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of the Home Office and PFI, does he find it odd that it had to pay £2.75 million to insert the refinancing clause in the contract, as the report identified, but that the Treasury managed to insert a similar clause for free when negotiating its contract? Does that suggest to him, as it does to me, that the Treasury is not keeping a sufficiently close eye on other Departments or promulgating best practice well enough?
Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is jumping ahead of me; I will come to that point in a moment.
We expect numbers of staff in the Department to fall and to take full advantage of the opportunity provided by Sir Michael Lyons's review on relocation. The Home Office said that the number of its staff
"accommodated in central London is expected to reduce significantly".
It said that because
"2 Marsham Street comprises three … blocks it would be possible to share occupation with other Government Departments",
but surely all Departments will have reduced numbers of staff in the next three years. We also recommend that agencies and non-departmental bodies that are required to remain in London move to No. 2, Marsham street to fill the space. The private finance initiative, however, may cause problems, because lease and operational arrangements are difficult to change. The Home Office,

243
however, says that the lease does not differ from any other lease and that, as the landlord, it will negotiate alterations.
There is no reason why Prison Service headquarters should remain in London. Subject to funds being found, and a satisfactory business case being made, relocation could be achieved by 2008. It is proposed that by 2005 Home Office staff will move into the new building, which is large enough to accommodate Prison Service headquarters. By 2008, however, if funds are found, those staff may have moved out of London. I am not sure whether the Home Office knows exactly what it is going to do with the building or the estate, but as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) said, its decision to pay £2.75 million for refinancing is strange.
The PAC has looked at refinancing deals in which the PFI arranger refinances the deal and takes a windfall profit. The Home Office would take a share of such profit, but its reasons for paying £2.75 million for the deal are unclear. I doubt whether it would take the same action again, even though it has broken new ground.
The last part of the report deals with the future of Horseferry house. As there is a falling property market in London, we thought that the Home Office—like all Departments, it is pressed for cash—might want to get rid of it, and the report says:
"The Home Office expects to declare Horseferry House surplus to requirements in the very near future."
When the Home Office does so, the building can be put on the market.
Our recommendations on PFI for Home Office headquarters are not being taken seriously enough. The Home Office has managed to skirt around them and, in true Sir Humphrey style, has decided that it knows best. It is complacent, because it knows that the Treasury will top up the money every year without looking for efficiency.
The Department for Education and Skills accepted some recommendations in the 19th report, our first conclusion of which was that inspection reports on secondary schools should be made available to parents, as not all parents are aware of the full range of information sources on school performance. They may not have access to the internet, may not go to the local library, and may not have a total commitment to securing the future of their children. The Department accepted that recommendation, but went on to say that
"70–80 per cent. of homes with school-aged children have internet access."
The Department's website had about 400,000 hits last year, and it said:
"Hard copies of performance table are available in local libraries … —some 10,000 telephone calls requesting one or more copies were received last year … The Ofsted web-site attracts in excess of 120 million hits a year … The Department recognises the need to improve communicantions to parents … The Department is currently consulting on the development of a new annual School Profile."
Having listened to our recommendations, the Department leapt into action. It told us exactly what it was doing—it was remiss of us not to know—and it will
244
consult on a new school profile. It has, however, accepted our recommendations in words but not in spirit.
Our second conclusion was that information on schools should include "important external factors", as a school can move from the bottom 20 per cent. to the top 20 per cent. if those factors are taken into consideration. In deprived areas where children do not have the advantage of their parents' support, they do not come to school with a peer group that wants and respects education, so they are at a tremendous disadvantage. The Department agrees with the Committee that external factors other than the pupils' prior attainment can significantly affect the performance of a school.
The Department's response goes on to tell me in almost every other paragraph why such factors cannot be taken into account. We are told:
"Value added (VA) measures were introduced into the secondary school performance tables (PT) in 2002."
That is fair enough. The Department and Ofsted go on to say:
"The PT methodology was developed through extensive consultation with schools and local education authorities… At the time this methodology was developed, VA was not a concept generally understood outside the statistical community, and certainly not by the public at large"—
in other words, parents. So what is the point of publishing added value tables for people who would not understand them? But our recommendation was accepted, of course.
The document continues:
"The priority was to find a simple and transparent approach … there were also fears that including factors other than prior attainment might risk suggesting an acceptance of poor educational outcomes for particular groups of pupils."
What does that mean? It means that if we accept that a school attended by disadvantaged children turns out lower grades on the performance table, which are rather raw material, the school might lower its expectations. Unfortunately, that misses the point. The point is that if a school is given a value added criterion instead of a raw table showing the qualifications produced, the school will recognise that it is doing good work, its morale will be reinforced and that will drive standards up. That is the reverse of the first comment.
I may be misreading the document and I may be disingenuous to those who wrote it, but when they come up with Sir Humphrey-speak time and again, they can expect it to be misinterpreted. Our Committee should start examining the Government reactions to our comments and recommendations.
The Department is to investigate and develop a more sophisticated value added methodology and it accepts the recommendation that social and economic deprivation should be taken into account in assessing the performance of schools. As we all know, increased income support and working families tax credit may take pupils out of the category eligible for free school meals, so a different method of evaluation is needed, rather than clinging to the free school meals criterion, as the Department does.

245
I shall skip a couple of recommendations because of the time. We recommended adjusted performance measures because we concluded that beacon schools, faith schools and single-sex schools do better than average. We stated:
"The strengths of these schools, such as a strong set of values and ethos, should be identified by the Department and promoted across the school sector."
In paragraph 21 the Department accepts the recommendation. In paragraphs 22 to 25 we are told what the Department is doing in that regard—not what it will do, but the state of play prior to our receiving the response. The Department says that such schools
"tend to have strong values and a unique ethos. Many draw from communities that particularly value education … Parents who seek out faith schools"—
remember, the interested parents, the ones who care, who are concerned about their children's education and who value education—
"may provide their children with a high level of support. Social background may also be a consideration. On average faith schools have fewer pupils with free school means than other schools."
Surprise, surprise.
Paragraphs 27 to 30 go on to tell us what is being done at present.
Ofsted accepts our recommendations. The Department accepts our recommendations. We asked for funding to be open, transparent and accountable. The Department agreed, but then said that that might cause friction. Why? Because if funding were open, transparent and accountable, people who feel that their schools are under-funded might be able to further their case. Staffordshire and Tamworth contain schools in deprived areas, and the social make-up of such schools is the same in any city in this country. Because the county is wealthy, however, those schools are denied funds. The Department spoke to head teachers, parents and LEAs, but it did not speak to Members of Parliament, although hopefully it will change its mind.
I enjoy being a member of the PAC, which does a worthwhile job. I shall continue to attend as best I can, but I wish that more hon. Members would take an interest and read our reports, and I also hope that Front Benchers stop using snippets from our reports out of context.
6.15 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson: I shall start with a tribute to the Chairman, of whom I heard from one of my hon. Friends the high words of praise, "He is not nearly as bad as was expected." In my view, he is a judicious and tolerant Chair, and my only criticism is that my 10 minutes are never as long as those allowed to other hon. Members. It is worth mentioning that, to his eternal credit, the Chairman turned out for the parliamentary rugby team—we did not pass to him, but we were just getting our own back.
I also pay tribute to Sir John Bourn and the senior officers of the NAO who attend our Committee, as well as to the NAO staff who do not attend, but who undoubtedly perform valuable work in the background,
246
and I also thank the Committee staff. Before I thank my parents, my schoolteachers and everyone whom I have ever met, burst into ears and accept my award, I shall mention the other members of the Committee.
It is valuable that many members of the Committee act as if they were self-employed by raising their interests in Committee, rather than being spoon-fed prepared questions, which happens in several other Select Committees. For example, the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) are invariably drawn from his constituency, which is invaluable because they illustrate how policies that we discuss in theory impact on real people in real situations.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) spoke at length about IT projects, during which time I found myself losing the will to live—it is important that some members of the Committee take an interest in such things. I perked up when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned beer, but I understand that he used the word in a technical sense. In my view, hell will be a never-ending discussion about the gateway process for IT projects. I am pleased that the Committee includes anoraks; I am just glad that I am not one of them.
Before we get too pleased with ourselves, some points must be made about some of the senior officials who appear in front of us. It is true that many of them are extremely bright and able—I do not object to being patronised by my intellectual superiors, otherwise I would go through life in a state of perpetual irritation. Given the return of "Come Dancing", however, we should consider giving scores to some of the witnesses. When I refurbished my house, I used a leaflet from Pilkington Glass that lists various types of frosted glass according to an obscuration index. Some of the officials who come before us knowing that we have a limited amount of time deliberately attempt to lead us in the wrong direction and to obscure the points that we are trying to elucidate. On some occasions our mild-mannered Chairman should rebuke them more severely than he does. We also need a bullshit detector for some of the responses that we get from officials, not all of whom are as frank as they should be.
The final category should be the smugness score. Some officials are so pleased with themselves that if they were made of chocolate they would eat themselves, as we would say in Glasgow. I am tempted to name and shame them, but they are so conceited that I suspect that they would take it as a compliment.
It is not entirely a question of the culture in the civil service. Yesterday, we discussed complex and serious issues with officials from the Department for International Development. Their open and honest approach—they were frank, helpful and constructive— was in stark contrast to the way in which some other officials deal with such matters. Officials should be encouraged to prepare for our meetings in a way that allows them to be more helpful and constructive.
Most of the report that we produce are fully acted upon. However, in the case of the report on the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel in relation to the sheep regime, the points that we made were not adequately accepted. That was a revelation in terms not only of the incompetence and dishonesty that

247
was practised in that area of the budget, but of the stunning complacency of the Department's response. The report was a pretty damning indictment, yet in its responses it appeared to be unwilling to accept some of the criticism.
Conclusion 1 of the Committee's report states:
"It is of major concern that the level of discrepancies noted by the Department's inspectors, when accompanied on farm visits by the Audit Office, was many times higher than when they were not accompanied. It appears to us that, by turning a blind eye to irregularities during on-farm visits, some inspectors were complicit with farmers in claiming more money than they were properly due."
In its response, the Department said that it
"takes very seriously the view expressed by the Committee in relation to possible collusion … There is no evidence that collusion has taken place or that inspectors failed to follow agreed procedures … However it does recognise that inspectors had been provided with a considerable degree of discretion, in relation to the type of irregularities that can be reported during the inspection process."
That is a particularly mealy-mouthed way of admitting that errors were made.
The Department gives every indication of being in denial about the scale of the difficulties that we outlined. Our report rather modestly states:
"We were surprised to find that payments were being made for sheep that had apparently died".
The Department's response is inadequate. It says:
"From January 2004,"—
that is, some considerable time after not only the Committee's hearing, but the NAO's investigation—
"with the banning of on-farm burial, sight of fresh carcasses or appropriate documentation is now obligatory"
and that
"penalties will be rigorously applied"
for future errors. We must continue to monitor that policy to ensure that it is applied in the appropriate circumstances.
Our conclusion states:
"We find the circumstances surrounding the Department's 1998 decision to allow payments for sheep at unnotified locations extraordinary."
It was not only
"contrary to EU rules, but the Department has no record of its decision, despite a senior official apparently travelling to Brussels to discuss the matter."
The Department's response was:
"The Department regrets that there is no record of the specific meeting in Brussels where the acceptability of the Department's interpretation of the EU requirements was confirmed."
The response continues the same vein. I can cite several more examples of similar evasive responses from the Department in Northern Ireland. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
Another part of the report states:
"The Department's failure to properly address the weaknesses in control, highlighted by the European Court of Auditors in 1994, was a serious error in judgement."
The Department responds by saying:
"The Department accepts that it should have been more diligent".
248
Well, that is good of it. I wonder whether anybody in the Northern Ireland civil service has been disciplined, sacked, transferred or rebuked. What does it show when a devastating report is produced but the relevant Department refuses to accept responsibility for its mistakes and is apparently in denial? That is unacceptable.
I could read out many similar examples, but I shall draw attention to only one more. Our conclusion 25 states:
"Our overall impression is that the Department has in the past been soft on fraud and this has contributed to unacceptably high levels of fraud within Northern Ireland agriculture."
The Department had the cheek to respond:
"The Department notes the views of the Committee and deeply regrets the impression created that it has in the past been soft on fraud. It would assure the Committee that this is not the case."
That is utterly incorrect. It is clear that the Department regrets being found out and that is unacceptable. It continues in its defence:
"In addition, the Department is working with its stakeholders, including farmer representative bodies, to promote high levels of probity".
If the police in Pollok met the national union of burglars to discuss the disappearance of articles from houses in the area, one would not necessarily expect a consensus. I am not convinced that farmers' representative bodies are entirely clean in the matters that we are discussing. It is difficult to believe, when the report identifies that in one specific area 58 per cent. of claims for foot and mouth were fraudulent or partly fraudulent, that some collusion with the overall farming body did not occur. In those circumstances, much more needs to be done.
I have tried not to stray from the list of items that is being discussed. However, I want to mention the National Audit Office's work on the report on health and safety in construction, which we shall debate later. Aileen Murphy and her staff were helpful and constructive in moving that forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a point about comparing and contrasting. I welcome the fact that devolution allows us to make comparisons between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland and so on. I hope that we will do much more of that. There is scope for comparing and contrasting in a way that can serve only to drive up standards of public provision. However, we should make more international comparisons. Although we have had contacts with the French and the Germans and we shall make contacts with the Spanish, we should also compare and contrast some of our work, not least on European Union agriculture subsidies. I am sure that if there is rank fraud and corruption in EU agriculture subsidies in this country, we can learn lessons from efforts to combat such practices in other partner states.
I am glad to have been able to participate in the work of the Committee over the past few years. It has been one of the most useful and worthwhile things that I have done as a Member of Parliament, and I want to pay tribute not only to my colleagues on the Committee but to the Chairman for his inspiration and leadership of the Committee.
6.30 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: May I add my thanks and congratulations to the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and Sir John Bourn for their excellent work? As ever, we have had an excellent debate, and I should like to comment particularly on the contributions of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), which went to the heart of why this work is so important, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), who focused on the area that we are most failing to address and which wastes the most in the public sector, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), who made a most witty and incisive thrust into some of the key areas that are so unsatisfactory.
I congratulate the Chairman on his excellent opening speech and wholly agree with his two messages: that greater efficiency is all about achieving better delivery of public services, and that there is a need for far better project management in the public sector, especially in information technology services. For nearly a year, I have been working with some 60 professionals who have been seconded and volunteered to work with David James in 15 teams to examine, on a bottom-up basis, how to achieve greater efficiency in the public sector. To date, at least, that work has been carried out in a great deal more depth than the Gershon report.
I find it depressing that, notwithstanding the response that people are "taking note", so much more could be achieved if the recommendations of the PAC reports were put into practice. Hon. Members mentioned the fact that the NAO makes savings eight times greater than its costs, but they could be massively greater if its findings were listened to and put into effect. The Chairman was right to say that that issue is at the centre of our political life today, given the massive increase in spending by an unreformed public sector that appears unable to deploy the money to adequate effect or to deliver.
The investigations of the PAC are conducted on an issue-by-issue basis. In the United States, according to statute, bodies must regularly audit the operational efficiency of the public sector entities, and perhaps what is missing in this country is an ongoing review of the efficiency and operational structures of much of the public sector.
The reports that we have debated today deal with some £60 billion of public expenditure, which, along with those that we discussed in our debate in February, give a total of £310 billion of expenditure. I shall not repeat the comments made by many who have spoken today, but many issues struck me as I read through the reports. One thing that I particularly value about participating in these debates is the discipline that it imposes on me to find out what is being said in the busy life of this place.
The first report said that the Inland Revenue had got out of date in dealing with tax compliance strategy. It is interesting that, just as the Government are tightening up on avoidance, the report should find that the Inland Revenue has gone soft on evasion.
That is not a particularly good message to send to the public at large, because evasion is a far greater and more difficult problem than avoidance.
250
The much quoted—understandably so—report on the sheep premiums scheme in Northern Ireland is a classic example of what is wrong with such schemes, what will inevitably happen and what is happening in many different areas all over the EU. The poor delivery by the Forensic Science Service agency, which has missed targets for five years, struck me as a classic case for privatisation, in which a public body has apparently been quite unable to achieve efficiency, whether through an efficiently priced private finance initiative or something greater. Most of the funding for the Warm Front scheme does not help those in most need: only a third of the grants help the fuel poor, and a third of fuel-poor households are not eligible for grants. That is a classic example of an ill-thought-out political gesture, and of tinkering that does not achieve its objectives and wastes taxpayers' money.
The report on expenditure on regional assistance and enterprise grants in England shows that, 14 years on, and £1.4 billion of expenditure later, the economic gap remains just as wide. That suggests not that the principle is wrong, but that the measures deployed have manifestly not succeeded in narrowing the economic gap. On Wembley, to which reference has been made, let us imagine handing over £120 million to another party without any guarantee or contribution from that party—in this case, the Football Association. Although taxpayers ended up paying for a fifth of the funding, they will not receive any benefit if the stadium is financially successful—what a completely uncommercial way of running Wembley and of looking after the interests of taxpayers.
The ninth report focused on the community grant to the National Coalition Of Anti-Deportation Campaigns, which found that the NCADA had used the funding for dubious campaigning that opposed any form of immigration controls whatever. I thought that I was reading a report on the EU budget, because this is another classic example of how public money must not be spent on indulging interest groups.
The 10th report is easily the most important, on which both my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made extremely valuable contributions. Ultimately, the issue is not learning from experience—as I commented last year, there is much to learn from how Italy, of all countries, has achieved far greater efficiency in the implementation of public sector IT investment and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk pointed out, from some of the disciplines that have been used in the US.
The 12th report displays no evidence of benefit eligibility decision making having improved at the Department for Work and Pensions, which the Chancellor contradicted at last week's Question Time. Overall, 24 per cent. of decisions contained errors, and 45 per cent. of disability living allowance claims contained errors. Essentially, it is a problem of a benefit system whose complexity is causing problems both for citizens and its administration.
The PFI for the Home Office was quoted. The one issue that was not quoted, which tells us so much, was that the Home Office might reconsider its implausibly high assumption that 1,300 officials and support staff

251
need regular ministerial access. In relation to moving the civil service out of London, the same principle obtains right across the board.
The 17th report looks at hip replacements and the use of hip prostheses, in respect of which there is inadequate evidence. It also contains the important statistic that hip replacement costs vary from £2,266 in one hospital to £7,456 in another. That is unacceptable if we are to have a much more efficient national health service. One of those hospitals is extremely efficient, while the other is, by implication, extremely inefficient. Much can be learned from such figures about possible ways of improving NHS efficiency.
Mr. Jenkins: The problem is the number of operations performed. A hospital that performs five operations a year is not in the same economic league as one that performs 50 or 60. It is a question of getting the specialism in the right place.
Mr. Flight: It is indeed a question of making the NHS more efficient by helping hospitals to specialise, and to become better at those specialisms.
The reports overall spoke to me of a public sector in need of major structural reform. They tell a sad tale of inadequate management, and many major areas of waste and inefficiency. It is clear that the public sector should be able to deliver better, and to produce better value for the taxpayer. Merely spending more money is not enough; structure and management are in urgent need of reform.
6.41 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): We have had an excellent debate, which has shown the special contribution that the PAC makes to our system of parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. It has reminded us of the key role played by the Committee in highlighting ways in which better value can be obtained from public spending. I pay tribute to its work and in particular to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who has ensured that its work is done in a manner that makes clear the reasons for the success or failure of projects or schemes. That approach ensures that lessons are learnt for the future, and that good practice is promoted.
Before I comment on the relationship between the PAC and the Treasury and respond as fully as I can in the time available to some of the points that have been raised, I too must pay tribute to the assistance that the Committee has received from the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, and his staff at the National Audit Office. Their role as independent scrutineers of central Government spending is central to the process of ensuring the accountability of the Executive. The NAO's financial audit work and value-for-money studies continue to make an important contribution to efforts to improve the standards of financial stewardship in Departments, and the effectiveness of public spending.
Many Members have singled out the role played by the NAO, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who sadly cannot be present—although he gave me notice of that. I commend him on his long service to the Committee. He
252
made sensible points about the workings of the Committee, and brought his experience to bear. I know that he retains a keen interest in the Committee's access to the civil list. I remind him, and other Committee members, that it has long been the policy of successive Governments that Ministers stand between the royal family and Parliament. That approach has been agreed on both sides of the House.
Other Members also made important points about the workings of the Committee, and I am sure that they will continue to bring their expertise to bear. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) pointed out that the Committee was central to political discourse, and I entirely agree. He challenged not just the Committee but the Government to define the way in which the need for spatial economic analysis was taken into account. That is something that we should reflect on further as we prepare our approach to public spending in future years and as the Committee carries out its scrutiny in years to come.
I note the touch of scepticism brought to the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) and for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) over how the Government have responded to some of the points made by the Committee, but I assure the House that we take the recommendations extremely seriously. The Committee and the Government have a shared responsibility to ensure that taxpayers' money is used economically, efficiently and effectively, and we want to see the delivery of public services to a high standard, drawing on the skills of the private sector, working together and applying best practice in financial and project management. We have to ensure that the extra investment flowing into public services leads to the significant improvements that the public expect and deserve.
This is probably not the best place to enter into a partisan debate about the role of public spending, as the Committee traditionally has a commendable, non-partisan approach. However, I should like to respond to some of the points of detail raised. The hon. Member for Gainsborough reminded us in his opening remarks of the considerable ground that the Committee has covered since February, and I commend all Members who have contributed to that important work. The Committee has rightly continued to take an interest in the efficiency of the social security system. One report that it considered was entitled "Progress in improving the medical assessment of incapacity and disability benefits". I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), whose contribution to these debates I always enjoy. He brings to them great insight and passion for his subject, but also good humour. I am sure that Members on both sides welcome that.
It is fair to say that we share my hon. Friend's and the Committee's concern about the complexity of benefit systems, which raises difficult issues about targeting benefits at those who need them. However, the Department for Work and Pensions is committed to trying to make the system easier to understand and improving the accuracy of decisions. Of course, the Committee has made valuable recommendations that the Department has taken into account, and it is only right to point out that the Committee has concluded

253
that since 2001, performance has improved in many aspects of medical assessment. The DWP has taken action on all the Committee's earlier recommendations. New performance targets have been set out, which either have been met or are on track to being met. The Committee has also recognised the action taken to enhance the training of doctors and to improve the quality of medical reports.
As the hon. Member for Gainsborough pointed out in his opening speech, better services and efficiency savings are two sides of the same coin, and he pointed to the concrete savings that the DWP has achieved, partly as a result of the Committee's recommendations. The backlog of incapacity benefit examinations was fully cleared by March 2004, and the result was a one-off saving to the taxpayer of £10.9 million. The time taken to complete personal capability assessments since 2001 has been reduced, resulting in an updated estimate of annual savings of £21 million. The overall saving to the taxpayer is therefore nearly £32 million. It is only right that we always focus on ways of improving efficiency and at the same time delivering better public services.
A great deal of interest in IT procurement and software has been expressed by members of the Committee on both sides. That is an emotive issue, and I certainly recognise the difficulties with IT procurement, but I merely point out to the Committee that they are not unique to the United Kingdom. Other leading international economies, particularly the United States, have encountered similar issues and difficulties. I believe that in the United States, 23 per cent. of all projects are cancelled before they are completed, and only 28 per cent. are finished on time and budget with the expected functionality. We clearly have common challenges that we need to address.
However, we are committed to learning from the past, to adopting best practice where it exists, and to attempting constantly to improve procurement techniques. For example, we have concluded that private finance initiatives are not suitable vehicles for IT projects. That is a significant example of how we have learned from the past. We do of course still believe it is important to work in partnership with the private sector, partly because of the skills and expertise that it offers to the public sector.
The Office of Government Commerce has played an extremely valuable role in helping Departments to procure IT more sensibly. The OGC introduced new procedures to improve the delivery of all projects and programmes that depend on the implementation of new IT systems. Three features of these new procedures are worth highlighting, the first of which is the establishing of a project-programme management centre of excellence in each Department. These centres report to departmental management boards on progress in key programmes and projects to support effective decision making, to share information and lessons learned elsewhere in government, and to provide internal support to aid delivery.
Secondly, each accounting officer is required to confirm that major IT-enabled projects do not suffer from the common causes of failure identified through OGC and National Audit Office experience. The NAO's contribution in this regard was particularly welcome.
254
The third feature is the introduction of a requirement that no Government initiative that is dependent on new IT be announced before an analysis of the risks and the implementation options has been undertaken.
These measures will go a long way towards raising procurement performance across government. I acknowledge the contribution and comments of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who said that it was only reasonable to give the Government a pat on the back for the work of the OGC. The OGC constitutes a very significant development in IT procurement and elsewhere, and it is only right that we should recognise its role, while not being complacent about the issues that will affect us in future.
Mr. Allan: It is very welcome that assessments of the IT implications will be made before policies are announced, but will the Financial Secretary deal with the point that was made by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), among others, about the publication of such information? In considering policy initiatives in the House, it would be extremely helpful to have that information before us, instead of guessing it or picking it up from the computer press.
Ruth Kelly: I was about to turn to the publication of the OGC gateway reviews, about which I know the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) feels extremely strongly. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary considered this issue in a previous debate, and although I acknowledge that there are differing views on each side of the argument, I shall make the same point that he doubtless made then. I have been involved in gateway reviews on a number of occasions, and I can say that the OGC reviews are conducted on a confidential basis. The process involving the OGC and the Department is extremely open. The OGC, which has the ability to disseminate best practice across government, helps and advises the Department when it has a project to deliver, and it is right that, once the Department owns that project, such information be kept confidential. If we took confidentiality away from the discussions we would not have such open and honest negotiations. Lessons would not be learned to the same extent, and the value added by the process could be significantly diminished.
Mr. Bacon: Does the Financial Secretary agree that the evidence is overwhelming that lessons are not being learned, as the history of the past 20 years has shown? I have made the point clearly that parties of both political complexions have suffered from this problem. The Financial Secretary says that the discussions between the Department and the OGC are very open. That is okay, but what about the suppliers? How can the situation be acceptable if suppliers do not even know that a gateway review is taking place? What is the Treasury afraid of?
Ruth Kelly: This is a question of learning from experience, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that such lessons are being taken on board. He has given examples of projects going back 15 years or more, and we do of course share the concern that he and other Members have expressed this afternoon about performance in relation to IT procurement. We are

255
determined to improve and the OGC process is a vital contribution to the debate. On the particular issue of a new statutory framework, I can tell the hon. Member for South Norfolk that I am committed to taking away this interesting proposal and looking into it further. He will understand that I cannot give an instant answer to that proposition, but I commit myself to writing to him about his interesting suggestion.
I hope that that illustrates the fact that we are committed to learning from experience. We are open to new ideas about how to take this forward. I believe that the OGC process has been and is valuable, and that some of its fruits may not be felt for many years to come, but will be significant in the future.
Many other issues have been raised in the debate and hon. Members will understand that I do not have time to respond to them all. Some concern individual Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok asked about the sheep regime and it is important to pass his question on to the appropriate Department, and the same applies to the points made about the Home Office building. The Home Office response highlighted the positive contribution that the new building will make to its operation in the future. It is something that is quite hard to quantify and to take into account—and the same applies to other points.
We have had a valuable and useful debate. It has been stimulating and enjoyable, demonstrating the value of the Public Accounts Committee's work in adding to the process of parliamentary scrutiny. I look forward to the Committee continuing its extremely valuable work throughout the coming year.
6.56 pm
Mr. Leigh: I would like to add my thanks to all members of the Committee for what they have said in today's debate and, indeed, for serving on it. I shall run through them quickly.
First, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) is, with his humour and his knowledge, an extraordinarily valuable member of the Committee. In a particularly brutal hearing on tax credits, he reminded the chairman of the Inland Revenue, Sir Nick Montague, that he had received more letters on the subject than any other, apart from fox hunting. Quick as a flash, Sir Nicholas replied:
"I have to be thankful for small mercies, Mr. Steinberg. Fox hunting is not a subject about which you write to me."
We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to our Committee.
We are also grateful for the wise counsel of the soon-to-be Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who keeps us on the
256
straight and narrow and reminds us when we are in danger of veering away from the ancient precedents of our venerable Committee. He is another extraordinarily valuable member. What he said today about benchmarking was important and we should take it away with us. The point was reiterated by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). We should have more international comparisons; we are too insular in our work.
I would also like to thank my two hon. Friends—if I may put it that way—the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) for their extraordinarily skilful speeches on IT. I did not lose the will to live during their speeches. They are not anoraks, but are contributing a great deal to saving many tens of millions of pounds. We will have to return to the issue of gateway reviews. We may be able to debate it further in our Committee. We have also spoken today about how best to publicise findings and how to avoid the eternal reiteration of mistakes, about which Karl Popper spoke, as mentioned in the debate.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) spoke well about the central paradox that the Committee has to deal with—the efficiency of the public sector. Somehow in our Committee, if nowhere else in the House of Commons, we manage to avoid it becoming a party political issue. It is something on which we can all agree, whatever our views—that we have to make the public sector far more efficient than it has been under this Government, under the previous Government and, indeed, under any Government.
I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who did a feisty canter across the ground and injected a little bit of party politics into the debate—and what is wrong with that?
I also thank the Minister for being a member of our Committee, even though she cannot turn up for sittings. We are very grateful for all her work.
Finally, I am grateful for the very kind personal appreciation that the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) gave me. He is the hardest working member of our Committee and we are all very grateful to him.
This has been a good debate and we will carry on our work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the 1st to the 16th, and the 18th and 19th Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2003–04, and of the Treasury Minutes and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memorandum on these Reports, Cm 6130, 6136, 6155, 6175, 6191 and 6244.

Domestic Violence
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger]
6.59 pm
Vera Baird (Redcar): Two women a week are killed by violent partners. Thirty men a year are killed by their battered partners. Many of the men and women charged with those killings put up the defence of provocation. If the jury accepts it, they will be convicted only of manslaughter and not of murder. In those circumstances, the punishment is not a mandatory life sentence, but is at the judge's discretion.
The Government are undecided about whether to change the law on provocation imminently. I shall set out what happens under the current law.
In domestic killings, men kill because of anger and sexual jealousy. Women kill because of abuse. I have defended many women over the past decade who have killed their partners, and I have never come across one who has killed from sexual jealousy or anger. The women whom I have defended have killed only after being beaten and abused, sometimes for years.
In the defence of provocation, the defendant says that the killing was done during a sudden and temporary loss of self-control caused by things said or done by the victim, and in circumstances in which a reasonable person might have reacted as the defendant did.
The point of the defence is that although the defendant has killed, his blameworthiness for overreacting is mitigated by the provocation from the victim. Originally, the defence required the provocative conduct to be wrong. The philosophy behind provocation—that its presence reduces the blameworthiness of killing—would not make sense if a victim did only what she had a right to do, or if she was not wrong to do it.
As long ago as the 19th century, judges thought it a misuse of the defence of provocation to say that a man was provoked to kill when his wife left him. They had a power to withdraw the defence from the jury's consideration when it was levelled against rightful acts, or acts that were not wrong. In such circumstances, the judges did withdraw the defence. Of course a woman has a right to leave a man if she does not want to live with him. He can divorce her but he cannot kill her, unless he wants to be convicted of murder.
However, in this century the requirement that the provocation must be wrong in some way has disappeared. One man was acquitted of murder when he claimed that he had been provoked to kill by a baby crying.
In recent years, there have been cases in which women have been killed and men have said that they were provoked to lose their self-control by nagging. For one man, the final provocation was the way that the woman moved the mustard pot across the table. In a case in Leeds, the defence of provocation was successful in a case in which a man had killed his wife not because she had left him but because she had told him that she was thinking of leaving him and going to live with her gym trainer.
We must remember that there are two parts to the defence of provocation. It does not work unless, in addition to showing provocative conduct, the defendant
258
shows that a reasonable person might have reacted to that conduct as the defendant did. Surely killing a partner for moving the mustard pot in a certain way and saying that she fancies her gym teacher is not the reaction of a reasonable person, so how did it come about that these men were acquitted?
The culprit is the House of Lords. In the case of Morgan James Smith in 2000, the Lords said that, when considering whether a reasonable person might have reacted to the provocation as the defendant did, all the characteristics of the defendant must be taken into account. Clearly, to be fair, one must consider whether a reasonable person of the same age might have reacted in the same way, as self-control goes with maturity. However, in the Smith case it was stated that all the defendant's characteristics have to be taken into account, including any that might lower his standards of self-control below the ordinary.
For that reason, a defendant's bad temper and alcoholism are his characteristics and must be taken into account when consideration is given to whether any reasonable person would have done as he did. Therefore, one is supposed to impute the fine characteristics of the reasonable person, and then ask whether a reasonable person who is bad tempered and alcoholic might have behaved as the defendant did.
However, if one imputes the defendant's characteristics to the reasonable person, the reasonable person turns into the defendant. Therefore, the question of whether a reasonable person—who has now become the defendant—might have reacted as the defendant did is meaningless, as there is no second requirement. At present, there is no need for conduct to be wrong to be called provocation, trivial behaviour cannot be withdrawn from the jury by the judge, and there is no second requirement at all. Add it all together and the only question left for the jury in a provocation defence is whether he lost his self-control because of something she did. If so, he has a defence. That is hopeless. It offers no protection or rational basis for jury decisions. In addition, what does it say to her children or parents if the state says that his blame is less and she bears responsibility for her own killing because she moved the mustard pot?
The typical killing by a battered woman is not from anger and does not fit the sudden and temporary loss of self-control model of provocation. Almost all such killings take place when she is under attack. She flees into the kitchen, he comes after her, she seizes a knife, she turns and she stabs him once. There is no defence of killing out of fear or despair that accommodates battered women in the way that provocation and killing out of anger accommodates men. However, there is far more emotional and psychological stress to justify a finding of less blameworthiness if someone kills after long tolerance of harsh wrong treatment, rather than suddenly in anger.
One might think that the run into the kitchen and the turn round under attack is self-defence, but it is excessive. To be a defence, self-defence must be proportionate. If a woman is attacked only with fist or boot and even if the man is stronger and has used violence before, if she takes a weapon, lashes out and kills him, the jury will not acquit her on self-defence. It is excessive. It is disproportionate. Excessive or

259
disproportionate self-defence leads to a conviction for murder, not for manslaughter. If I overreact to provocation, as a man may do, it is manslaughter. If I overreact to being attacked, as a woman may do, it is murder.
Women in court are now defended on two bases. First, the defence tries arguing that the act was proportionate self-defence. Secondly, if that fails, she falls back on the claim that the attack provoked her into a sudden and temporary loss of self-control that would have caused a reasonable person to do as she did and kill. But proportionality in the first defence of self-defence requires measurement and deliberation. The defence of provocation requires a sudden and temporary loss of self-control and a lashing out—an overreaction. It requires that a person has acted disproportionately. The two defences are inconsistent.
Women do not fit the hot-tempered provocation model into which one tries to squeeze them. The jury can see perfectly well that the woman is outside provocation and that she has not killed from anger at a wrong, but in terror and despair at yet another beating. So both defences usually fail, and thus do violent men who lose their self-control get away with murder and battered women get convicted of it. That is unjust. It is also sexist. The Government will introduce a duty on public authorities to promote gender equality, but the courts, which have to implement the current law on provocation and manslaughter, will not be able to comply.
The Government know well that the need to reform the law is urgent and they have asked the Law Commission to consider the issue and make proposals. The Law Commission has done so. I am told by Mr. Justice Toulson that the proposals are unlikely to change and have been well received, with few exceptions, by the judiciary and by academics. I can say that the Fawcett Society, Justice for Women, Rights of Women, Southall Black Sisters, Women's Aid and all the women's lobby groups who deal with the issue are 100 per cent. behind the proposals.
The purpose in asking the Law Commission to look at provocation was to consider legislation, so the terms of reference asked for special attention to domestic violence. However, the Law Commission has worked out a defence for all manslaughter to an outstanding level, which goes much wider than the terms of reference. The calibre of the proposals is very good. Under them, unlawful homicide that would otherwise be murder would be manslaughter if the defendant acted in response to various factors. Change No. 1 is gross provocation, meaning words or conduct—or words and conduct—that caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged. That would restore the moral basis for provocation—that the conduct in question must be wrongful. The defendant would have to have legitimate grounds for feeling strongly aggrieved by the conduct of the person. The question of whether that was justifiable would be for the jury, not for the defendant. Gross provocation ups the level of conduct needed to arouse a justifiable sense of grievance. Anything less than gross, anything less than wrongful and the court will be able to withdraw the defence from the jury, because change No. 2 is that the judge will not
260
be required to leave the defence to the jury unless there is evidence on which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could conclude that it might apply.
Under change No. 3, homicide that would otherwise be murder would be manslaughter instead if the act was carried out from fear of serious violence, so the woman under attack in the kitchen would not have to pretend that she acted out of loss of self-control; she will be protected if she acted from fear of serious violence. Of course, before the jury looks at that partial defence it will have to look at self-defence, where that has been raised, but if it finds that the defence was disproportionate it will ask whether it was too much because the woman was afraid.
It is a measure of how fair and realistic the report is, and of how commendable it is, that the Royal College of Psychiatrists gave evidence to the Law Commission, challenging the assumption that anger—the male emotion—cannot be a justification for responsive violence, while fear—the female emotion—can be. The RCP pointed out that the two emotions of anger and fear are not distinct and that physiologically anger and fear are identical. Many mental states that accompany killing also incorporate psychologically both anger and fear. Hence the abused woman who kills in response even to an immediate severe threat will be driven at least partly by anger at the years of abuse meted out to her and perhaps to her children.
Change No. 4, homicide that would otherwise be murder, can be reduced to manslaughter by a combination of gross provocation causing a justifiable sense of wrong and fear. Morally, of course, the common element is that it is a response to bad conduct. The person would not kill at all had they not been attacked.
Even if there is gross provocation engendering a justifiable sense of wrong it by no means follows that an ordinary person would have reacted in the way that the defendant did. Most people suffer gross provocation from time to time but they do not kill. The final change is that the defence would be available only if a person of ordinary self-control in the circumstances of the defendant might have reacted in the same or a similar way. That would still take into account all the defendant's characteristics, such as age, but not matters that bear simply on his capacity for self-control—so no more bad temper, no more alcohol.
A man or a woman, seriously wronged. justifiably feeling that they have been seriously wronged and exercising ordinary self-control, but who kills will have that defence. Women, killing under serious fear of violence, will also have that defence. All will become far more equal. The case for change is overwhelming. The Law Commission's proposals are rational, clear, just—not sexist—and fair. They can be put into the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill through an amendment that has already been tabled, so this is my sole question to my hon. Friend the Minister: why not?
7.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) for initiating this important debate. To the long list of attributes that we associate with my hon. and

261
learned Friend we can now add stamina, as she and I, as well as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), who are also in the Chamber, have been discussing the detail of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill since about 10 past nine this morning.
My hon. and learned Friend speaks with great experience and authority on these extremely important issues. As she said, two women are killed every week by a male partner, or former partner. while about 30 men are killed by a female partner, or former partner, each year. Getting the criminal law right is essential to deal justly with such cases and an important part of getting domestic violence fully recognised for the serious offence that it is.
The Government have sought to engage the public on these issues, setting out our proposals in "Safety and Justice", which was published just a year ago in June 2003, and introducing the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill in this Session of Parliament. It is vital that we get the law right and that we deal with the perpetrators, as well as find and develop practical ways to provide effective help and support for victims.
The Government fully recognise and share the concern about the way in which the law on homicide operates in relation to domestic violence cases. In particular, we understand the concern that recent developments in the law have led to an extension of the scope and availability of the partial defence to murder of provocation well beyond what was envisaged in section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957. Those developments have allowed a subjective test for provocation, based on the defendant's characteristics, rather than the more objective test of what a reasonable reaction to the provocation would be. My hon. and learned Friend outlined very graphically the impact of that on individual families.
Of course sexual jealousy, however much it may enrage the person who suffers from it, should never be seen as a justification for killing someone; nor should infidelity be an excuse for taking someone's life, however devastating it may be. There is also a deep worry that current sentencing in relation to manslaughter by reason of provocation in cases of domestic violence homicides does not adequately reflect their seriousness and the loss of life involved.
The Government agree that the current position on provocation is unsustainable. Indeed, for that reason, we asked the Sentencing Advisory Panel to consider the sentencing issues and the Law Commission to analyse provocation as a partial defence. The Law Commission was the right body to do that. It is eminent in law reform and respected in legal circles and more widely. It has been able to research this issue thoroughly and provide a very detailed legal analysis of the present law and the options for reform.
In addition, the Law Commission has been able to canvass a wide range of views and opinions, consulting extensively across the appropriate groups and individuals. My hon. and learned Friend named some of the organisations, such as Southall Black Sisters, Justice for Women, the Women's Aid Federation of England,
262
Rights of Women and, indeed, the Fawcett Society, in which she plays such a prominent role. All those organisations have provided useful information about the problem. Their insight will be vital in ensuring that we deal with the right issues and find solutions that really work.
This concern is not new. We highlighted our concerns about the law on provocation generally and the particular problem with domestic homicides in the "Safety and Justice" domestic violence consultation paper that I referred to earlier. Indeed, the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, currently in Committee, contains important measures to help to tackle the evil that is domestic violence. Those measures include making common assault an arrestable offence; making breach of non-molestation orders a criminal offence; establishing domestic homicide reviews; and strengthening provisions on restraining orders, including making them available on acquittal. All those important changes demonstrate our total commitment to dealing with such crime with all the severity that it properly deserves.
In "Safety and Justice", we identified two strands to the problem with the way that the law on provocation works at present: first, the problem with the way the law has developed since Morgan Smith, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, and the subjective interpretation of provocation provided by that case; and secondly, the problem with sentencing. It is true that a good part of the problem lies on the sentencing side. There is a large gap in the sentences given in cases of murder and manslaughter. Murder receives a mandatory life sentence, with a starting point of at least 15 years, as established in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Although manslaughter can attract a discretionary life sentence, sentences in practice are generally of determinate length and, for domestic homicides, will usually attract a sentence of four to eight years' imprisonment.
Under current licence arrangements, the defendant can expect to serve two thirds of such a sentence, so the difference in time actually served can be very large indeed. That puts great weight on the partial defences, because the consequences can be so significant. For that reason, we asked the Sentencing Advisory Panel to examine sentencing when provocation reduces a charge of murder to a conviction for manslaughter, especially when the offence arises in a domestic context. Its analysis, which was published in its consultation paper, shows clearly how wide the sentencing gap is at present. Nevertheless, its proposals would place most cases of manslaughter by provocation—whether or not in a domestic context—in the medium or low ranges of seriousness. That would give starting points of six or two years respectively and would, in practice, do little to address the present sentencing gap.
The next stage for the Sentencing Advisory Panel, following an assessment of the responses to the consultation, will be for it to put proposals to the new Sentencing Guidelines Council, with the final guidelines ultimately coming before Parliament for debate. We are keen for all those with an interest to engage in the process and hope that that will ensure the development of appropriate guidance that reflects both justice and fairness.

263
As regards the partial defence itself and the formulation of the criminal law, we are concerned, as I said, about domestic homicides in which the alleged provocation is due to sexual jealousy or infidelity, for it is in such cases that raising the partial defence often involves an attack on the victim's reputation. We know that that can be extremely traumatic for the family. Understandably, they will perceive that the verdict, or acceptance of a plea, in such circumstances means that the victim was to blame for his or her death. We need to tackle that, so the Law Commission's work could be helpful. My hon. and learned Friend outlined the provisional proposals in detail. They would remove the concept of loss of self-control, so that could no longer form the basis of a defence, and substitute fear of serious violence and words or conduct that caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged as the grounds for defence.
Even within the context of domestic violence, however, the proposals have major implications that require careful thought. In particular, the concept of a justifiable sense of being wronged could have unintended implications. Of course, we cannot limit the debate to that context alone. As I said earlier, this area of the law is important in relation to domestic violence, but the importance of provocation goes much wider.
Partial defences to murder, including provocation, provide the boundary line between murder and manslaughter across homicide offences in general, so we need to look at the law for all homicides. Our aim must be to find a balanced solution that will address the differing types of homicide coherently while providing public confidence that the law is fair and right. In such a complex area of the law, the potential for unintended consequences is huge.
I should make it clear that we do not think that the option of a defence only for cases of domestic violence would work. There is no definition of domestic violence in law and, as we have been debating in Committee, there are good reasons for that. For a start, it would be difficult to reach a clearly agreed firm definition. The criminal law must provide certainty about its scope, but how would that work for domestic violence homicides? Violence between partners would clearly be covered, but what about casual relationships between two people who had perhaps met only that day or earlier in the same week? Where would we draw the line? What about child homicides, perhaps following a prolonged period of physical or sexual abuse? There would need to be a convincing reason why people who committed the same basic offence, but in different contexts, would have different defences available to them.
I want to consider briefly what the Law Commission proposes in the wider context of homicide as a whole. Its provisional proposals have some attractive features, but they would represent a major change from the way in
264
which the law works at present. At present, provocation provides an excuse for homicide because although an offender killed, that can be partially excused because he lost control. However, the courts have stretched that to take account of the very different position for women who kill. Under the Law Commission proposal, the killing would be deemed partially justified in certain circumstances, which is a very significant change indeed with far-reaching ramifications. We need to consider how it would work, not just in the domestic violence context, where there could be difficult areas such as "honour" killings, but in other circumstances. For example, it might be possible to argue that some gangland killings meet the criteria. We need to reflect on that major issue of principle and policy in criminal law. It would certainly be irresponsible to adopt such a radical change too quickly. We also have to look with great care at the balance between providing a defence that is subjectively based on the defendant's characteristics and making the defence wholly objectively based. That needs to be debated fully to ensure that we reach a solution that commands public confidence in the rule of law.
The Law Commission is still working on its final report. Its proposals have been strongly welcomed by some groups, although areas of particular concern have also been identified. We must make sure that it has the time to complete its work fully, analyse the responses and take them on board. Moreover, we need to take a comprehensive look at the underlying principles, as this is not an area for quick decisions. The Law Commission's thorough analysis will be crucial in helping us to clarify our understanding of the issues involved. The present law was put in place in 1957, and we need to undertake careful reflection and study the Law Commission's proposals in depth before we set it aside. Given that legislating on provocation is a complex area of law, it clearly makes good sense to await the final report by the Law Commission. We will then look at its recommendations carefully before we consider taking legislative action. We will need to ensure that we have checked the full intended consequences of the proposed changes, and that we have picked up any unintended consequences.
I believe that at this stage it is too early to legislate. We have more work to do if we are to get this important issue right, and we are all too aware of the problems created by rushed legislative change. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill is a crucial further step in the Government's determined efforts to deal with the horror of domestic violence. Further development of our thinking on provocation and the changes to the law that may be required should be undertaken with great care to ensure that we get it right.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Premium Telephone Numbers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. [Derek Twigg.]
9.30 am
Sir George Young: I welcome this opportunity for a debate on premium rate numbers and the growing problems of abuse to which my constituents are falling prey. I note that several other hon. Members share my concern. It is good to see the Minister in his place. If I may say so, he is an effective political firewall for his Department, neutralising and repelling hostile attacks.
This is a topical subject. Last Thursday's edition of The Times featured a story by Helen Nugent—"BT chases phantom sex caller as bills soar"—and the day before I read "Pop-up scam hits internet phone lines" by Liz Philips in the Money Mail. The Sunday Times two days ago included the story "Premium rate robbery" by David Hewson, and I have a large number of headlines from press cuttings that were helpfully provided by the Library: "New mobile phone scam promises prizes but could cost a small fortune", "BT urged to act over internet scam", "Couple dispute £750 phone bill", "BT customers may sue over internet rogue-dialling scam" and, last but not least, "Phantom of the phone sex lines strikes again in Middle England".
I shall describe the premium rate number industry, set out the abuses that are now rife, analyse the regulatory response, which I believe to be wholly inadequate, and suggest some possible remedies. Basically, the premium rate number market revolves around the use of the 090 telephone number range, for which charges to the caller are up to £1.50 per minute. Most of the premium rate market, which is worth £1 billion per annum, does not involve any abuse. It embraces the voting lines for "Big Brother", lines for weather reports, technical help desks, chat lines, horoscopes, TV games, charities, music downloads, Government Departments and what is politely called adult entertainment The world would continue to rotate without premium rate numbers. Indeed, many countries have banned them. People in those countries who want to pay for premium services over the phone pay by credit card. I shall return to that nuclear option later.
The structure of the industry is not straightforward. Let us start with the network operator—BT. NTL or Telewest. They are the folk to whom we pay our phone bills. A premium rate call goes from our phone line through two separate organisations. First, it goes through the terminating network operator, of which there are several dozen. They are the owners of the 090 numbers, which are allocated by Ofcom. They in turn lease the numbers to service providers, which provide some 30,000 services. They are at the end of the chain and may or may not be located in the UK.
It is important to understand not only the structure of the industry, but the revenue-sharing arrangements. All the money that ends up in the hands of the fraudsters starts off in the hands of reputable telephone companies. As BT is typically paid quarterly in arrears for calls by its customers, it may be paid up to four months after a premium rate number has been called. However, it pays out to the terminating network as early as 14 days after a call has been made. BT keeps between 6p and 7p per minute and hands the rest to the terminating network, which, as the 090 host, keeps its percentage of the revenue and pays out the remainder to the service provider, which typically gets 80 per cent., although in some cases it may be less. The secondary settlements can take place weekly. If there is an abuse, it may not be noticed for some time; typically, it will be noticed when the subscriber gets a phone bill. In the meantime, the fraudsters receive their money—in some cases, they do so as soon as seven days after the call—leaving BT or NTL exposed and an argument about whether the bill should be paid.
BT is, in effect, acting as a credit card for the sale of services via the telephone line, but without some of the essential features of the credit card market. For example, a credit card company can be held jointly liable if the goods supplied by one of its merchants are faulty. In the cases we are debating this morning, however, BT has no control over the "merchant", because an intermediary in the process licenses the merchant and BT and other carriers are obliged to carry the traffic that presents itself. Again, I will return to the revenue-sharing arrangements at the end of my speech. That is the industry in a nutshell: the majority of carriers are responsible and law-abiding, but a minority are not so.
Abuse can take place over a telephone line, involving either the telephone or computer attached to it. Starting with the telephone, last year a spate of misleading and unsolicited text messages conned people into calling premium rate numbers to win non-existent prizes. Typically, a text message would appear on the screen of a mobile, saying, "Congratulations, you have won £2,000. Ring this number to collect your prize." It would not be made clear that the number was a premium rate number; that those who rang it would have to listen to a long pre-recorded message at £1.50 per minute; and that the prize would often be elusive or valueless. Children with mobiles got those messages, and in comparison with adults, they had less chance of knowing that they were a scam.
The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services—ICSTIS—is the regulatory body, and it notes:
"During the second half of 2003 we had to deal with over 7,000 of these complaints. In most cases it became evident that there was both spam marketing taking place and that 'services' associated with the text promotions were at best misleading and at times apparently fraudulent."
Clearly, there was substantial abuse in that part of the market.
Scams targeting computers have generated most publicity recently. There are some legitimate services that can be accessed by dialling an 090 number via one's computer. When that happens, the computer will disengage from the normal service provider, dial a premium rate number and the user's phone bill will be charged accordingly. The principal type of abuse takes

3WH
place when, unbeknownst to the owner, the computer initiates the dialling of the premium rate number. That can happen when a rogue dialler is installed, often through an unsolicited pop-up box that looks like an advertisement. It may ask the user if they want to download some software, and even if they click "no" or close the box, the software is downloaded. It replaces the number that the computer normally dials to get on line. which is typically 08, with a premium rate number—09. The rogue dialler is sophisticated enough to turn off the modem dialler, so that the user does not hear it dialling away at their expense. Some diallers call the 090 number once, some call programmatically—for example, in the early hours of the morning if the computer is left switched on—and some change the default dialler.
There are cases in which a member of a household dials one of those services, but denies having done so when the bill arrives. That obviously causes problems in the household and for BT. However, there are enough cases of clear fraud to cause concern, and they have been well documented in the press. Other hon. Members may also have their own examples.
Mr. and Mrs. Higdonof Maidenhead faced a £744 bill, run up in six weeks by calls to premium rate numbers linked to websites owned by a company in west Africa of which they knew nothing. BT has not so far waived the charges. A constituent e-mailed me last week after being charged for an internet call that he did not make. When he reported it, he found that it was already under investigation by ICSTIS, but BT has told him that its policy is not to refund.
Malcolm Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he not agree that even if people have knowingly accessed a premium rate number, they should also be given information about the charging rate? The fact that they may be embarrassed to admit that they made the connection should not be an excuse for people to rip them off.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right. The ICSTIS code makes it clear what information must be given to the consumer about the rate that is being charged, but, sadly, some rogue diallers do not provide consumers with those details.
Money Mail tells us of Raquel from Kensington who ran up a £300 bill, probably through a rogue dialler. She has been cut off by NTL, which will not reconnect her until she pays. Susan Westnedge was mentioned in Money Mail on 23 June. Her BT bill suddenly trebled from £50 to £150 in April. Nine calls had inexplicably been made to São Tomé in west Africa. She said:
"When I rang, I was told nothing had been done to prevent this continuing. I was told BT was inundated with similar complaints about fraudulent calls."
Some 19,000 BT customers are currently having calls to premium rate numbers investigated. At £102 per sum disputed—an ICSTIS figure—that is some £2 million of potential fraud, and those are just the cases that have been reported to BT.
The high-tech crime unit of the police is now involved and has stated publicly that it suspects collusion and/or conspiracy to defraud within what is called the value
4WH
chain. However, with much of the fraud committed by companies based overseas, it may never bring the culprits to book.
What has been the regulatory response to the abuse? The role of ICSTIS is to prevent consumer harm by requiring clear and accurate pricing information; honest advertising and operation of services—that relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce)—and appropriate and targeted promotions. It is funded by the industry, with a budget of some £2.8 million in 2004. It enforces its decisions through an Ofcom-approved code of conduct. It sets and reviews standards of content and promotion for premium rate services, and it licenses services, ensures compliance, investigates complaints, adjudicates and applies sanctions, such as fines. That is the theory.
In its October 2003 newsletter, ICSTIS said of text messages, the first scam I that mentioned:
Wherever necessary, we have acted to bar access to numbers and impose heavy fines "
However, when I took up a constituency case in that very month, the response was wholly unsatisfactory. I e-mailed ICSTIS on 18 October last year, after a constituent got a message that said:
"Urgent; your mobile number was awarded a £2000 bonus."
To collect the prize she had to telephone a premium rate number, with a long pre-recorded message, which cost about £8. I got no reply to my e-mail to ICSTIS and wrote again on 7 January. I also wrote to the company responsible—Prize Line, PO Box 80, 571 Finchley lane—and never got an answer. I eventually got a reply from ICSTIS on 10 March, four and a half months later:
"I am responding to your email of October 18th and your subsequent letters of 11 and 27 February. I am sorry you have had to chase for a response in this way."
If that is the service given to MPs, what sort of service do our constituents get when they contact ICSTIS directly? In its consumer guide, ICSTIS says that it aims
"to resolve all complaints quickly, effectively and consistently".
That was not my experience in this case.
The letter went on to reveal the failure of the regulatory system. To take action against the service provider at the end of the chain, ICSTIS needs to get its identity from the terminating network—the guys in the middle. The letter stated:
"While we have been active in closing down services, the co-operation of the terminating network is required in every case. In some cases, we have problems with network operators failing to provide the necessary information promptly or otherwise failing to assist us with the investigation of cases. This information is essential if we are to act to close apparently rogue services in order to stop harm. In your case the network responsible for the 090 number is One World Interactive and the service provider contracting for its use was Smile Telecom Ltd … The identity of the service provider was not however known to us for a period of 10 weeks as a result of delays at the network level."
In other words, when an alleged scam was reported, ICSTIS could not close it down because the host would not reveal the name of the service provider. And so the scam continued, with money going to Smile Telecom, until eventually One World Interactive told ICSTIS who had the number.
On the current scam involving rogue diallers, the regulatory system seems to be in meltdown. Many have tried to complain to ICSTIS, but the line has been

5WH
constantly engaged. The helpdesk is in meltdown because of a record volume of complaints. On 16 June, the ICSTIS director, George Kidd, said that it had never before had to respond to so many complaints from the public. Daily, 2,000 calls are being reported to ICSTIS—and those are the ones that get through. With such a high volume, it takes up to 26 weeks for ICSTIS to conclude investigations.
I note from ICSTIS's June newsletter that the Minister said:
"ICSTIS does an excellent job, and is a good model of effective self-regulation without, until now, any legislative support".
In light of the current circumstances, I wonder whether he stands by that statement.
ICSTIS has the ability to fine, but 70 per cent. of fines do not appear to be paid, presumably because the offending company is based overseas or is in liquidation. ICSTIS tells me that, in 2003, it fined the highest sum in its history. That was a reaction to the batch of wilful spam and scam mobile promotions that swept the UK, which I have mentioned. The basic figures for 2003 show that 209 companies were fined a total of £1.26 million, of which less than £500,000 was paid. Some fine income received in 2003 relates to fines set in 2002. Equally, it is likely that fines issued in the last month of 2003 will not be settled or written off until early 2004.
So there is abuse and regulatory failure. That leads me to remedies. A first option would be a total ban on premium rate numbers. That has happened in other countries. It would mean that legitimate enterprises—"Big Brother" and the like—would be unable to collect revenue via a premium rate service. I suspect that that would affect the viability of some popular television programmes. The alternative revenue stream could come from credit cards, but that is logistically more difficult for the companies and less convenient for users of genuine premium rate services. I personally would not favour that solution at this stage, but if I were the Minister or ICSTIS, I would use the threat of closure in the near future as an incentive for the industry to get its act together.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. I am sure that there is not a single Member of the House or of the population who has not been affected in some way by someone trying to sell premium rate numbers to them.
Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on why he has rejected the idea of a total ban on premium rate numbers? With so many abuses, is there not a case for that simple resolution of the problem? To use his example of television reality shows, I am sure that the makers or the companies would find some way of allowing the public to vote for them. It seems hard to suggest that the world would be a worse place if we did not have premium rate telephone numbers.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for abolishing premium rate numbers. As I said, I do not rule that option out. My initial view is that, as the majority of the industry is responsible, it would be sad if the activities of a minority wiped out an industry. I hope that we can improve the regulatory system in the
6WH
way that I am suggesting, which would mean that the fraud was wiped out, but would enable the legitimate industry to survive. I do not rule out abolition in the long term, but I think that it would be a bit defeatist to go for that option at this stage.
The second thing that we could, and I think should, do is make the terminating networks responsible for the fines imposed by ICSTIS on the service providers if they are not paid. That would encourage the owners of 090 numbers to be far more careful about the folk to whom they lease the numbers. Of course, unlike ICSTIS, those owners can access revenue flow to ensure that the fines are paid. At the moment, the terminating networks are not at risk, although the fraud can take place only with their compliance. Moving responsibility for collecting fines to the terminating networks would significantly reduce the administrative burden on ICSTIS, which is seriously stretched.
Thirdly, the terminating networks could be asked to put up bonds before they can issue numbers. The bonds could be drawn on either if the fines remain unpaid or for the resourcing and funding of a proper compensation scheme, of which I shall say more in a moment. Fourthly, the TNOs should be stripped more readily of their licence to issue numbers. I mentioned earlier the delay in providing ICSTIS with the details of Smile. ICSTIS told me:
"The real problem however was the subsequent reluctance and in effect refusal by One World Interactive to provide us with the service provider information for the number range in question."
Why in heaven's name is Ofcom or ICSTIS allowing One World Interactive to go on issuing 090 numbers if it refuses to co-operate? Service providers get away with the scam only because of shoddy work by a few TNOs, but ICSTIS seemed reluctant to act. On 10 June, it told me that
"we are involved in three enforcement actions against terminating networks who have failed to provide us with information or who have failed to prevent access to services when so instructed or who have failed to withhold payments when told to do so."
Those are the companies that issue the numbers; they should be thrown out.
Fifthly, we should change the arrangements for the flow of revenue. The rapid outpayments that I mentioned earlier reduce the likelihood that funds can be frozen at the network level, even when an emergency procedure is invoked. Weekly payments to service providers should stop at once. I was surprised to learn that modest reforms to the payment regime may require legislative change. When I queried the current regime with ICSTIS, I was told:
"You should note that there are legal constraints on our right to require that monies be withheld at the TNO level pending completion of an investigation. If the Committee agree there is the risk of serious harm, they can approve an Emergency Procedure action of the kind previously described. This involves an instruction to withhold revenue to the TNOs involved. If the case does not merit pre-emptive action we are advised that it would be prejudicial to withhold payments, other than provision for administrative costs, pending an eight to twelve week process and adjudication."
BT is also quoted as saying that it could be sued if it does not pay the premium line holder monthly. Perhaps the Minister will comment on whether there are legal constraints that prevent slowing down the revenue flow—particularly when there are allegations of fraud—
which I regard as an important part of the solution.
Sixthly, one could ask the service provider to put up a deposit, which it would lose should it be found by ICSTIS to be abusing the system. Service providers should also register details with ICSTIS of what they plan to do and get prior permission—something that used to happen but which has now stopped.
Seventhly, ICSTIS needs more resources simply to cope. It needs more people on the helpdesk, quicker investigations and a more proactive approach to prevent abuse. The levy on the industry should be put up to fund this; I am certainly not advocating any taxpayer support. I welcome much of the work that ICSTIS has done. It provided advice recently to MPs on how to help our constituents, and it recently participated in a seminar chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), which was very helpful. However, it is drowning under the wave of complaints.
Eighthly, we need more publicity for free premium rate service barring, free software downloads and better customer education. I welcome what BT is doing by contacting every BT customer over the next few months to alert them of that and it has already e-mailed its 1.8 million retail internet customers. Perhaps it should be bolder about cutting service providers off when fraudulent activity is taking place.
Ninthly, we need a faster uptake of broadband so that the problem of rogue diallers cannot arise. I know that the Minister is committed to roll-out, but the issue at the moment is low take-up where it is available.
To bring the score up to 10, and to conclude, what is needed is an effective, comprehensive and properly resourced regulatory regime with meaningful sanctions promptly enforced and an efficient compensation scheme for telephone subscribers who are ripped off by fraud. We are some way from that goal, and I have identified some milestones along the route. If we do not start moving along it, we should look again at the nuclear option mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) of removing premium rate numbers entirely. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to this debate by outlining a strategy for recovery.
9.54 am
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on securing the debate and thank him for his long and detailed speech, which will make the speeches of others much shorter. I also apologise to the Minister because I am supposed to be in two other places at once; a Select Committee meeting and a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) where we shall deal with some of the issues raised today. Please forgive me if I am not here at the end of the debate.
Previously, Government debates have been concerned with the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the Independent Television Commission, and the problems of floating a licence for ITV or putting it into the public domain. In 1998 there was a bidding document on 3G phones. Neither system was right, but we are beginning to tease out something on which, as the
8WH
right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said, there should be a bond. If we cannot solve the problem, I suspect that we may have to return to saying that the cost will be x up front, which is one way of solving some of our problems. There is a second, nuclear option.
Two of my constituents have e-mailed me. The first stated:
"I don't really know the technical side of it. As I understand it, I must've visited a website which then sneakily changed my dial-up phone number. I believe that I made all the calls that were on my phone bill—but that the dial-up number was changed to a premium rate number … I am careful not to open up pop-up windows when visiting most websites, but some open automatically.
I was told by someone at work that her husband phoned BT and asked them about it and they said that your computer would only be affected like mine if you visited 'adult' websites. I don't know how much truth is in that".
The cost to my constituent was phenomenal. She spent 47 minutes on the internet through a premium-rate dial-up without knowing it and it cost her £60.45. Her usual phone bill is around £65.73, so there was an enormous increase in her bill.
The second constituent stated that if someone had access to websites without going through a recognised service provider such as BT or AOL, sites were often prone to add-on programmes that illicitly and illegally changed the dial-up telephone number without notification. There were innocuous questions at some point and if the x in the top right hand corner was not clicked, agreement was effectively given. My constituent thinks that that is very underhand and that it is wrong that it is allowed to continue.
Mr. Richard Allan: It is important to dispel a myth about visiting websites. Every day, my inbox contains e-mails carrying diallers, which are effectively viruses. If I click on or do anything with those e-mails, the dialler will be installed on my system. It is important that users understand that the problem exists on e-mails daily and that the suggestion that someone must have visited an adult website is not true.
Mr. Wyatt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
We have heard about the scale of the problem from BT, which said that 19,000 of its customers are having calls to premium rate numbers investigated. It went on to say that that figure is not considerable for BT, but I simply do not know how long it will be before those calls are investigated and I doubt whether BT has the resources to do so. Our constituents are very concerned, especially older people who do not really understand. Younger people are web-savvy and mobile-savvy and get the gist that something is going on, but an elderly woman may not realise until she receives a bill for £700 or £800 and BT, NTL or Telewest tells her that she must pay it. The whole telecoms servicing section should be looked at. I cannot understand how BT can deal with 19,000 customers.
There are several cases in my constituency and it seems that BT is saying that it will take them off the account, park them in a lay-by and have a debate, but that is not good enough because so many cases are

9WH
coming in; 2,000 a week. How on earth can ICSTIS cope with so many? It is bad enough with BT, but ICSTIS is seriously under-resourced.
Perhaps the Minister will comment on whether the role of ICSTIS as a regulator is part of the problem. Should it be in the business of providing advice and information online and through its helpline, or should it be pulling back and limiting itself to an enforcement role? At the moment, it cannot do both. Every week, 25,000 people try to get through but cannot because it is simply impossible to find a free line. ICSTIS reckons that it handles about 25 per cent. of calls. That is not reasonable. Unless there is some way of splitting ICSTIS or making some short-term funding available, I do not see a resolution to the problem before Christmas. All that will happen is that many more thousands of people will be severely embarrassed by their phone bills. We cannot just leave the issue in mid-air and hope for resolution at some stage. We need a short-term fix, and a short-term fix tomorrow would do.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned the piece by Helen Nugent in The Times last week. Let me refer to some of the bits in it that surprised all of us; 18 households in the hamlet of Mew Green near Bardfield Soling in Essex were charged £1.50 a minute without their knowing, and dozens of villagers in Helions Bumpstead near Haverhill were charged, as were 28 of the 65 households in Thurne near Acle, where I was called yesterday by the BBC to do a radio interview. No one can quite understand what is happening. Mystery phone calls are being charged to people.
A cybercrime unit is needed to deal with these rogue forces. One problem is that cybercrime is not taken seriously in this country. In fact, I understand that none of the Home Office figures in the public domain include cybercrime.
Malcolm Bruce: Is not it the case that the boxes in the street are accessible with a T-key? Anyone who knows what they are doing can access them, dial a premium rate number and charge it to a domestic bill. Is not the first priority to have a little more security on the boxes?
Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. That is a problem, and we need greater security.
The Network for Online Commerce, which was set up in 1994 as a not-for-profit trade association, has been in touch with me. In March 2004, it created the dialler action group. It had been talking to ICSTIS and had become worried that ICSTIS was overwhelmed. I have received a letter from its chairman, who says that the NOC is totally supportive of ICSTIS but suspects that, under its current structure, it is difficult to react with sufficient speed and technical appreciation of this sophisticated market. The NOC is working with ICSTIS to assist in assuring effective change to limit any industry problems associated with diallers. ICSTIS is overwhelmed, not just by technical issues but by its day-to-day activities. To constituency MPs, the problems seem similar to those of housing benefit or the Child Support Agency. The system is overwhelmed.
I wonder whether I might put in my three penn'orth. I do not have 10 suggestions, but I have had an interesting e-mail from David Knell of Coulomb Ltd.
10WH
about the terminating network operators, which are important. He makes three recommendations that are worth considering. First,
"ICSTIS should be able to set and revise the level of the bond required from each TNO".
That is key. That can be done now; in the future, perhaps it will have to be done up front. I recommend that proposal. On his first recommendation, he goes on to state:
"In the event of complaints against one of that operator's service provider being upheld by ICSTIS, they should instruct the TNO to compensate the customer."
Our constituents have nowhere to go. They do not know how to complain and cannot get through, yet they are worried about their bill, which racks up interest. They are very concerned.
Mr. Knell'ssecond recommendation states:
"TNOs who wish to provide dialler services will need to accept that there is a short-term need to provide additional funding to ICSTIS to allow them to cope with the current flood of helpline callers."
I wonder whether any amount of money will resolve that problem, but it is probably what is needed in the short term. Thirdly, he states:
"TNOs who provide numbers to repeat offenders should either have the level of their bond increased or their authorisation to provide numbers removed."
It should be the latter first.
In conclusion, it is interesting that the crime side of police forces so undervalues cybercrime. Police forces require training, and we need a specialist unit to teach and train policemen and women in different constabularies.
Michael Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the United States a division has been established under the Department of Homeland Security to deal with that very issue? The US authorities not only recognise that there is a threat from cybercrime—actual cybercrime of the sort we have discussed today—but from cyberterrorism. At the moment the Government are doing nothing to counter that threat.
Mr. Wyatt: The wider issue is that any regulation made in the United Kingdom will lead to crime going offshore, and one can keep going offshore for ever. The G8 and the European Union should be creating a new world internet organisation that deals with cybercrime. One would not expect the UN or the World Trade Organisation—bless them—to deal with it, because they just are not up to it. We need a more nimble, smarter world body. I do not see such an initiative yet, but I hope that the Babbage institute may come.
I conclude by reading something from a note from Rob Johnson, who said:
"I am dismayed that there has been only one upheld complaint against Dialer fraud since February 1 by ICSTIS. I am led to believe that there is underlying 70 per cent. non-collection of levied fines."
If those companies are based offshore, the situation is difficult, but the whole process seems to be tipping over, and we need quick service to ensure that ICSTIS is brought back in line. In the longer term, we may need a new regime.
10.7 am
Mr. Richard Allan: I should like to follow on from the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) in talking about internet diallers. I offer my apologies to the Chamber because I also have to go to the meeting at the Home Office, at which we shall discuss the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I may, I shall interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Both the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey have fully used the courtesies of the House in advising myself, the Minister and the initiator of the debate of their need to be elsewhere at 11 o'clock. We are grateful to them for exercising the proper courtesies. I wish that were done more often.
Mr. Allan: I am grateful to receive such a ringing endorsement from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee who, above all other hon. Members, knows how things should be done.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for raising an issue in which I have been interested for a couple of years since first coming across diallers on my own computer and being horrified at their potential. I raised the issue during the passage of the Communications Act 2003. I come at the matter from three angles. First, there is the question of consumer protection of our individual constituents, about whom we are all concerned. Secondly, we need to tackle criminal activity and not allow spaces to exist within which fraud can be committed easily. At the moment, we have allowed spaces to exist within which fraud is far too easy. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire referred to the money flow chain as being critical to that situation.
Thirdly, there is the issue of maintaining public confidence in the internet, which is a concern shared by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey through our membership of the all-party internet group. We want to ensure that the internet is safe and that people in the UK feel comfortable using it. That objective is important, and rogue diallers are a potential disincentive for people to use the internet because they may have read in the paper about people running up massive phone bills.
ICSTIS has been helpful in briefing us, and it held a helpful meeting on the matter in the House last week. The Telecommunications UK Fraud Forum, to which one of my weblog readers pointed me last week, has also been helpful. It sent me some briefing material, including a helpful article on how to write one's own rogue dialler.
The ICSTIS briefing on the premium rate industry opened my eyes to what is going on. We have effectively developed a micropayment system based on the existing consumer credit arrangements organised by telecommunications companies, or telcos. The system is cheap to operate and permits services to develop that would not otherwise function. If one wanted to take 10p for a voting call through a credit card, many services simply would not be cost-effective.
We have different personal views about the value of the services offered; tarot readings online or over the telephone are not my cup of tea. However many are popular, as we have seen when there is a link with television programmes, and the public clearly demonstrates an appetite for them, spending about £2 billion a year on premium rate calls.
Although we have heard that there are wrinkles in the system now that the volume of services is increasing and SMS scams are taking place, voice services have developed quite constructively on the whole, thanks in part to the ICSTIS regulations and the nature of the activity itself. ICSTIS has tried to apply the same sort of disciplines to premium rate internet diallers and has developed a code of practice detailing that terms and conditions should be available on screen and that users should be fully aware of the costs. Premium rate voice numbers state the call rate at the bottom of the advertisement. ICSTIS has said that there should be an on-screen clock to tell users how much they are racking up, and that access to the site should automatically stop if the total cost of connection reaches £20.
If the code were fully implemented, there would be fewer problems. However, there are important differences between the architecture of voice and data premium rate calls, which make data calls more prone to fraud than voice calls and dodgy operators more likely to operate them. In a voice call, the user has to take active steps to initiate the call and to extend its duration. There may be a long spiel that in itself causes a problem, but the user chooses whether to stay on the line or terminate the call. The user manages the whole thing. With a data call, the computer does the managing, which can be entirely invisible to the user until the bill arrives. That is the critical difference; even for an expert user, there is no way of telling that the activity is taking place.
The ease with which such diallers can be produced is demonstrated in a helpful article by the Telecommunications UK Fraud Forum. We are told that production takes about 60 lines of code in a fantastic and very neat language called Perl. I will not read out those lines, suffice to say that it is shorter than most speeches that take place here and that in fewer lines I could produce something that would collect £1.50, £3, £30 off thousands of people throughout the country. It is that simple. The article tells us how to ensure that the user cannot see that the dialler is dialling, how it can turn off the modem so that it does not make a noise.
The points made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire to set the issue in context were helpful. The question is about the existence of the industry at all. We must be clear that it would be unacceptable for us to say to constituents who have been ripped off by fraudsters, "There is nothing that can be done, mate." They will not accept that. The likelihood is that their number will increase; internet crime and fraud comes in waves and the wave of dodgy diallers is only just beginning. We can expect far more to arrive. The industry must act or the ultimate solution will be to pull the plug on premium rate calls. That much is at stake.
I would be interested in the industry's response to credit limits on land-line phone accounts. The average problem bill that is queried has an excess of £100, but that disguises many problems for individuals who have an excess of £500 or £1,000, as highlighted in the debate

13WH
already. I see no reason why a phone company should allow someone to run up a £500 or £1,000 bill without any prior consent. I have a credit limit on my mobile phone account. I understand that mobile phone accounts operate with modern systems and that putting credit limits on all accounts would be technically complex and potentially expensive for BT's large system, but it should be on the agenda because unlimited, unbridled and largely unregulated credit is going out to people and that seems entirely unacceptable.
So, I question whether, as a matter of course, we should have credit limits on land-line phone accounts. If someone is a regular premium rate user and wants to extend their credit, they could come to an arrangement, much as they would with their mobile phone, to get a credit limit of £500 or £1,000. That is between the user and the company. I cannot see any reason why anyone should run up £1,000-worth of debt without the person offering that credit intervening at any stage, particularly when, on a normal residential phone line, the typical amount of debt might be £50 or, as a maximum, £100 per month.
In terms of consumer protection, the second point is that we should have a caveat vendor principle, rather than caveat emptor. The sellers ought to be aware that, if they do not provide the services properly, they will not get paid. That would create an incentive throughout the chain for people to make sure that things happen properly. A good starting point would be to say that the consumer should not be liable if they query charges that have been run up with a dialler that does not comply with the ICSTIS guidelines that operate in the UK for premium rate numbers.
If someone is operating a premium rate number and has not complied with all the points—turning it off at £20, having clear information online and so on—there should be no reason for anyone to have to pay that company because the company has failed to comply with the guidelines. That would lead to network operators making sure that they did not offer services to people who do not comply with the guidelines.
It may be that we have to move to a prior approval procedure, particularly in the internet field, where it may be the way forward. I understand why, because of the volume of voice calls and the nature of the voice market, we have moved away from prior approval to a situation where people set up numbers and, if there are problems, we deal with them later. However, because of the smaller volume of internet-related numbers and the architecture of the internet—space being difficult—prior approval may be the best option.
The caveat vendor principle should be applied. Many of those people are complete crooks and I find the idea that we are handing money over and UK reputable business is actively participating in extracting money from our constituents and handing it over to crooks so offensive. We must say that that cannot happen. We must find some way to deal with that.
That may result in an additional difficult problem— diversion to international and satellite numbers. We must recognise that. If we regulated all the 09 numbers there might be diversion to international and satellite numbers, but the fact that that is a difficult area does not mean that we should not act. Where we have things in
14WH
our jurisdiction—premium rate numbers in UK number space are in our jurisdiction—the fact that we may get diversion to other areas is not an excuse not to act. We should clean up our 09 numbers. There are other issues that we need to resolve in dealing with international and satellite numbers.
My second area of concern is tackling fraud and doing it robustly. We should consider taking up the Computer Misuse Act cases for unauthorised access. Those should be taken up by ICSTIS or by consumer bodies and the Government should participate in that actively.
We understand that the Computer Misuse Act is moving back up the agenda and that the Government want to review it. My reading of the way in which it works is that if somebody plants a programme on to my computer without my explicit consent and that programme does things to alter the nature of my computer and my dial-up settings, that is a prima facie case of unauthorised access according to the terms of the Computer Misuse Act. I think that a criminal prosecution under the CMA would, in many cases, be far more effective as a discouragement for those who operate in the rogue dialler market than any fining that takes place through ICSTIS. So I hope that the Government are robust in making sure that CMA prosecutions take place.
I understand that a review of the fraud legislation is also taking place. There is a range of telecoms and internet-related fraud and we need to make sure that a new fraud Act—which I would welcome—encompasses telecommunications and internet-based fraud. If we are going to use micropayment systems in the future, all those micropayment systems, whether there are for mobile phone or land-line networks, will need to have the backup and support of a tough regulatory environment that deals with fraudsters.
The final issue that I want to consider is confidence in the internet. The most important thing is to stop fraud happening. There is also a strong role for education. Broadband removes the risk, but only if the modem is unplugged. If anyone using broadband finds that their connection becomes slow one day, there is often a good reason for that. Many people leave their modems plugged in as a back-up line. However, using broadband and not having a modem plugged in is a possible solution.
Locking down diallers would also help. It is popular in such debates to knock the relative lack of security of the Microsoft Windows operating system. However, it is also appropriate to do so, because it is a fact that that operating system does not lock things down in the way that other operating systems do. There is a good reason for that. Ease of use and security are always a trade-off. The easier something is to use, usually the less secure it is; the more secure it is, the harder it is to use. As a consumer operating system, Microsoft Windows is easy to use. However, in comparison with other operating systems, it is not very secure.
However, something can be done within that system. Users can be educated to lock down their diallers, so that people would need to have super-user administrative permission to replace one dialler with another. That is technically possible, but it is not done in most consumer environments. Education may encourage people to do that.
Michael Fabricant: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but when someone knows that they are going to leave their computer unattended and on—incidentally, there is nothing to stop a rogue Trojan virus from switching someone's computer on; the potential is there—surely the ultimate safeguard is not all the software that he has been talking about, but simply unplugging the modem and disconnecting it from the system.
Mr. Allan: That is an option, but for most users in most households, who are still using a dial-up connection, it is quite unsatisfactory. Again, we are back to the trade-off between ease of use and security. I want to turn up, turn my computer on and go; that is ease of use. However, I can make my computer more secure by unplugging everything and checking it all. All that I am saying is that the balance needs to shift a little away from ease of use and towards security, on this and a whole range of other issues. People need to be told that that should be the case, so there is an educational role.
ICSTIS, which has been referred to repeatedly, is the front line. It has an important role; if I have a complaint, I phone ICSTIS up. At the moment, I probably will not get through. The telecoms industry needs to be realistic. If it values this part of its sector, it must put a hell of a lot more money into ICSTIS. It is as simple as that. It is the industry's responsibility to do so. There should be no excuse for the industry funding a regulator that cannot answer calls from our constituents who have queries about the way in which the industry is operating. The industry is very profitable. A lot of money is being made. It is the industry's choice; if it wants the business to survive, it needs to put money back in to ensure that it is clean, safe and works in a way that is publicly acceptable.
Let us think about the scale of the problem. BT is not the only telco that is affected; all telcos are. However, if BT has 19,000 customers with complaints and if each of those customers takes up only one hour of time—I am sure they all take up far more than that—by my rough calculations, we are talking about 10 person years just to deal with that lot. The problem is huge. Perhaps telcos have decisions to make about whether the business is worth conducting, given the potential losses and hassle that it causes them.
Like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I do not instinctively want to ban the industry. It can be very cost-effective, and can encourage all kinds of business to take place online, whether over the internet or over telephone lines. People want to engage in that. However the clear message is that if the industry wants to offer such services, they must be better regulated and we must ensure that there are no spaces for fraudsters.
Above all, we must ensure that our constituents are not confronted by huge bills that they do not understand and for which no one can give them an adequate explanation. No one can give them the certainty that that burden will be lifted from them because the area is deemed to be too complex. I hope that the Minister will give us some pointers today, although I recognise that a lot of the responsibility lies with the industry. However, the Government can heavily influence the direction that the industry takes from this point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now start the winding-up speeches. May I make a plea to the Liberal Democrat spokesman and to Her Majesty's Opposition spokesman to sham some of the extra time, but leave adequate time for the Minister to reply? This is an interesting and technical Adjournment debate and the Minister must be given sufficient time to reply to it.
10.24 am
Malcolm Bruce: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to accept your constriction on time. Many more expert speeches have been made before mine.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) should be congratulated on highlighting a serious and current issue that is a growing problem. It needs to be addressed and he has, on behalf of his constituents, informed himself about the nature of the problem and some of the solutions. I do not envy the Minister, because he is under considerable pressure to come up with practical answers before the problem gets out of hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is a considerable expert on the matter and said that it is totally unacceptable for us and our constituents to have money taken out of our accounts without our knowledge and transferred to people engaged in criminal activity. No Government can stand back and regard that as tolerable.
Instinctively, I think that it would be unfortunate if the industry had to be banned because of the activities of a minority, but if we cannot find solutions, that may be the result, which is all the more reason to try to find solutions. The industry has an obligation to find them because it is in the middle. BT is in the front line because, as the biggest single provider, it generates most hostility from customers about disputed bills. It is in BT's interest to have the matter resolved.
Although many services are legitimate and consumers are prepared to pay a premium for them, it is unacceptable that if people choose to log on to those services, they may find that they are being charged at a rate of which they have no knowledge or which is different from what they were led to believe. If their account can be accessed when they believe they have terminated it and further charges can be run up, that is a total abuse. It is another matter when people have gone nowhere near those services, but still incur charges because of a virus, e-mail or some other mechanism when they have exercised no conscious choice. That criminal activity is fraud and we must find a means of stopping it.
I am led to believe that the problems in Essex and one or two other parts of the country that have been mentioned may have been caused by people going round in the middle of the night, tapping into boxes and dialling a premium number several times, which then appears on a domestic bill in that area. An obvious solution is to make the boxes secure.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman may be relieved to know that BT is moving to an internet protocol system for all telephony and it will be far more difficult for people to tap in to those boxes, although I doubt whether that is happening a lot at the moment.
Malcolm Bruce: I am happy to hear that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, telecoms and internet fraud unfortunately move ahead faster than the enforcers, so another scam may arise. Another point that was made to me is that it is a dial-up problem and not an internet problem. Consumers do not make that distinction. If someone is surfing the net and closes a pop-up box that opened itself, that is an internet problem for those people. If we do not deal with the problem, people will not use the internet because they will not take the chance of such a thing happening. That would be unfortunate, because this fantastic information exchange service would become devalued if people were nervous of using it. That would be a retrograde development.
In a debate such as this, the Minister would not expect to be given the definitive answer. He has been given a number of suggestions and a number of indications of the scale of the problem. We are all interested to hear what the Government can do to respond.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam suggests some kind of micropayment credit system that would effectively limit the costs that people could incur. I wonder whether it is possible to have a system in which premium numbers are blocked. I know that BT offers that service, but to my knowledge it has at no time communicated to me, a BT subscriber and internet user how I might do that. I hope that it will be more proactive.
There may be another answer. Many people would say that the number should not be blocked all together as that will kill the business, but a way around that is to say, "It is blocked, but you can access it with an override and a password," so that it can be accessed only consciously and overtly, and so that the provider must give a clear indication of cost. I am not a technical expert, but I worry that people will find a way around that. Assuming that something along those lines could be a solution, it would be one way of giving people informed choice. No one would object to that; people object to being charged for a service that they did not choose to use, or to the fact that they exercised one choice and were inveigled into something more substantial than they realised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned broadband and the caveats about people having to disconnect their dial-ups. That raises a question of which the Minister will be well aware, which has been asked by my party in particular, but not exclusively: how do we achieve universal broadband access? That is an issue in many constituencies; certainly in mine, if not my hon. Friend's. We welcome the fact that the internet is reaching more and more people, and is reaching out into rural areas, but there are still many rural consumers who will not get it for some considerable time, or may never get it. Such people will not be impressed by the Government telling them that the way to avoid internet scams is to get on to a service that they cannot access. BT says that its ambition is that there should be universal access, but it has not told us how it will achieve that.
There is also an issue with disputes and the total overwhelming of the system. It is slightly worrying that ICSTIS's starting point is to say that such problems are between the customer and the provider, although it then acknowledges that it must do more about the situation.
18WH
That is an unequal contract; one is not really a customer if one has been illegitimately loaded on to something that one did not contract for. There has to be an acknowledgment that if there is an imbalance between customer and provider, any kind of regulator has to step in on behalf of the little guy. It may well be that we need some kind of independent brokerage that can second-guess, because BT and others are likely to say, "Well, we've contracted, we've paid. As far as we're concerned, you have accessed these services, so you must pay." They make things difficult for people who want to dispute what they should pay for.
Conscious as I am of the desirability of giving the Minister time to respond, I will raise one final issue; the broader case for solving the problem. I understand that the BT system almost came to a total halt after the World Trade Centre atrocity on 11 September 2001, because everybody was phoning everybody else. The system was nearly overwhelmed. It has been pointed out to me that it would be possible, with the technology available, for someone to set out to do just that with a virus; to make every number in the country dial every other number so that the system is completely locked out. One might do that for the sheer joy of mayhem. Strange as it may be, that seems to be the inspiration for virus anoraks. They do it not necessarily for gain, but to see the chaos that ensues. However, there are more sinister people who see ways of using that technology to block the whole system before mounting some kind of terrorist attack, so that emergency and other services may be disrupted because the system is in chaos.
Clearly, that would be an appalling scenario and I do not suggest that it is a prime reason for reforms, but considering the injustice to people who are billed for services that they did not access or did not access on the terms for which they are billed, that legitimate telecoms providers are taking money from our constituents and giving it to criminal elements, and the risk of a terrorist or viral attack on our system that could have serious consequences for national security, I hope that the Minister will accept that there is a growing concern about the issue.
I suspect that if the process continues to accelerate, and we debate the issue again in a few months, this Chamber will be full. I accept that technical constraints prevent the Government from solving the problem alone. However, they must, together with the industry, come up with answers; and soon, before it gets out of hand.
10.35 am
Michael Fabricant: This has been a remarkable debate, first, because it affects so many people and secondly, because there has been such unanimity about the problem and what needs to be done about it. The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) is right; next time. there will be many more people here. The problem is growing, not decreasing. I very much congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on initiating the debate.
Some 2,000 cases are reported daily, as has been mentioned, and some 19,000 cases are under investigation. Clearly, ICSTIS has a great problem in trying to administer such a large volume of cases.

19WH
Various hon. Members have suggested that the industry should provide more money for ICSTIS. However, the Government also have a role to play. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire came up with 10 possible remedies. We shall all be interested to hear what the Government can do, as ICSTIS does not have a huge remit to provide a solution. If one consults the ICSTIS website and asks:
"Do you have to pay for the calls to this number?"
the response is:
"Each telephone company has its own processes for dealing with disputed bills, so you must speak to them."
It goes on to say:
"ICSTIS has no authority to stop your telephone company (BT, Telewest, One-Tel etc) making you pay for calls or to postpone payment. On your behalf we have made your telephone company aware that we are investigating the service on the number(s) listed and we will advise them of the outcome in due course."
And what does it say is the solution? It says that people should write to Rik Covell, at an address in the British Virgin Islands. I suspect that Rik Covell, whoever he might be, will not respond. If ICSTIS cannot respond to letters from a Member of Parliament because it is so flooded with complaints, I rather suspect that Mr. Covell will not respond either, but for different reasons.
The issue is serious, for the reasons identified by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). It is not just a matter of voice calls; one could well say of those "caveat emptor", because there is a clear obligation on premium rate number suppliers to make it clear how much calls cost. One might have to control one's household, particularly if it contains young children who make calls. The short-term remedy could be for a householder to have 090 numbers barred. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Gordon asked how one could bar an 090 number. Anybody who wishes to do so should go straight to bt.com; the website gives very clear instructions. However, that is the ultimate sanction. As hon. Members have pointed out, many premium rate operators are legitimate. It is a great shame that their services should be barred simply because of the illegality of others.
I am concerned by the other issue, however, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire raised and which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam discussed; the issue of the rogue dialler that infects itself on to a computer. I strongly believe that that is a prime example of where the Government should use the Computer Misuse Act 1990 against operators in the UK. I received a list of some of the companies under investigation from ICSTIS. I shall not name them, but I shall say where they are based: Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Florida, Spain, Moldova, Panama and the British Virgin Islands, which I have already mentioned. However, some British companies are involved too, so the Computer Misuse Act 1990 could apply. Has the Minister spoken to the Director of Public Prosecutions to see whether prosecutions will be initiated under that Act?
Mr. Allan: Just to be clear, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 can be used against people based abroad. Higher order offences, such as gaining unauthorised access in
20WH
order to commit fraud, carry a sufficient penalty to be extraditable. We have pressed the Government to extradite people. Just as the US would extradite people from the UK who hacked systems there, we should do the same with people in other countries.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. How seriously does the international community regard such crime? The problem is that, despite the fact that 19,000 cases are under investigation, the Government—I am not condemning them—do not yet regard the issue as serious enough in their order of priority. However, the problem will be serious, as the hon. Member for Gordon said, when in the months to come we debate in the House the hundreds of letters that we receive each week from people whose computers have become infected.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire has come up with 10 possible remedies. Some of them are extreme, but others are practical. Should the main telephone provider withhold payments? For example, it is extraordinary that BT has to pass on payment to premium rate providers within 14 days and yet does not receive income itself for up to four months. What a negative cash flow!
Withholding money would be an effective sanction. If BT could withhold money to premium rate suppliers following serious misuse, particularly with pop-ups and infections, which I believe would be a prima facie case for withholding such money, there would be a great incentive for those suppliers not to breach the Computer Misuse Act 1990. At the same time, however, we must be careful, because BT and other telephone companies, such as NTL and Telewest, cannot become judge and jury and withhold money unilaterally. There must be clear prima facie evidence of infection. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. What guidance will the Department of Trade and Industry give telephone companies regarding that issue?
The difficulty is a manifestation of the much wider problem of internet abuse in general. The problem is similar to the situation that existed not so long ago with the copyright Acts We all accept that there should be intellectual property rights, yet China was abusing copyright, producing music and software CDs, and so forth, and not paying any copyright fees at all. It took many years to change that. Only recently, when China joined the World Trade Organisation, did it finally accept that it had an international obligation.
Some 50 years ago, the British Government initiated the first world administrative radio conference, which was a recognition that unless countries came together and recognised that they could not abuse radio and television frequencies, there would be mayhem and anarchy. One could be watching the 10 o'clock news on the BBC or ITN, and suddenly there could be an interruption from a rogue broadcaster in France, beaming pornographic programmes across to Britain. Of course, that does not happen because there is international recognition of the methodology by which countries come together to control radio frequencies.
The Government have a duty of care to the worldwide community, not only to people in the United Kingdom, to initiate a similar conference on controlling the internet. I accept that, in theory, the Computer Misuse

21WH
Act 1990 might result in extradition. However, until we get worldwide agreement that all nations must cooperate, there will be mayhem on the internet, just as there could have been mayhem on broadcast frequencies.
I want to allow the Minister plenty of time to reply. This is an important problem, and there are some interesting solutions. I shall be very generous and not use the rest of my speech, as the issues have been covered so well by other right hon. and hon. Members. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant).
10.46 am
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am grateful, too. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on securing this debate. The contributions that he and others made have highlighted the scale of this serious problem. I am not quite sure what he was referring to when he described the firewall with which I am protected, but I am grateful to him for taking the trouble to let me know beforehand the points that he would raise in this debate.
The premium rate services industry has been one of the successes of the communications revolution. We have heard about several services, from interactive voting on "Big Brother" to getting new ring tones on mobile phones—hon. Members may be aware that the UK ring tone market is now larger than the singles market—and new internet-based services. Such services make up a successful market that was worth more than £1 billion last year, making the UK the biggest market in the world for services of that kind.
I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) that, if the market is to continue to thrive, it is absolutely essential that consumers are confident that they can use such services without becoming the subject of a scam or a fraud. The calls this morning to pull the plug on the market will only increase if the problems are not swiftly addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) drew attention to a letter that he had received from the Network for Online Commerce. I also received a letter from it that made some interesting points. I understand that a small number of the companies causing the problems are, in fact, members of that organisation. Any organisation that represents this industry must ensure that its members are innocent of the kind of practices that we have been discussing today, as such practices undoubtedly pose a serious threat to the industry. Everybody in the industry with any sort of responsibility must ensure that participant companies rapidly address the matter.
As we heard, premium rate services are regulated by ICSTIS through a code of practice that is underpinned by Ofcom. The Communications Act 2003 contained provisions to ensure that the ICSTIS system of co-regulation of the advertising and services would continue to be supported. The Act contained for the first time a reference in law to the ICSTIS code of practice. ICSTIS is an independent body, with sanctions ranging from —100,000 fines to the disconnection of service
22WH
providers that breach its code of practice. ICSTIS frequently uses those powers and it has a good record of using its emergency powers swiftly and decisively to stop abuses linked to premium rate services.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire asked whether I stood by the comment quoted in the ICSTIS newsletter of June 2003. Yes, I do. The model is a good one, but ICSTIS has struggled to cope over the past few months with the volume of complaints that it has received, and it has recently seen a big increase in the number of complaints about internet dialler services. We are taking the problem seriously; the industry, too, needs to take it seriously. Last week, ICSTIS provided a parliamentary briefing that was chaired by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Others referred to that valuable briefing.
As we have heard, the services link premium rate numbers to diallers. A dialler is a small piece of software that, when downloaded to a PC, temporarily replaces a user's normal internet service provider connection—typically a local rate 0845 number—with a premium rate number.
Michael Fabricant: The Minister is right to highlight the role of ISCTIS. Like him, I agree that self-regulation is better than Government regulation if it is effective. Does he not accept that ICSTIS is completely overwhelmed by the number of complaints? The current situation will not do. If people cannot get through to ICSTIS to complain, the organisation will become impotent.
Mr. Timms: ICSTIS has certainly struggled with the volume of complaints in recent months. I shall say in a moment what might be done to deal with that, but the strongest message that today's debate should send the industry is that it needs to clean up its act. Otherwise, its future is in peril.
When a dialler works well, it enables a content provider to charge a micro-payment for content without the need to resort to credit cards. Charges of up to £1.50 per minute are made to the user's phone bill. As we have heard, the vast majority of those services are not fraudulent. However, there have been cases of internet diallers replacing a user's ISP connection without the user's knowledge and without the user having to take action to download the dialler. As a result, users may not be aware that they are connected to a premium rate number when using the internet.
That sort of scam can result in users realising that they have been ripped off only when they get their next phone bill. As we have heard, given BT's usual billing cycle, that is often not for another three months. Those charges are typically about £100, but they are sometimes much more. Not all those scams involve premium rate numbers, as some operate on international or satellite numbers, but the premise is the same—to run up charges to consumers that are passed on through the telephone billing system.
Some hon. Members have pointed out that, so far, such scams are not a problem on broadband. However, as the hon. Member for Gordon pointed out, that is not much comfort if broadband is not available. None the less, as more than 80 per cent. of households now are within reach of a broadband service, internet users may want to take note of the fact.
Those scams may be in breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. They may even be straightforward fraud. They are certainly in breach of the ICSTIS code of practice, and the organisation has been taking strong action against them. ICSTIS has passed details to the hi-tech crime unit. It has fined several companies a total of some £300,000, and it has many more complaints in the pipeline.
ICSTIS has been inundated with complaints about dialler services, and is receiving thousands of calls a day on the subject. However, it is important to put that into perspective. Most complaints are from people who do not understand how internet diallers work, and who are unaware that that their monthly ISP charges do not cover access to premium rate internet services. Some complainants raised the issue of unauthorised use where someone in the household has used the services without the knowledge of the family member who pays the phone bill. However, there is no doubt that a significant number of consumers have been the subject of scams and faced charges of £100 or more on their phone bill for services that they simply have not used.
Malcolm Bruce: I appreciate what the Minister is saying, and of course the providers will say, "You have used these services and you should pay," but does he not agree that we must get to the bottom of the scams that connect people many times over or do not give any information? How do we deal with people who may have knowingly accessed a premium rate service but are charged many times the amount that they expect?
Mr. Timms: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Ofcom is working closely with ICSTIS to analyse solutions to the dialler problem and examining the role of the terminating networks that have contracted with the service providers in order to carry the service. Where there is evidence of network non-compliance with ICSTIS rules, Ofcom will investigate and take appropriate enforcement action, including fining providers where necessary.
Ofcom is also writing to the terminating networks that have contracted with premium rate service providers, which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned, to set out its strong concerns at the lack of due diligence demonstrated by certain
24WH
companies in signing up service providers in the first place. They must check that the providers with which they contract are bona fide service provider organisations. Ofcom will not tolerate that activity, and it is investigating the role of those providers with a view to taking enforcement action.
ICSTIS is building cases that suggest that a small number of terminating networks are not complying with the obligations in its code of practice. It is collecting evidence to support that claim and will shortly pass it to Ofcom to consider what action to take, including prosecutions. I hope that as soon as that information is received, Ofcom will move swiftly.
Ofcom is asking several of the larger telephone service providers to explain their position on making customers pay for disputed bills where fraud is suspected. It will point out that they must act in accordance with the conditions imposed upon them relating to non-payment of bills. The conditions prevent operators cutting off customers where a dispute over a premium rate service bill is being investigated.
We heard from the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire of a case where one provider had cut off a customer while their case was being investigated. That is a breach of the conditions that Ofcom imposes on the service providers, as I understand them. BT will make an announcement later today about the additional steps that it will take to address that serious problem.
My Department is working with ICSTIS, Ofcom, the industry and the Internet Service Providers Association, UK to raise awareness of what consumers can do to protect themselves from dialler fraud with increased use of firewalls and filtering software on their PCs. We have heard several remedies this morning, and anti-virus software is often available free of charge from internet service providers. Consumers can ask their telcos to block access to all premium numbers if they are worried about falling victim to those scams.
We are working with all those involved to ensure a coordinated approach to help consumers. Following last week's briefing, ICSTIS plans to bring together all the key players together next month to co-ordinate the work to tackle the problem. I hope that there will be a great deal of co-operation between everyone in the premium-rate industry, Ofcom, Government and ICSTIS to ensure that consumers are not exposed to that unacceptable face of the communications revolution.

Affordable Housing (South Gloucestershire)
11 am
Mr. Steve Webb: The Minister will have done his homework. He will know that this is not the first time that a debate with this title has taken place in this Chamber. I secured such a debate in November 2001, because after four and a half years as a Member of the House, I found that the lack of affordable housing to rent or buy in my constituency was one of the most significant problems brought to my attention by my constituents, week in, week out. I wish that I were not bringing the same subject back here today, but I make no apology for the fact that I am doing so, because the problem remains very serious for my constituents and not enough progress is being made. If anything, the situation is worse for my constituents than when I first raised the issue.
I want to link two closely related aspects of the lack of affordable housing. We use that term to mean houses that people can afford to rent and houses that people can afford to buy. Different groups of people are affected, but the issues are closely connected, as the Minister knows.
In south Gloucestershire, just over 5,000 households are on the council waiting list and 500 households are accepted as homeless each year, give or take a few. The statistics on trends are difficult to interpret because the council cleared out its housing waiting list numbers, which means that they have been volatile, but even in 2002–03, well over 1,000 households were added to the council's waiting list. The problem is very significant.
As the Minister knows, the council undertakes its own housing needs surveys, the most recent of which was in 2003. To show the scale of the problem, the council has calculated that if every house that is due to be built in the remainder of the local plan period t p to 2011 were an affordable house, the waiting list still would not be cleared. That is the scale of the problem; if every house were an affordable house, people would still be waiting for affordable housing. In practice, the number of affordable houses provided will be a fraction of that amount.
There is a massive problem with affordable houses to rent or to buy. The rate of owner occupation in south Gloucestershire is high in comparison with the rate nationally. Not only have average house prices risen substantially in south Gloucestershire—up 74 per cent. from a typical £92,000 in 1999 to a typical £160,000 in 2003—but those at the bottom end of the market have risen even faster. Those are the houses in what is called in the jargon the lower quartile—the starter homes. The price of the properties to which people in search of an affordable home are looking have gone up from a typical £62,000 in 1999 to a typical £115,000 in 2003. That is an increase of 85 per cent.
That situation affects young people in south Gloucestershire who are in work and want to leave home and buy a house. In the relevant period, their wages have risen by roughly a quarter on average, but the price of starter homes has risen by 85 per cent. Those people are desperate to get a foot on to the housing ladder, which has a knock-on effect on the council's waiting list.
The council told me this morning that a third of the households accepted as homeless in south Gloucestershire in the past year were working households. One may entertain a mental picture of the people who are accepted as homeless, who may depend on benefits or have lost their job. Yet a third of the people accepted by the council as statutorily homeless are in work. In other circumstances, they would have been buying their home, but because the housing market has gone crazy, that is not an option for them.
I am sure that the Minister is an expert on housing and that in his constituency, at the other end of the micro-scale, he is as much visited as I am by people with housing problems. I shall not go into too much detail on any case, but I have spoken to expectant mothers housed in first-floor maisonettes who have to lug a young child in a pram up the stairs to the first floor when they are seven months pregnant. It is totally unacceptable that people live in those conditions. I meet adults who sleep night after night, month after month and year after year on the sofa or the floor because their accommodation is overcrowded and there is nowhere else for them to go. I come across marriages that have broken up, mental health problems and disrupted education, all of which are the human face of the statistics that we will discuss today.
It is rare to hold a surgery without seeing someone with a housing problem. Every Friday night after my surgery, I go home and thank God that I do not have such a problem. I know how much I value secure, permanent accommodation for my children and my family, as I am sure the Minister does, yet thousands of people in south Gloucestershire simply do not have such security. They can sometimes get into temporary accommodation, but may then have to wait years before permanent accommodation becomes available in the area in which their children go to school or in which they have family networks. That is a source of misery to thousands of my constituents. The problem is not going away; if anything, it is getting worse.
Clearly, there are things that councils can do. When I raised this issue in November 2001, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), said that the council should ensure that more of the houses that are built are affordable. I agree. She failed to appreciate, however, that much of the house building in south Gloucestershire is not infill building, but the building of dirty great estates and thousands and thousands of houses. A problem with that approach is that developments such as Bradley Stoke or Emersons Green require massive amounts of infrastructure. In effect, the council is telling developers, "We'd like a primary school, a road junction and maybe a play area and a community hall. We'd also like subsidised transport. Oh, and we'd like 30 per cent.-plus affordable housing." The developers say, "Well, you can have some of that, but you can't have all of it."
It is true that a local authority that is making marginal increments to housing stock can be really go in hard and demand high levels of affordable housing, but a local authority that is absolutely strapped for cash or near the bottom of the funding league tables—we can argue about the numbers—is in a weak position to demand

27WH
very high levels of affordable housing if it is also trying to secure a large amount of infrastructure. That is an obvious tension.
I am pleased that my Liberal Democrat colleagues on South Gloucestershire council want a target for affordable housing in new developments not of 30 per cent., but of 40 per cent.—a target with which I believe the Labour group is sympathetic. I would like progress to be made along those lines, but that target is massively removed from the reality of what is actually being delivered. A tiny fraction of the new housing is affordable. The 40 per cent. target is almost a fantasy figure. The proportion that is actually being delivered is a tiny fraction of that level.
The council is also considering reducing the scale of development to which the rules would apply, and it is starting to insist on quite small developments as well as the large ones. Some argue that the developers will not be able to make enough profit if the target is 40 per cent. I do not accept that argument. We have to get tough with the developers. Huge amounts are being made from building houses in south Gloucestershire, but not enough of the right sort of houses are being built at the right sort of price for the people who live there.
The council has a responsibility in this matter, and I pay tribute in passing to those in the local authority who work to address people's housing needs. That is not a job that I would want to do; having to tell people year in, year out that the council is continuing under the right-to-buy scheme to sell off far more houses than the housing associations are building. Between 1998–99 and 2002–03, the number of houses in the area under local authority control fell by about 250, while the number of houses under housing association control rose by only 100. Right-to-buy sales are not being replaced by housing association properties on the necessary scale. The supply is falling while the demand grows. Demand is rising because young families cannot afford to leave their parents and buy a first home and because of family breakdown. Demand is rising all the time, yet the supply seems to be shrinking.
What can central Government do? Clearly, central Government determine the amount of the money that the subsidised housing sector in the region receives. I gather that growth in Government support has been slower in the south-west than in other regions, yet the housing situation in the region is arguably one of the worst in the country, as the ratio of house prices to earnings is about 7:1. I gather that that is arguably as bad as the situation in London, and worse than anywhere else. Across the south-west as a whole, wages tend to be relatively low, but house prices have been rather high. I am sure that the Minister will tell us of the millions, hundreds of millions or billions of pounds that are being committed, promised or whatever. I hope that they are being committed, and I hope that they will deliver. All I can say is that on the ground over the past seven years, I have seen the problem getting worse and not better.
I talked to the local authority about what would help it, and it is keen to look at ways of promoting what it calls an intermediate housing market—something between the extremes of pure renting and pure buying. There are already examples of such an approach,
28WH
including shared equity schemes and so on, but the authority has given me some examples of where someone can be delivered off the waiting list for less subsidy than a traditional council house would require.
It is possible to rent at below the market rent with some subsidy allowing people to save money for a deposit so that they can buy somewhere. That gets people off the housing list, but does not cost the full subsidy of a council house. A shared equity property is another option, where people pay the interest on the mortgage but might not pay any rent to the social landlord. That is cheaper than a subsidised council house, but it gets someone off the waiting list.
My local authority would be keen to promote such schemes and to be innovative. One of the problems is that it is quite resource intensive to offer every individual a whole menu of options involving different combinations of renting, buying, subsidy, equity and so forth. I believe that the local authority is in the process of putting in funding bids to get support to tailor housing solutions to individual need. If authorities can offer something other than pure social renting, pure council housing or pure housing association provision, the subsidy can spread further and deliver more houses for the same amount of public money. I would be grateful for any encouragement from the Minister on that front.
My local authority would welcome greater powers over empty properties. The Minister will know how grievous it is for a homeless family to know that empty properties are sitting empty month after month, year after year, not only in the public sector, but in the private sector. The authority would be interested in the power of compulsory leasing for long-term empty properties.
The council is keen to see private renting encouraged. In south Gloucestershire, the current situation is likely to discourage private renting for two reasons. First, housing benefit processing remains slow. Obviously, the council needs to sort that out, but it is a disincentive to private landlords.
I do not know whether the second problem is a nationwide one, and would be grateful for the Minister's comments. My local authority says to people who are coming to the end of a private sector tenancy, "Do not move out. If you know that your tenancy is up in a month or two months, and your landlord says that they are going to sell up and that they don't want to renew your tenancy, we are not interested until you absolutely have to leave. Do not go when they ask you to, do not go when they tell you to, wait until there is an eviction notice and they have taken you to court to force you out. Then we will treat you as homeless." As there is nowhere to put such people, they are made to stay for as long as they possibly can, well beyond the point where they might reasonably have moved out. Landlords are coming to me saying, "This is a disgrace. We are being encouraged to rent properties to people and then we cannot get them out at the end of the tenancy, because the council is telling them to stay put."
I know why the council is saying such things; there is so little property into which people can be moved that if someone physically has a roof over their head, the council has to accommodate them for one less night. That is a desperate situation. It is unfair on the tenant

29WH
and the landlord, and for that matter the council. Is the Minister aware of that situation, is it happening elsewhere and can something be done?
Clearly, there have to be more houses, but in an area such as south Gloucestershire, which has significant green belts and villages that would lose their character if there was urban sprawl, it is all the more important that the houses that are built are those that local people can afford and that meet their needs. As the Minister knows, we need housing development of the right sort. High density housing does not have to be unattractive or undesirable. We can consider the issue of housing density.
We have to consider greater use of brownfield sites, but it is critical to ensure that it is not the developers who win, but local people. We have to bite the bullet. The only way to get enough affordable housing for local people is to ensure that when those new houses are built, a much higher proportion are homes for local people at the prices that they can afford. That is vital.
I have heard the Government say that millions and billions of pounds are being spent on housing, but I have not yet seen any evidence of that. Perhaps the serious money is yet to come through. Judging by what I see week by week in my surgery, however, it seems that the problem is getting worse. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that I will not have to be back here in another two and a half years to raise the same topic.
11.15 am
The Minister for Housing and Planning:
Let me begin, as is conventional, by congratulating the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate and bringing the important subject of affordable housing in south Gloucestershire to the attention of the House. I know that it is of concern to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it is, indeed, to us all.
The hon. Gentleman made several interesting proposals, on which I shall reflect; that is, after all, the purpose of such debates. Of course, some of his suggestions are already on the Government's agenda. In particular, we recently tabled amendments to the Housing Bill in support of the compulsory leasing of empty homes.
I know from the many representations that I have received from hon. Members and from the debates to which I have responded how urgent the issue of affordable housing is in the south-west. That is why I was happy to speak at the parliamentary launch on 24 March of the National Housing Federation—South West report on the economic effects of the affordable housing crisis in the south-west. That is also why I visited Cornwall to talk to people first hand about these issues.
The fact is that the south-west has experienced a near doubling of average house prices since 1999, with growth across the region and in south Gloucestershire continuing at 12 per cent. between the end of 2002 and the end of 2003. At more than £176,000, average house prices in the south-west are now the fourth highest in the country. Earnings in the south-west are below the national average, so measures of average house prices have reached more than seven times average earnings—a wider ratio than anywhere else in the country, except London.
Of course, such house price growth increases the wealth of many existing home owners. Nevertheless, we recognise that it can also create severe difficulties for people who are unable to buy or access housing at an affordable price to suit their needs. That can not only have distressing social consequences, such as increases in homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation or overcrowding in households, but create recruitment and retention problems for key public services. That is why the Government have made the provision of more affordable housing, especially for key workers and young families, a key part of our sustainable communities plan.
The hon. Gentleman graphically described the problems experienced by certain constituents in accessing social rented housing and affordable homes, and I have great sympathy for families facing difficulties in securing suitable accommodation. The latest south Gloucestershire housing strategy reports that the number of those on the housing register is expected to rise by about 240 each year. As he noted, 500 to 550 cases of homelessness are already being accepted—up from about 400 in 1999–2000.
Clearly, there has been little, if any, improvement in the imbalance between the supply of and demand for affordable housing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency since he last raised the issue in the House in November 2001. In responding for the Government in that debate, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), pointed to South Gloucestershire council's poor record in providing affordable housing, and the hon. Gentleman alluded to that point. Unfortunately, I have to report that the council's record on providing affordable homes remains disappointing. Although about 1,000 homes a year have been built since 2000–01 and the council is on target to build the number of homes required in the local plan, only a mere 127 of them have been affordable units, which constitute about 12 per cent. of the total new build, whether funded by housing associations or through planning gain. Indeed, only 66 affordable homes were secured through section 106 planning gain agreements in the two years between 2002 and 2004. That is the case despite the council's declared policy of securing 30 per cent. affordable housing on sites with more than 25 units in urban areas and sites with more than 15 units in rural areas.
I am encouraged to learn, however, that South Gloucestershire council is anticipating a substantial increase in the use of section 106 agreements and developer contributions over the coming years to secure the delivery of more affordable housing units and supplement other projected completions on non-allocated or non-windfall sites. If that approach were successful, it would bring the average rate of additional affordable housing provision to around 200 units per year, which would be a 100 per cent. increase, although the level would still, of course, be below the council's own targets. I am also encouraged that south Gloucestershire jointly led the recent housing market assessment for the wider west of England area.
The housing study is the first of its type to be published in the south-west and is an excellent example of partnership working, not only between neighbouring unitary authorities of the west of England—the former Avon area—but with private developers and landlords,

31WH
the regional development agency and tenants. The thrust of the study's 24 major recommendations is to increase partnership and proactive working in housing and planning between the unitary authorities in the west of England to drive much-needed improvements in the delivery of housing to accommodate employment and population growth in the area. I am pleased that the west of England partnership is considering how best to rise to that challenge and I look forward to significant progress in the years to come.
The Chancellor will announce decisions on future affordable housing investment in the spending review in the next few days, but I am proud of the Government's record of investment to date in improving the quality of social housing through the decent homes target and by increasing the resources for the Housing Corporation to more than £1.2 billion in 2003–04. That has meant, for example, that 48 key workers in south Gloucestershire were able to take part in the national starter home initiative between 2002 and 2004.
Recognising the level of need in the south-west, the Government have increased the south-west housing board's grant allocation by no less than 30 per cent. over the next two years, which is among the highest increases in allocation. From the recently announced £188 million investment programme, south Gloucestershire is due to receive £6.4 million to provide 229 additional affordable homes. They include 27 units for nurses, health workers and teachers from the £10 million south-west key worker challenge fund. South Gloucestershire council also received £2.1 million for investment in social housing and other capital investment for 2004–05 and 2005–06.
It is important that the south-west owns the agenda and seeks its own solutions. That is why we have set up the regional housing boards, which will give the region a real opportunity to identify its key housing priorities and to create its own response within a coherent national framework.
Affordable housing is the south-west housing body's No. 1 priority. It announced on 24 March how its £188 million will be invested during the next two years to deliver more than 65,000 affordable homes. Some 20 per cent. of that funding will be used to support a range of low-cost home ownership schemes, such as shared equity and Homebuy. Those are the sort of opportunities that the hon. Gentleman identified in his speech.
I am aware that south Gloucestershire includes an extensive rural area, so I am pleased to say that the current regional investment programme exceeded its target of providing 764 homes in villages with a population of less than 3,000 by allocating £33 million to provide 863 homes.
The Chamber should also be aware that we are working with local authorities to stop families being housed in bed and breakfast accommodation, except in emergencies, from March 2004, and to sustain the reduction in rough sleeping so that from 2002 onwards it remains at or below two thirds of the 1998 level. In 2003–04, the south-west received £4.4 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, with south
32WH
Gloucestershire receiving the sixth highest amount in the region after Bristol. Exeter, Plymouth, Gloucestershire and Bath.
At national level, the Government have strengthened the hand of local authorities in seeking to secure affordable housing through the planning system. We are clear that any development should ensure that communities are sustainable and should enhance the overall environment and protect the countryside. We must ensure that we get a better mix of housing that reflects the needs of everyone, and not just the market for large detached housing. We are therefore consulting on changes to planning policy guidance note 3 on the location and density of housing to widen the range of housing opportunity in terms of size, type and affordability. We are determined that the planning system will enable the provision of new homes in the right place—focusing on brownfields first—and at the right time to meet planned numbers. The purpose of the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is to make the planning system faster and fairer.
The Government are also committed to responding by the end of 2005 to the recommendations of the Barker report on reform to the planning system, and are due to consult shortly on the proposed integration of regional housing and planning bodies.
Mr. Webb: I will want to show what the Minister and I have said to people who come to me who are desperate for housing and face a multiple-year wait. I am trying to get to the kernel of what he is saying. Is he saying that we should wait and see whether the Chancellor comes up with extra cash? The Minister was gracious enough to admit that not much progress, if any, had been made during the past three years, and the council would say that things have got worse. What have we learned from the past few years? What optimism can I give to people in desperation who come to see me? Should I tell them that I hope that there will be some more money, and that it will filter through eventually? Is there anything more concrete that I can tell them?
Keith Hill: I have already pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the next two years, the regional housing board for the south-west will receive one of the highest increases in allocation of grant for social housing purposes. That is an overall increase in grant of 30 per cent., from which south Gloucestershire will undoubtedly benefit
The Government recognise the pressures on the housing market in the south-west. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is a special area. Earnings are generally quite low the region, but it is experiencing enormous growth in the amount of equity put into housing because it is an extremely attractive region to which people want to retire and in which people want to have second homes. The extra investment going into the region from private buyers has a knock-on effect on the availability of affordable housing. We recognise that that is the case, which is why we are increasing grant for social housing in the region and are committed to increasing investment in social housing. We hope to reflect that approach in the spending review announcements.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, via our planning reform agenda, we are hoping to remove impediments to housing growth, which some have

33WH
argued have been created by the planning system. We are also committed to major new house building in order to stabilise the rise in house prices as far as possible. He can use that evidence plus the specific details that I have given to offer some comfort to constituents who find themselves in a very difficult position. I recognise their difficulties. He used to reside in my constituency and he knows the sorts of pressures that can arise in London. We recognise that the south-west shares many of the pressures of London and the south-east, which is why we seek to respond to them.
It is important that the region should own its solutions, so the Government are providing the tools and resources to enable regional partners in the south-west to deliver the higher quantity and quality of housing that the community needs. My Department's key objective is to create sustainable communities in all regions. Today's debate has been an excellent opportunity to reinforce the Government's commitment to a better future for the south-west, and I commend our policies to the Chamber.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Transport (Eastern Region)
2 pm
Mr. Patrick Hall: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a number of issues relating to transport in the eastern region. I am also pleased to note the presence of several hon. Members from the region. My hope is that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), will hear a number of worthwhile contributions that will leave him in no doubt that the eastern region has strong advocates, and that the needs and aspirations of its people should be heard, recognised and acted on by the Government just as much as those of people from other parts of the country.
It has not always been so. I note that the debate on the eastern region that took place in the House on 11 November 1998 was, according to the House of Commons Library, the first debate on economic development issues relating to the east of England to have taken place for at least 20 years—the Library did not look further back. It was followed by another Adjournment debate, on transport in the eastern region, on 20 November 2001, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). I pleased to see that he is present this afternoon. Taking into account today's debate, the eastern region is getting a lot more parliamentary attention than it has received for a very long time indeed.
In addition, the creation of regional development agencies and regional assemblies across the country has focused the minds of business, the Government, organisations, institutions and elected representatives on issues that are best considered and delivered in a regional context. Again, that is something that has not happened with regard to the east of England in the past.
Although the region is new and diverse, recognition of its existence—including, increasingly, by its residents—will help to deliver the necessary clout to ensure that it gets its fair share of the cake, as well as helping it to develop the self-confidence to do things for itself. If anyone has any doubts about the need for that, I ask them to consider the challenges and opportunities in the sustainable communities plan, particularly in the London, Stansted, Cambridge and Peterborough growth area, and, on the western borders of the region, the Luton, Bedford, Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area.
The eastern region has one of the fastest growing populations in the United Kingdom. There are currently about 5.5 million people living in the six counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. In land area, it is the second largest English region. Although it is characterised by historic, attractive villages and small and medium-sized market towns in an extensive rural setting, it must not be forgotten that most of the population is urban, particularly in the southern and western parts.
Commentators often refer to the prosperity of the region. It is one of the most prosperous in the United Kingdom, although it is only averagely prosperous in European Union terms. That prosperity is based on gross domestic product per residence, which allows for income brought into the region by commuters to London. However, if we measure prosperity on a

35WH
workplace basis, the region falls well below the UK, as well as the EU, average. That indicates two key features of the eastern region: first, it relies heavily on London and, secondly, it performs below its economic potential as a region in its own right.
Some may say that that does not matter and the London effect should be welcomed, but that means maintaining and reinforcing the increasingly congested and costly radial transport flows into London. That approach is no longer sustainable, and it is undesirable in terms of quality of life as well as social and economic development. Indeed, although the London effect worked well for many people in the past, it always failed to tackle the fact that there are extensive pockets of relative deprivation, including rural deprivation, and a greater reliance on the car than in other regions because of the weakness of the public transport system and the lack of local employment opportunities. The 20 per cent. or so of households in the region that have no car, and the many people who do not have regular access to the household car, live in a rich region while not particularly benefiting from it. That shows that much needs to be done to reshape established patterns of work, investment and transport.
The potential is there: in tourism there can be no doubt of that, and there is also strong growth in electronics, telecommunications and pharmaceuticals. In my part of the world, Bedfordshire, the importance of Cambridge as an influential focus for growth is recognised through the work being done on the concept of the Oxford to Cambridge arc, which links Oxford to Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge.
That reminds us of one of the issues that featured strongly in the two earlier parliamentary debates that I referred to: the absence of, and the need for, strong east-west transport links. Although we have Stansted, Luton and Norwich international airports, and the major seaports of Felixstowe, Harwich, Ipswich, Tilbury, King's Lynn, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, those have tended to reinforce the north-south London hub pattern because it is there.
If those of us in the eastern region are to tackle social exclusion, invest more to meet public expectations on a range of issues of public services and quality of life, and live up to our economic potential, we must raise our game and be more ambitious, building on our strengths and tackling the long-established strategic weaknesses. Transport is fundamental to doing that. I believe that the key to unlocking the potential of the region as a whole is the sustainable communities plan. Achieving the two growth areas in the east requires up-front commitments to infrastructure investment. Transport is an essential element of that.
The Minister knows that, historically, transport investment in the east has been poor. That is partly because, until now, there has not been a coherent regional voice and the necessary strategic output has been absent. There are existing commitments, mainly for road improvement, to address the needs of the existing population. There is also a compelling case for improvement in capacity and level of service on the rail network, again justified entirely on the basis of existing needs. On top of that there is a requirement to boost transport investment to deliver the growth areas.
Ministers will be aware of the regional planning body's infrastructure bid to the comprehensive spending review 2004, mainly but not exclusively for transport investment. I think that the investment is more likely to happen, and that it will be far more cost-effective, if regional bodies and local councils opt for accelerated rather than mercy trend growth. The region underperforms, and a step change in planned growth is needed to address that. Especially because it needs to be accelerated, such growth must be balanced and it must be jobs-led. If it not, we will simply reinforce the congested patterns of social exclusion and relative economic underperformance that characterise the region.
To avoid that, and the decline that would surely follow, I believe that two things are needed. First, local councils and regional bodies must have the courage and imagination to embrace accelerated growth and they must be positive about the opportunities that it represents. Secondly, the Government must be radical and serious about reforming the formulae used for public spending programmes. We all know that those are normally based on past events; they lack a forward-looking component. As a result, they fail to make allowance for planned growth. Areas growing faster than average are perpetually underfunded and playing catch-up.
That exactly describes the situation in Bedfordshire, where, for example capitation allocations for the NHS have, over the years, remain locked below the investment levels deemed necessary to meet existing needs, never mind planned additional needs. I urge the Minister to take on board this point: sustainable communities will not be sustainable unless the Whitehall machinery is redesigned, and that is his province or that of his colleagues. I look forward to his comments on that.
One golden opportunity reinforced by the growth areas initiative is the east-west rail link. I have long supported that project, which will benefit the region and beyond as well as Bedford and Kempston in my constituency. I understand that following recent positive discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the east-west rail consortium is now hopeful that a clearer way forward will soon be established for the western half of the project; that is, from Bedford to Bletchley, Oxford and Aylesbury. That will mean taking the consortium's existing feasibility study to the next stage. I hope that the opportunity is grasped to ensure that the level of investment committed is sufficient to the task.
My hon. Friend will be aware that parts of the eastern half of the project—east of Cambridge—have already benefited from improved services, with more improvements planned to come into being this autumn. That leaves the missing link between Bedford and Sandy. We cannot have east-west rail without plugging that gap, so action is needed. I hope that my hon. Friend will indicate that the Strategic Rail Authority's regional planning assessment will at last start to operate in harmony with land use and economic development plans. I hope that he will acknowledge the strategic importance of the SRA's taking fully on board the growth area plans and, in that context, use his best offices to encourage the SRA to consider east-west rail

37WH
as a whole and plug the gap. I would like to see a programme designed to achieve that sooner rather than later. The delay has gone on far too long.
Delivery of east-west rail will spread the benefit of the growth areas as well as addressing existing problems. It therefore has the potential to reduce the levels, such as they are, of opposition to and uncertainty about housing growth. The same can also be said about another project: the Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway. I admit that the building of a new canal is not exactly geared to solving modern transport problems, but the project is integral to creating an attractive environment, boosting land values and developing leisure opportunities. It will help to put the Marston vale, south-west of Bedford, on the map. The project has strong all-party and public support and will contribute to the regeneration of an area that for far too long has been exploited for brick clay and unsustainable landfill. It is time to put something back into the area. The Government need to give strong support to that project, which is entirely consistent with the growth area initiative in that part of the world.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that I have had detailed discussions with ministerial colleagues about delivery of the Bedford western bypass, which is to be developer funded. I am pleased that in the past few months the Government have decided to make additional funds available up front to kick-start the project in the reasonable hope that it will trigger action by developers and landowners to fund the project as a whole. I hope that that will work. We will need to monitor events on the ground closely to ensure that it does. Lack of action would stifle delivery of part of the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area, which would be unacceptable to all of us.
Clearly, there is much that I have not attempted to address in introducing this debate. The region is large, with 56 parliamentary constituencies. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members say this afternoon. I hope that they will agree that the creation of the regional bodies plus the impetus for growth represented by the sustainable communities plan will trigger activities and a programme of social, economic and transport improvements that have the potential to benefit the eastern region as a whole for many years to come.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the next speaker, I indicate my intention to start the winding-up speeches at 3 o'clock, I say to the spokesmen for the Liberal Democrats and for Her Majesty's Opposition that I want the Minister to have adequate time to reply to this wide-ranging debate; I hope that they will bear that in mind.
2.15 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing this important debate. I was very grateful for one line in his speech in which he emphasised the need for strong east-west links across the region. That is something on which I intend to concentrate. I know that when the Minister saw me his heart sank, as he knew that I would raise the question of the A47. Queen Mary had "Calais" engraved on her heart; I think that the Minister will have "A47" engraved on his over the next year.
The A47 has intermittent stretches of dualling between the A1 in the west and Great Yarmouth in the east—a length of about 170 miles. Stretches of the A47 pass through my constituency on either side of Norwich. I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) present; he may try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because he has a constituency interest in the matter.
This is the second time that I have spoken in the Chamber on this subject. On 24 March 1999, I participated in a debate on transport in the eastern region initiated by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), and on 4 June last year I participated in an Adjournment debate on the A47.
The dualling of the A47 is a high priority in Norfolk. Last year, the county council resurrected the old A47 alliance, which is supported by all MPs, all county, district and town councils, business groups, trade unions and many voluntary organisations in Norfolk. There is hardly anyone outside that umbrella organisation. The Minister may also be interested to know that the Norfolk county strategic partnership has undertaken a wide survey, entitled, "Your Norfolk, your day", which has produced some interesting findings about the priorities of the county's population, including a high priority for the dualling of the A47.
It would he fair to say that public opinion in Norfolk is heavily in favour of dualling the A47, and, with local support, the alliance will lobby and campaign to achieve that objective. It could be said that it is Norfolk's own big conversation, and we hope that Ministers will listen. They are aware of the strength of feeling—on 15 October last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) received a cross-party delegation who briefed him on why we thought that the road should be totally dualled.
I want to press this Minister on one general point and one local point. As I said, the A47 stretches from the A1 in the west to Great Yarmouth, and there is concern in Norfolk and areas to the west that the Government have failed to take a strategic view of the importance of the east-west link. One has only to look at a map of East Anglia to see a broken thread stretching 170 miles. The route is important not only for Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, but for the east midlands. Whatever rail and local transport options we come up with, they will be feeble in comparison with the main one. That key route is unable to cope with the current traffic flow, but the Government will fail to achieve their own targets for reducing social and economic deprivation, encouraging economic development and reducing accidents if they continue with the current policy of remedial dualling in selected areas.
There is also the question of the impact of any development on Yarmouth outer harbour, which all of us in East Anglia hope will go ahead. It will be of great benefit to Great Yarmouth and the region. If the project goes ahead without substantial dualling of the A47, we will have a considerable traffic jam at the Yarmouth end of the Acle straight.
Ministers have avoided taking a strategic view and prefer to devolve responsibility—but not necessarily a lot of resources—to the East of England regional assembly while effectively retaining control. I disagree

39WH
with the hon. Member for Bedford in that many of us have been sceptical about the ability of the eastern region to get what we want for our area. I persuaded the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport to acknowledge that there was a case in principle for the whole of the A47 to be dualled—without committing any money—according to the Government's criteria. That case is still relevant today, and I hope that this Minister will acknowledge that.
I turn now to more local issues. It would be churlish of me or any other Norfolk MP not to acknowledge local commitment and progress on issues in Norfolk relating to the dualling of the A47. I welcome the Government's decision to continue the dualling of a short stretch of the A47 east of Norwich in my constituency from Blofield to North Burlingham. When it is completed, it will reduce the number of accidents on that treacherous stretch of road.
In Norfolk, we are concerned that the important scheme to dual the A47 from Acle to Great Yarmouth may be turned down as a result of the environment assessment undertaken by the Highways Agency, which I understand will be published shortly. Although the agency has assured Norfolk county council that it will keep in touch as the process develops, Norfolk MPs, the council and the A47 alliance are concerned that that does not mean that it will seek the council's views, and it will not necessarily take into account any economic assessment.
The Minister may not be aware that I recently wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, expressing my concerns on behalf of the A47 alliance about the failure to assess the economic aspects alongside the environmental impact of any dualling of the A47 stretch known as the Acle straight. On 7 June, Mr. John Reynolds, the chairman of the east of England regional planning panel, wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport about the lack of economic assessment and the incomplete information on which the Minister was to base his decision.
Will this Minister examine the Highways Agency proposals and consider whether they have taken into account the economic assessment for the dualling of the A47 Acle straight? The Minister will be aware that that narrow, single-lane road is the only main road connecting Great Yarmouth westwards to the rest of Norfolk and the east midlands. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth and I know only too well that a bad accident or a lorry losing its load can block the A47 for hours—for one day on one occasion—leaving Yarmouth isolated on one side. That is unacceptable. Please can we see some action, Minister?
2.24 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing the debate and thank him for his fine speech, which was thought provoking and, indeed, elegant. My speech may not be so elegant and wide-ranging. I have some specific points for the Minister. Some of them may appear to be parochial and sub-regional, but they have regional implications and are not just about my own constituency.
If the eastern region is to be made a meaningful and coherent region, we must have better east-west links. At the moment, it is much easier to travel from Luton to Leicester than from Dunstable to Dunmow. Indeed, the prospect of driving to Dunmow is something at which I blanch, having done it from time to time and taken many hours to do so. We heard about east-west links before, and I shall return to the point.
I thank the Minister for his support in securing a decision to expand Luton airport. That was a wise decision in the pattern of south-east provision and it will be a boon to the people of Luton in terms of employment and prosperity for the future. More than that, it was a sensible decision for the country as a whole and for the region. Most of us in the area are supportive of the expansion. Sadly, that is not the case for Stansted. I do not know whether other hon. Members want to speak about Stansted, but there is less happiness about the possibility of expanding that airport. I leave that thought with the Minister.
Expanding passenger throughput at Luton airport from 7 million to 30 million a year means heavy investment in local transport infrastructure in our subregion. We already have Luton Airport Parkway station, which is welcome, but in future we will need a dedicated people-mover from its platforms to the airport concourse if we are to make that station attractive to people travelling by train or, indeed, by car to the Parkway car park. That is vital, and I hope that the Government will support and encourage Luton in developing a dedicated link of that kind.
We also need to promote and encourage the development of Thameslink rail routes. Last week, I hosted a presentation in the House for Network Rail to talk about the future of Thameslink. We understand that the Thameslink work will start in 2007 and finish in 2012. That is 12 years later than some of us hoped, but at least it seems likely to happen in that time. We will have 12-car trains stopping at many stations, which will make a big difference to those travelling from London to use Luton airport. It will also help our local prosperity.
The next problem in our sub-region is M1 widening. I read in the newspapers—although I do not believe everything I read in them—that, in the Chancellor's consideration of future spending plans, the M1 widening expenditure is at risk. If we do not receive all of it, we should get some. Widening the M1 to the south of Luton from junction 10 is vital. It would take the pressure off the M1 further north, which is, I think, where the bottleneck is. The M1 serves the airport and the economic regions to the south of Luton, which are vital to our local economy. I therefore urge the Minister to press the Chancellor to permit M1 widening at least as far as junction 10.
Widening the M1 through my constituency would be much more difficult. It would be expensive and enormously disruptive, and it would involve a lot of blight. It would be possible to avoid widening through Luton provided that it takes place to the south of the town. The alternatives depend on enhancing rail travel with a park-and-ride station to the north of Luton and a north Luton Parkway station, adjacent to the M1 and linked to a north Luton bypass.
We talked about east-west links. At the moment, going across the north of Luton means going through my constituency, using wholly inappropriate residential

41WH
roads and causing problems and environmental disadvantages for my constituents. We need a north Luton bypass. It has been talked about and tentatively drawn on maps, but we have not yet had any firm commitment to it. I urge the Minister to take that possibility seriously. Such a bypass would link the A5, the M1, the A6 and eventually the A505. I hope that there will eventually be a bypass on the A505 past Hitchin, Baldock and Letchworth. Then we really would have an east-west link that would make some sense and provide a through route, so that travelling from, say, Dunstable to Dunmow would be considerably easier.
There must be a mesh right across the region. It cannot just be based on spokes from London, with occasional urban blobs drawn on the spokes and no links across. That would not be a region; it would be a series of spokes dependent on London. The north Luton bypass and north Luton Parkway railway station are vital. With them, we can avoid another rat run from east to west through Luton which involves using the M1 as a bypass. People come on to the M1 at junction 11 in my constituency, near the hospital, and use it as a bypass going south and then east. That happens in rush hour in particular. A north Luton bypass that stretched right round from the A5 not just to the A505, but to the airport, would take an enormous amount of traffic off the M1, obviating the need for widening it in my constituency, at least for the foreseeable future. That would save the Government vast sums and would also prevent enormous blight and environmental degradation in the area.
The Minister will be aware that there has been a pretty fierce debate on Translink. There were questions in the House last week. Translink is the scheme to link Dunstable and Luton on an old railway line. Luton borough council favours, a guided busway. I go along with that suggestion and have seen it demonstrated as the only feasible option, at least in the short term. In the longer term, I would like to see the line used for longer distances, perhaps as a light rail system. I know that such systems are expensive and that our kind of conurbation might not have the numbers of people to justify that. However, Luton is to be part of a new housing area; between Luton and Milton Keynes, tens of thousands of new houses will be built. Luton will become a bigger conurbation and will get closer to Milton Keynes. We must look carefully at other transport infrastructures in the area. We may reach a critical mass at which we could justify a light rail scheme using the Translink track, as well as guided busways. I have spoken to engineers, and it is quite feasible to have a guided busway and light rail on the same route.
That is looking far into the future. I like to think that our Government will do that, and not just think about short-term fixes that are commercially feasible only in that time frame. I like to think that they will look at what the country and the region need for their long-term future. I have campaigned for a long time for both schemes—the northern ring road and a light rail system that would cover not just Luton, but other conurbations to the east and west. Those are simply my own thoughts at the moment. I shall continue to press matters in the future. I hope that in time, the Minister and his colleagues in the Government will take them seriously.
2.33 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Since my constituency is not actually in the east of England, but is immediately adjacent to it, I am particularly grateful to be able to participate in the debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall). I want to concentrate on one particular aspect that he raised in his speech: east-west rail. I am the chair of a virtual all-party group—it communicates, but does not meet—on the east-west rail link. It links Members from Ipswich and Norwich in the east to Swindon in the west, and all virtual stations in between.
The arguments for an east-west rail link are long standing and have been strengthened by the plans of the Office of the Deputy Prime for sustainable communities growth in the area between Milton Keynes, Northampton, Bedford and Luton. That part of the east-west rail link would both facilitate and support the housing and employment growth that the Government want and for which they are planning.
Some years ago, before the sustainable communities plan, there was an investigation into the likely employment generation of the east-west rail link. At that time, it was estimated that it could create up to 10,000 jobs at 11 locations along the route. If that investigation were updated, I am sure that its employment-generating power would be even higher. It would not simply facilitate and support housing growth; it would provide an alternative route for those living in the new communities to commute to employment in, for example, Milton Keynes and Bedford. It would provide an alternative to using the roads, obviating the need to upgrade the road system, which those in the additional housing would otherwise be using. and it would avoid increased congestion in urban centres in the sustainable communities. That is also important, as my hon. Friend mentioned, in the context of the Oxford to Cambridge arc.
I shall digress into history and remind hon. Members that the war-time code-breaking station that was the precursor of GCHQ was in Bletchley park in my constituency precisely because it was on the then Oxford to Cambridge railway, halfway between Oxford and Cambridge. Most of the original cryptographers were academics from Oxford or Cambridge. That was the ultimate example of early technology spin-off and, as everyone knows, it played a hugely valuable role in this country's survival and eventual victory in the second world war. The model for the Oxford to Cambridge arc is the notion of using the intellectual spin-off from the two cities with the land and labour availability of the middle sections of that arc in Bedford and Milton Keynes to ensure that employment generated by that academic research is captured in the region. The east-west rail link is extremely important to that.
I understand that the Minister is reeling under the repeated demands, not just in this debate but in others, for the upgrading of a transport network that is suffering from the extreme under-investment of the past, and that it is not possible for the Government to meet all those needs immediately or even in the medium term. I know that in the Strategic Rail Authority's forward planning the next part of the east-west rail link has only a medium to long-term priority. However, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, with the sustainable

43WH
communities plan, there are now additional sources of income for the east-west rail link that do not exist for other competing rail priorities. They come from the ODPM and sustainable communities funding or from developer match funding, because a significant number of developers are willing to make a contribution to the rail link as part of the planning for the various developments that they wish to put in place along the route. As I say, that funding is not available to other rail links. It would lever in money extra to the investment that the Government would be asked to make, increasing its effectiveness.
I want to make a further point about the importance of the Government maintaining the momentum of the east-west rail link. The local authority consortium has, for more than a decade, kept open the idea of reopening the Oxford to Cambridge link and re-establishing the east-west rail link. It kept it open during a fallow period under the last Conservative Government when it seemed that railways were being shut instead of invested in. It has maintained that momentum even though the pace of development has been much slower than it hoped. Silverlink has invested in the Bedford to Bletchley section of the east-west rail link.
In a matter of days, the Bedford to Bletchley service will stop for a month. That is not something to make one feel unhappy; it is actually a great leap forward, if I may describe it that way. It is necessary because investment is being put into upgrading that section of track. When it reopens, the trains will be faster and more reliable, encouraging more people to use the service, which, outside peak hours, is not an attractive alternative to the road, as it is so slow. The trains run at the speed they did 80 years ago, so at present the line is scarcely at the forefront of rail technology; however, it will be after the upgrade. Silverlink is putting significant private investment into that section of track. It does so in good faith, believing that it will be part of an upgraded east-west rail link.
If the Government are to continue to encourage private investment in our transport network, it is extremely important that private investors continue to believe that the Government are committed to reopening the Oxford to Cambridge link in the medium to long term. I urge the Minister to work with his colleagues in the ODPM to progress the east-west rail link, in particular the western section between Bedford and Oxford through Bletchley and the additional service to Aylesbury, and to move it on to the next stage. I also urge him to ensure that the eventual route for the missing link in the section east of Bedford is protected. Forward movement can then continue and commitment from the private sector can be maintained in the knowledge that the Government will deliver in the end, even if not at quite the speed that we might all wish for.
2.42 pm
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I apologise for being late for this debate. I had made a commitment prior to its being selected. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on initiating the debate, which is timely. I am pleased that he secured this opportunity to discuss the current state of transport in the eastern region.
The eastern region has the third largest volume of traffic in the UK, but public provision for transport in the region still falls behind because of past policies, funding neglect, rural geography and the economic history of the area as a whole. In total, 53.7 billion vehicle kilometres were recorded on roads in the east of England for 2002—11 per cent. of the total road traffic on England's roads for that year. Indeed, reliance on the car, lack of maintenance and development of the strategic road network, an incomplete rail service, increasing urban congestion and under-utilisation of our economic assets because of public poor transport connectivity leave the region lagging well behind.
England spent £8.1 billion on transport in 2002. That was a dramatic increase on the £5.14 billion that the Government invested in 1999. However, the eastern region received only a small fraction of that amount. Indeed, in Norfolk, £38.5 million was spent in 1999, but the figure dropped to £34.5 million in 2002. The Budget showed an increase in Government resources, but in Norfolk the figure actually dropped significantly.
Great Yarmouth, in particular, lacks integration and infrastructure, resulting in an inconsistent transportation network in the east. Limited resources are focused on central areas at the expense of peripheral areas and economies. The Government's strategy for delivering a modern, safe, reliable transport system is explained in the 10-year plan for transport. It sets out a £180 billion investment programme covering all forms of land transport. Incorporating the Government's goals in the east will be essential in reducing previous comparative disadvantages. It is vital to ensure that proper funding goes to the eastern region, where it is needed and deserved.
The east of England's regional transport strategy, once released, will provide an initial template for a joined-up strategy. Ideally, it will promote the region's efforts to gain increased funding to meet transport delivery targets. It is essential that such a strategy maximises the economic benefits of transport in our region while developing access, reducing reliance on the car, improving and maintaining the existing strategic network and ensuring better access to it for all who live in our region. Such developments must also seek to reduce congestion, address environmental concerns and promote safety at all times. Access to and development of ports and airports will be crucial in increasing the eastern region's prosperity. Future access to ports and airports should therefore be a central component in determining the transport network hierarchy in the region.
The region is home to four major ports and two major airports, as well as several other smaller ports and airports. Its proximity to the sea makes the port and shipping industry particularly attractive to our economy, and the legion must put forward a unified voice on the continued growth of all ports within it. In the 10 years from 1990 to 2000, total tonnage moving through UK ports increased from 490 million tonnes to 570 million tonnes, and the industry continues to grow. The Government view the private sector as best placed to develop and furnish new opportunities for ports, but port development is increasingly expensive, which means that there must be public investment at some point.
The need for investment in ports is evident in my constituency. In Great Yarmouth, a new proposal is set to service the growing freight and passenger market. Great Yarmouth port handles ships up to 125 m long, and in 2002–03 it handled 600,000 tonnes of general cargo. It works closely with all authorities in the area, and they believe that development is desperately needed to expand the service.
In February 2000, a £38 million outer harbour, EastPort, was proposed. The project involves building a new terminal, increasing quay space and depth to accommodate larger ships and an option to allow future rail connections. There is much co-operation within the area on that possible development. We have received correspondence and continued support from Norwich city council, East of England Energy Group, tourist attractions, other organisations and most MPs in the area. The area wants the development because it is seen as a step in a positive direction, and the project is recognised as vital for lifting the profile of Great Yarmouth.
The authorities completed an environmental impact assessment covering all aspects of the development and the subsequent operation of the harbour. Potential impact areas include construction noise and disruption, landscape disruption and coastal processes, and those authorities are working on those objections so that construction can commence at the earliest possible date. The process is often complicated and delayed, however. The scheme will be a major contributor to regional economic development and, with more than 500 jobs, will provide significant new employment opportunities.
The proposed design would accommodate vessels up to 200 m in length, allowing more general cargo to move through the port. The port will create lucrative trade and tourism links between the UK and Europe and will be ideal for midlands traffic to northern Europe. It would provide the shortest ferry route available to the Netherlands and create close links to the port of Ijmuiden. Ferry companies have also expressed their interest in establishing a roll-on/roll-off service for people and freight. The route is ideally suited for business, short-break and holiday travel between northern Europe and the UK. It is an opportunity for further economic development in the eastern region.
The outer harbour would also improve links internally, forcing the infrastructure to improve in order to maximise its potential. A rail connection for freight would be created at the river port, which is the best environmental option for freight transportation. The East of England Development Agency's report on the East Port proposal is in its final stages and heading in the right direction—towards construction. The construction of the outer harbour will bring great things to my constituency, which suffers from high unemployment and deprivation.
Ironically, Virgin Travel announced 180 job losses today. That is nothing to do with the economy, as it is a business case, but it certainly exemplifies the need for increased employment opportunities in Great Yarmouth and the whole eastern region. The construction of a new harbour will energise the community and improve the Great Yarmouth area. The Government's full support for the project is needed, because the region needs and is entitled to those improvements.
The Government have always aspired to a high capacity road network to accommodate the country's obvious transport demands. The demand for a dualled A47 is not new, as its development was first proposed in my constituency in 1971 with consideration of the dualling of the A47 King's Lynn to Great Yarmouth route. The A47 Acle straight is a vital part of the infrastructure needs not only of Great Yarmouth, but of north-west Norfolk as a whole. It links the region to the rest of the UK. In 1971, the Government pledged their full support for the construction. By 1978, the Government's strategic route approach had been watered down and replaced by proposals to build bypasses on key stretches of the road. In 1988, still without adequate room on the A47, Great Yarmouth produced a document called "Acle New Road: the Case for Dualling", accompanied by a supporting petition signed by more than 20,000 people. The previous Government still did nothing for my constituents, even though the 1989 White Paper included a commitment to dual the A47. In 18 years of Tory government, no fewer than 23 Ministers with the roads portfolio said that there was a definite need for dualling, but the Acle straight was withdrawn from the scheme in 1996. It is now 2004 and the road is still the same—insufficient.
The stretch in question is just eight miles long and is a single carriageway that has been the site of many accidents. Journey times have increased and Great Yarmouth continues to lose business to other towns through failure to dual the stretch. Without an appropriate road into Great Yarmouth, it is difficult to attract and retain investment. The people of Great Yarmouth are not asking for a totally new road, but for the dualling of an existing highway, with as little economic impact as possible during construction. Dualling would affect only 30 yards alongside the existing highway. Widening the road is not an attractive solution because it could take up to 18 months to complete, resulting in road and lane closures and affecting the local economy.
Great Yarmouth needs to be linked to the main strategic highway arteries if it is to overcome the severe problems of deprivation, high unemployment and peripherality that it endures. We must not forget the safety aspects. As I talk about economic progress, people may turn around and say, "Well, it probably wouldn't affect the economic prosperity of the area to have those roads". Yarmouth is probably the only major tourist resort with a significant port that is not connected by dual carriageways and standard roads that go directly to the town itself.
Following a recent survey of the outcomes of the Norwich to Great Yarmouth road-based study, it was announced that there was insufficient information on which to make a decision on the question of the Acle straight. The Highways Agency was asked to undertake three strands of work to investigate the practicalities of managing existing traffic during construction of either widening or dualling options and to assess the impact of delays during construction. That included a plan to investigate the condition and stability of the embankment carrying the A47 across the Acle straight, including the land take required for dualling or widening; to investigate the practicalities of managing existing traffic during construction via the widening or

47WH
dualling options; to assess the economic impact of delays during construction; and to assess the project environmentally.
We understand that that report is due to be announced shortly with rumours clearly stating that the environmental impact would be too much for the dualling of the Acle straight to take place. I add this point: the road is also having an environmental impact in the town. I think that those considerations should also be taken into account. The most controversial part of the plan involves environmental assessment, as the A47 passes through an environmentally sensitive area. Its ditches apparently support the rare swallowtail butterfly, water voles and hawker dragonflies. My town also tries to support many unemployed and economically disadvantaged people.
There are large earthen embankments built alongside the A47. Authorities are studying them to see whether they are sinking into the marshland. The Acle straight has remained straight and without ditches along the side for all its time and it is certainly a stable area. Those studies, while important, are making my constituents and the rest of the eastern region wait longer for the A47 to be improved.
Despite the obvious benefits of dualling the A47, a recent report that emerged from the environmental assessment of the area states that dualling would cause too much damage to sensitive habitats along the Halvergate marshes. It is vital that the Government think about the long-term economic benefits to my community and the entire region when considering the project. I feel strongly that dualling should be considered with respect to overriding public interest, with the net benefits of the project outweighing the environmental disadvantages.
The Government are also calling for an end to reliance on cars, which is a major concern. Owning and driving a car is an inevitable requirement for daily life in the eastern region, with 84 per cent. of all journeys and 75 per cent. of work journeys made by car. In 2002, 167 million passenger journeys by bus and light rail were travelled in the east of England, which is an increase of only 5 million during the past 10 years. The east of England has the lowest levels of such journeys of all the English regions. Those extremely low levels are caused by the lack of cohesive public transport in the east. We are consistently receiving complaints from constituents about their inability to access and utilise public transport. Services are insufficient and unfairly biased towards central regional hubs instead of more peripheral areas.
In the period 1999–2001, access to buses stood at 79 per cent., which was 10 per cent. below the national average and placed us as the third-worst region for access to buses in England. For example, the 704/705 bus service in the Flegg area of Great Yarmouth has been withdrawn, limiting the ability of residents to travel to Great Yarmouth to use vital services such as doctors and dentists, and for shopping and employment. The closures were cited as necessary for economic and commercial reasons. Many other bus routes are closing, including those that children use to
48WH
get to school and that the elderly use to do their shopping, and they are being replaced with services that are inefficient.
Norfolk county council received a £2.5 million subsidy from the Government to support rural bus services, and we should congratulate the Government on taking that initiative. However, not one penny of that subsidy was made available for those important community routes or, indeed, for the constituency as a whole. Norfolk county council still refuses to provide funds to reinstate those routes, but representations are currently being made to the Department for Transport. There have been meetings with the county council to discuss the issues, and another is planned with FirstBus.
Railway accessibility also needs serious improvement if the railways are to become a fully functional system. There is currently no direct train route between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. Links from Norwich to both Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft are slow, requiring a change at either Reedham or Brundall. That makes the journey excessively long, and passengers are calling for the elimination of the change, stressing the need for a short rail link in the Reedham area. The lack of a direct service between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft also puts increasing pressure on bus services and highlights the need for quality bus corridors between the two towns.
A more co-ordinated and transparent approach is required to address; overall negative trends and poor service provision such as those illustrated by those trends, cases and issues. The East of England regional assembly's regional planning guidance illustrates five major areas to improve future access in the east and to address such concerns. They include improving facilities for walking and cycling; locating and designing housing to enable and encourage public transport; improving public transport provision; and locating public facilities and employment-generating developments where they can be readily accessed. Public transport must be easy to use, in greater supply and affordable, and it must link more rural areas to busy metropolitan areas in the east and the strategic network as a whole.
In conclusion, action must be taken in pursuit of the development of transport in the eastern region. The improvements that I have mentioned, including construction of the EastPort outer harbour, dualling of the A47 highway and the establishment of a more interconnected public transport system would greatly benefit not only my constituents in Great Yarmouth, but all the people in the eastern region, because they would create lasting connections. Those improvements would offer numerous social and economic benefits that would be appreciated by many people.
2.59 pm
Mr. Chris Mole: I, too, start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing this debate. I shall try to give a slightly different slant on the discussion because regional debates should not be just a clamour for a regional wish list. One of my points is that the policy terrain must change as we move further towards becoming a knowledge economy. In that context, I commend the Minister on the development of the Government's transport policies as they have impacted

49WH
on the east of England. I was the leader of a highways authority for eight years; the massive increase in local transport plan investment is very welcome and is delivering real differences to urban transport measures such as bus priority lanes, cycle ways, improved pedestrian environments and projects such as home zones. It has also encouraged green travel planning, and I welcome the fact that the planning framework has delivered new developments and required organisations taking up new premises carefully to consider travel arrangements for their employees.
In considering the inevitable demands for projects across the piece, the Government must continue to keep an eye on maintenance investment to ensure that we can make the most of existing infrastructure. We need to be strategic, and welcome the East of England regional assembly overview of regional transport planning through the development of the regional transport strategy. I hope that that will be an inclusive process linking the regional spatial strategy and the regional economic strategy to create the right framework for transport in the region.
To return to the point about making the most of existing infrastructure, I ask the Minister to ensure that when proposals are produced the opportunity for online improvements to the infrastructure is considered. Developments such as those on the A140 between Ipswich and Norwich have already delivered significant improvements in the flow and capacity of that—formerly trunk, now county—road. Other initiatives such as variable signing create the opportunity to compound the current capacity of many routes.
Before I turn to one or two strategic schemes that I think are important, I commend the Minister to stick to the new approach to assessment and its framework of considering the costs and benefits, the environmental impact and, crucially, the economic impact when judging the value of a new development, new road or new aspect of transport infrastructure before the go-ahead is given.
Much has already been made of the Oxford to Cambridge arc. I wish to plug briefly the Ipswich to Cambridge high-tech corridor, which, by international standards, is comparable to the size of silicon valley. The development of the eastern end, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) referred, of the east-west rail link is important. We can point to the sort of investment that took place through the rail passenger partnership process, which has pump-primed an effective new service between Norwich and Cambridge. We would like to see that approach adopted on other parts of the network.
I hope that the greater Anglia franchise creates the opportunity for us to have an hourly service between Ipswich and Cambridge, but I can only echo my hon. Friend's positive comments about the importance of route protection if there is to be a long-term strategic opportunity for the region. I have had the misfortune in the past of having to explain to people why bits of rail network cannot be reopened because housing estates have been built on them during the intervening years.
I would like to switch momentarily from passengers to freight. Felixstowe is Europe's fourth largest container port; it is still growing in capacity and has
50WH
further capacity for transfer of freight to rail. I want to plug the Felixstowe to Nuneaton project, which will see the closure of the Ipswich tunnel in a few weeks as the new 9 ft containers continue their route down to London, across the heavily congested north London line and up to the west. I would like to encourage the Minister to do whatever he can to ensure that what was the Strategic Rail Authority's top freight priority regains that position.
I welcome the Government's shift to an increasingly environmentally sensitive approach while testing the case for economic impact. I continue to support an approach that is selective to key regional priorities, and I commend the bids and communication made by East of England regional assembly members in support of regional planning guidance note 14. If the Minister does that, he will get all our thanks.
3.6 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I shall keep my contribution suitably short as I realise that it is far more important that the Minister respond to many of the issues that have been raised in this excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing it.
Each region is quite unique in its problems and opportunities. The eastern region is diverse; nevertheless it is represented by some excellent Members who have demonstrated this afternoon that they will work on a cross-party basis on many common issues.
The Government's role in any region is to deliver a safe, affordable and reliable strategic network of public transport services while allowing for a sustainable environment. I hope that the Minister will address the issue common to all contributions today, namely the east-west rail link. The hon. Member for Bedford talked about the importance of plugging that gap, and the matter was also raised by the hon. Members for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).
I cannot let this moment slip by without the mentioning the need to dual the A47, and I hope that the Minister will explain what role the Government can play in that strategic network. It was also pleasing to hear a certain green tinge, with the hon. Member for Bedford mentioning the canal scheme and the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) mentioning the guided busway.
We had a Committee sitting this morning to discuss delegated legislation that will permit the growth of Stansted airport's capacity to a maximum of 25 million passengers a year. It will inevitably deliver a second runway for the airport, and with the space between those two runways there will be a third in years to come. That is where the Government have got it strategically wrong. Without considering the local and strategic situations, they are saying that we must manage demand.
Although it is pleasing to hear that regional airports are to expand with the support of the public and Members such as the hon. Member for Luton, North, the Government have patently got it wrong with the bigger airports. If expansion goes ahead at Stansted, two scheduled ancient monuments, 29 grade II listed buildings and 700 hectares of land will disappear.
Turning to buses, I hope that the Minister will respond to concerns in Bedford about Stagecoach. Ann Jones, quoted in Bedford Today, said:
"Bedford is a busy county town but there will be virtually no buses in the evening. Surely this is not in line with Government policy. They want people to stop using their cars but keep cutting the bus timetables".
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website mentions a target to increase by one third the number of rural households with a regular bus service within ten minutes. How close does the Minister think the predominantly rural eastern region is to achieving that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chamber is very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.
3.10 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, shall try to be brief. Essentially, we have had a very long Adjournment debate. If someone secures an Adjournment debate for half an hour, a quarter of an hour is normally spent putting forward the case, and the other quarter of an hour is for the Minister's response. Given that Members have made a whole series of points and that, almost without exception, they were highly critical of the Government's performance over the past seven years, it would be ironic, and sad, if the Minister were let off the hook because we ran out of time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on introducing the debate and other people on participating in it. However, it is worth reminding everybody that we had a full debate in the main Chamber on Thursday about the work of the Highways Agency. Those of us who were present were disappointed that more Back Benchers did not take advantage of the opportunity to raise constituency issues. There was plenty of opportunity for the Minister in that debate to respond to all the points that were made. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) were highly pertinent. He said that the Government do not take a strategic view, and I wholeheartedly agree. They talk about local determination, but they starve local communities of the resources to enable them to take decisions and implement them.
One area in which the Government have not taken a strategic view is particularly pertinent to the eastern region, in which so many of the inadequate roads are connected to small or medium-sized ports. There is obviously also the great port of Felixstowe. The Government's lack of a ports strategy is likely to result in much more container traffic being unloaded at big ports on the continent and then transhipped across to the smaller ports. The Government have not thought through the implications of that for those small ports and the transport connections to them. If the east coast ports benefit ironically, from the lack of international competitiveness that has resulted from the Government's refusal to allow the port of Southampton to develop its container terminal, and as a consequence there is more transhipment from the continent to eastern ports, we must think about the implications for the road network and the people living in communities around it.
52WH
I just cite that as another example of a subject on which the Government have palpably not engaged in joined-up thinking.
On the individual road schemes that have been mentioned, it is worth pointing out that there are already schemes in the Government's targeted programme for improvements that would cost the best part of £8.8 billion. Many of the schemes that have been talked about today are not even included in that programme, and, at the present rate of spend, many of the schemes that are included will not be built for about 15 years, because the Government are spending far too little on road investment.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said that the transport network is suffering from the extreme under-investment of the past. In fact, it is suffering from extreme under-investment over the past seven years in particular and the consequences of the present Government's deciding against many road schemes immediately after coming into office on the basis that the best way to stop people travelling was to deprive them of any roads on which to travel. They have now changed their tune a bit, but they have not delivered the investment necessary to ensure that the road infrastructure, particularly in the eastern region, is improved dramatically.
I have taken a careful note of the points that have been made, because they will be very useful to us as we draw up our list of commitments and priorities for the next Conservative Government.
3.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing this wide-ranging debate. He and other colleagues have covered many issues in the eastern region, which, as many have alluded to, is very diverse. If we are being strictly accurate, it contains parts of three growth areas, not two of them, as per the sustainable communities plan—the entire south Essex section of the Thames gateway growth area is in the eastern region as well.
As others have pointed out, the area stretches from the London commuter belt of Hertfordshire and Essex to the remote rural areas of East Anglia. It includes urban areas such as Luton and Southend and cities such as Cambridge and Norwich as well as not just those growth areas but other areas that are priorities for regeneration, such as Great Yarmouth, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) alluded, Lowestoft and large rural areas such as Breckland.
The area contains a range of roads and railways of national strategic importance. I take the point made by many of my hon. Friends that the historical relationship with London has resulted in the development of a hub and spoke system. The area is well served by north-south links, but not terribly well served by east-west links, whether by road or rail. I shall return to that point shortly.
As the area is so diverse, there are many transport issues to be dealt with: congestion in the urban areas and on the major roads, as we have heard; public transport accessibility in rural areas; new infrastructure to meet the proposed housing and employment increases; and

53WH
maintenance of existing infrastructure. I shall deal with some of those in more detail later, but we must remember that the region contains a great many areas of environmental importance. We must always balance the impact on those areas with the need to improve our ability to move people and freight around.
I took to heart what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) said. Collectively, local government and central Government are moving to a far more strategic focus that does not simply mean, as it used to, a regional wish list put together with scissors and paste to replace the localised wish list, but that includes a notion of how improvements in transport infrastructure of whatever sort sit within the wider regional framework and overall strategy. The focus is not simply within regions, but, to an extent, between regions, particularly given the sustainable communities plan—that interaction between the three growth area regions of the east, south-east and London. That is important, too.
I shall resist commenting on the previous speech. Suffice it to say that in the eastern region, as in many others, we must start by repairing the consequences of many years of under-investment by previous Governments of all persuasions. I thought that that was almost a given by this stage. Except for those with strange rose-tinted glasses, everyone, recognises that in public policy terms we, collectively, have failed—probably since the war—in providing public infrastructure investment on any sustained level.
In July 2000, it was right and proper to take the unprecedented step of putting in place a long-term investment framework—the 10-year plan—and, in going beyond that, to consider local and regional transport initiatives. The Government set a framework that sought finally to address the underlying malaise resulting from under-investment throughout the region.
It is important to recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said, that there has been an absence of strong east-west transport links. I was taken by his point that authorities in the area would need the courage and imagination to embrace accelerated growth—that is an important message—and that the Government must be radical in turn And revise formulae and various other methodologies for sharing out resources.
Certainly in the joint work across the Government by, among others, the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, that work is starting to happen, and it is starting to happen ahead of the significant growth in the area and the pressure that that may put on transport infrastructure. In terms of some very basic lessons about how to readjust and reconsider Department of Health criteria, for example, we must factor in primary or tertiary care not on the back of existing births, but on projections, because the infrastructure has to be there when the communities move in.
The Department for Education and Skills is starting to examine criteria that move away from an approach of, "You show me the children and the basic need case, then we'll sort out the schools infrastructure." I freely say that the ODPM in particular and the Department for Transport are starting to consider that matter in far more detail. They are doing so not simply in terms of formulaic distribution of resources, but by considering
54WH
in the widest possible policy context how growth area strategies sit with assorted allocation formulae and other devices for allocating resources, as well as how both sit with environmental, social, economic and other factors that comprise a sustainable framework.
The points raised by many hon. Members need to be regarded in a coherent and strategic fashion in that cross-Government context, rather than as part of a wish list under each of those headings that each locality wants, blown up into something purporting to be a regional strategy, which is not really one at all.
We should not start from the premise, as was suggested rather foolishly by the Opposition, that nothing has been done in these areas since 1997. The notion that there is too much money in the assorted transport budgets rather than too little, and that a change of Government will resolve that, is nonsensical. Much has been done in a coherent and strategic fashion. The comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) were well made, not least because I was in Norwich last Friday and heard those points from all and sundry down there due to the fact that he was all over the papers speculating that the Highways Agency report on the A47 will not pay full regard to economic conditions.
Everyone else was bemoaning the fact that, whatever the hon. Gentleman's powers of persuasion, Norwich City is not joining the A47 alliance, but that is by the bye. I did say while I was there, through very gritted teeth, how pleased I was that Norwich City got promoted. I am not really, because my team did not.
None the less, the points about the A47 are well made. However, we need to wait until mid-July for the publication of the Highways Agency report, although the improvements already made to various parts of the A47 are targeted at those areas where the problems have been most acute. I had the great pleasure of going to Norfolk to open a flyover. Several people said to me, "It's flat there. What on earth can anyone fly over?" In the end, it transpired that it was a flyover over a roundabout. At the tail end of King's Lynn, the Hardwick flyover has made a significant difference—people in Norwich told me so.
If the hon. Gentleman means "strategic" in the sense of saying, "Here's Peterborough, here's Great Yarmouth. What are you going to do to sort this road out?" as part of a big bang approach, I would say that that is not strategy. The strategy is to consider each element in turn and deal with the most severe in a phased way. That is what has happened. I do not know whether that makes me the 24th or 25th Minister to say that there is a clear economic case for dualling between Norwich and Great Yarmouth, but it must be taken in the wider context and balanced with other factors. We will have to wait and see what is in the Highways Agency report.
I have said to Labour colleagues on the city and county councils in the Norfolk area, and I extend this to others, that if what prevails in the report is not to people's liking, or they want to discuss the report and its methodology further, I am more than happy to see them after the summer recess.
Mr. Tony McWalter: While my hon. Friend is concentrating so much on the north of the eastern region, I hope he will bear it in

55WH
mind that east-west links—notably the A414, the A120, the A127 and other roads in the south of the eastern region—are equally impassable for east-west traffic.
Mr. McNulty: I will. I almost use the A47 as a metaphor for the difficulties with east-west road links. I mention it for no other reason than the fact that I was in Norwich last Friday, and I was greatly delighted at the tail end of last July to receive a running commentary from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth on virtually every blade of grass between the railway line and the A47 as well as what should and should not happen to the A47 as we travelled to his constituency from Norwich. I am only grateful that he had other plans and that I travelled back without him and that same running commentary. It was so incomprehensible that I was still reeling from it.
We need a strategic approach to east-west road linkages, and I demur from the assertion of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk that we do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) spoke about those links and the airports, too. I shall not go into the inaccuracies from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) as there is not time, but I shall tell him afterwards that he made a mistake about what this morning was all about.
Is the M1 widening scheme at risk? I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North that we are barely weeks away from the end of term and between now and then we have the comprehensive spending review. Until that review is out, every element of this Government's public spending is at risk. He should not trouble himself too much at this stage with what is and is not at risk, and I urge him not to read or take any notice of the papers on transport matters. There is a rather stunted development among many in the media who comment on transport matters.
Junctions 10 to 13 are already in the programme with a whole range of other improvements to trunk roads and road networks. I do not have time to go through the points relating to the £600 million for the Thames gateway within and without the eastern region or the more than £1 billion of transport improvements throughout the other growth areas—substantially in the eastern region, because Ashford is self-contained in Kent.
I take my hon. Friend's kind words about Translink. By accident or by design, the eastern region did very well out of the major schemes in the last local transport plan settlement, with not only the Luton to Dunstable Translink guided bus scheme, but the equivalent scheme in Cambridge and Huntingdon.
We are getting to a stage where people must prioritise their transport requirements; they should not get too hooked up on the modes. My hon. Friend said that light rail is a bit expensive, but in real terms the cost of light rail schemes has gone through the roof. I know that expectations have been raised, but it is not enough for people to say, "It has got to be this light rail scheme; this bypass; this motorway; this road scheme or the area's dead, or we're going to slash our wrists and skip off to heaven in the morning." It cannot be like that.
We need a substantive public policy debate in each region and in each area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, a mature debate has started and it is asking where people want a region and its sub-regions to go as well as what is needed in the context of the sustainable communities plan. That includes housing growth and health considerations as well as the education and employment opportunities that ultimately spread aver the whole area, and also how transport, among other infrastructure, will help.
The same applies to modes such as rail. People in the region know better than me that there has been much discussion with the Government about the east-west rail link and that consortiums have drafted assorted plans. The last plan I saw was about how to take detailed work forward even more and its likely cost. That is with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Transport. We will consider it and an announcement will be made in due course.
There is a lot happening with transport in the eastern region. Of course, much more must be done across the piece and across modes, whether with aviation, buses, roads, rail or waterways. I would not necessarily include the latter within schemes to be funded by the Department for Transport, although I can see the attraction of it. Far more is being done to drag up the infrastructure to an appropriate level to sustain not only the new growth, but the existing activity in an area that, despite pockets of deprivation, is extremely vibrant and economically active.

Planning Policy Guidance
3.30 pm
Alan Howarth: I want to put forward a case for retaining the provision, under clause 3.21 of the existing planning policy guidance note 7, which allows that:
"An isolated new house in the countryside may … exceptionally be justified if it is clearly of the highest quality, is truly outstanding in terms of architecture and landscape design, and would significantly enhance its immediate setting and wider surroundings."
In their new draft planning policy statement 7, the Government have omitted this provision.
Why should the Government want to end the country house exception? Some have seen this as a flicker of the embers of the class war. Colour is lent to that suggestion by the splendid amendment tabled to my early-day motion 160 by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), supported by five luminaries of old Labour. The amendment deserves to be sampled:
"this House … further believes that if the countryside is to be preserved by not building ordinary houses, it is even more important that is should not be polluted with big houses for the arrogant, vulgar and rich".
I imagine my hon. Friends savouring their wording like a very old single malt whisky. Their tongues must have been in their cheeks. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister would not take such sentiments seriously. The 73 right hon. and hon. Members of all parties who have signed early-day motion 160 know that this is a serious issue. We are at risk of losing a tradition of inestimable value to the countryside as well as to architecture.
Presumably the real reason why the Government have proposed to end the exception is in the words of a spokesperson for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, quoted in The Architects' Journal of 8 May 2003:
"We don't want loopholes in the law. We don't want to be in the position of having more housing in the countryside when we should be developing brownfield sites."
While I will argue that that statement is misconceived, I want to emphasise that I applaud the Government's concern to protect the countryside and to channel developments to brownfield sites. There should be no confusion between the country house exception and abusive developments in rural areas, such as those currently so bitterly contested near Woking and Leominster, and at East Coker and Cottenham—let alone the building fantasies of Mr. Nicholas van Hoogstraten. Clause 3.21 is not a loophole, but a policy deliberately intended, in a context of tight control, to encourage high-quality architecture and landscape design in rural areas.
An appeal in The Architects' Journal to reprieve the country house exception has been signed by more than 300 distinguished architects, planners, academics, commentators and others, including the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr Gummer), my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). None of them, surely, would demur from the aims expressed by the Government in their draft
58WH
PPS7. The Royal Institute of British Architects, equally, like the Historic Houses Association, while making a powerful case for keeping the country house exception in its submission to the Government's consultation, has emphasised that it endorses the Government's key principles, which are:
"New development away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocate for development plans, should be strictly controlled; in particular isolated new houses in the countryside require special justification",
and
"all development in rural areas should be well designed, in keeping and in scale with its location, and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness."
There is no contention about the Government's objectives of protecting the countryside while offering everyone the opportunity of an affordable and decent home.
The Government state at paragraph 10.2 that local planning authorities should
"strictly control new house building (including single dwellings) in the countryside, away from established settlements or from areas allocated for housing in development plans."
Paragraph 11 starts by saying:
"Isolated new houses in the countryside will require special justification for planning permission to be granted."
So far so good. But then the rest of paragraph 11, taken with annexe A, makes it clear that the only instances where isolated new houses may be contemplated are where they provide accommodation for full-time workers—for example, in agriculture and forestry—who need to live near their place of work. These sections of the draft PPS can only be read by planners as banning new country houses other than on previously used sites. The removal of clause 3.21 inevitably reinforces that interpretation.
Why does this matter, and why would the new policy be a mistake? Last autumn RIBA mounted an excellent exhibition, "The New English Country House". The exhibition catalogue describes 26 country houses, 17 of which have received planning permission since 1997 on the basis of clause 3.21. The 26 designs fall, according to Neil Guy, the exhibition's curator, into four broad categories: classical; traditional houses with a vernacular dimension; modern; and organic. Mr. Guy notes that even the houses more "historicist" in style are modern in the commitment of their designers to sustainability and "green" features. He goes on to say:
"What unites all the schemes without exception is the greatest care and attention taken with the landscape designs. They are all highly imaginative, yet context sensitive, and demonstrate such a depth of experience and richness of talent within the English landscape architecture discipline. Each scheme appears right for the house and right within its wider landscape context. This seemingly effortless harnessing of house and landscape remains an English tradition that continues to surprise and delight."
We are fortunate, indeed, that there are so many remarkable contemporary British architects and landscape designers, and policy should encourage them to work in a field—country house design—which has historically attracted the greatest talents. We should, I would add, not be prescriptive about style. If we insist on quality—and one of the reasons why clause 3.21 is so important is because it does so—we need not fear a proliferation of pastiche. We should welcome modern interpretations of traditional styles as well as being confident to accept modernism in the countryside.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister saw another exhibition, at the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1974, "The Destruction of the Country House". More than 1,500 English country houses have been destroyed in the last hundred years. John Harris, in a plangent essay in the catalogue, wrote of a
"dreadful series of demolitions and smash-ups that destroyed some of the greatest works of British art."
RIBA now estimates that perhaps 600 country houses have been totally demolished since the second world war. The forces of destruction—originally agricultural depression; subsequently taxation policy, plus road-building and ill-controlled suburban and industrial development—were too powerful to be countered by good governmental intentions for conservation, such as the post-war Labour Government's planning legislation and the introduction of the listing system, and the commissioning by Sir Stafford Cripps of the Gowers report leading to the creation of the Historic Buildings Councils. The challenge for us now is not just to conserve what survives but to nurture the renewal of the country house.
Rightly the Government seek to protect our heritage of country houses, vulnerable as it is to social and economic change, by investing money and authority in English Heritage. The enormous growth in subscribing members of the National Trust, up 50 per cent. in the last 10 years, demonstrates the scale of public support for this heritage. Admirably the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, introduced the country house exception in 1997, precisely to enable our own generation to make its contribution to the continuing vitality of this tradition.
As politicians we should not underestimate the extent to which the public today care about both the built heritage and the design of contemporary buildings. Just as concern for the natural environment became a major political force in the 1960s, so now more and more people feel strongly about the quality of their built environment, about the need to preserve our heritage of good architecture and design and our responsibility to design and build well in our own time, to add to the heritage. We have now repudiated the heresies of the 1980s that market forces should be paramount in determining the character of new building and that it is not the responsibility of the planning system to concern itself with quality. Sensitive to this growing public mood, the Government have rightly included in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 a requirement that applications for planning permission for development should be accompanied by a "design statement". In other ways too the Government have recognised this, for example with the publication of their policy document "Better Public Buildings" and the establishment of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. As the Prime Minister said in his foreword to "Better Public Buildings":
"I have asked ministers and departments across government to work towards achieving a step change in the quality of building design in the public sector … I am determined that this additional money should be well spent, leaving behind a legacy of high quality buildings that can match the best of what we inherited from the Victorians and other past generations. And I am determined that good design should not be confined to high profile buildings in the big cities".
Only this last weekend, in The Observer, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister expounded his own personal commitment to the promotion of good design. It would be inconsistent with the Government's strategic support for good design if, in obviating from now on the possibility of building new country houses, they were to deprive rural areas of the benefit of outstanding contemporary architecture.
If we now bring to an end the centuries old tradition of building fine houses in the countryside, we will impoverish architecture for everyone. As Paul Finch, deputy chairman of CABE, said:
"The history and discourse of Western architecture for many centuries has taken the individual country house as the occasion for experiment, proposition, development and of course the continuation of certain traditions. From Palladio to Mies van der Rohe, with the notable examples of Lutyens and Norman Shaw as contributors to the story, the relationship of living space to social structure has been worked through in fascinating detail. For Britain to bring the shutters down on this long cultural narrative would be a sorry state of affairs, especially since the villa tradition in cities is alive and well. It is precisely because country houses are designed in isolation, rather than urban context, that they have presented a particular challenge and opportunity to architecture across the centuries; the lessons learned have often translated to popular housing forms.
This mingling of architecture, history and living makes the question of the country house exception of more than simple planning interest. It is not an episode from 'Upstairs, Downstairs', but part of a richer, more complex aspect of architectural culture."
The country house is one of Britain's most important contributions to the arts and western culture. In the words again of John Harris:
"The unity of a great house with its furnished interior, collection of pictures and sculpture, its library and family and estate archives, tied within a garden and set in a landscaped park, is perhaps the supreme example of a collective work of art."
Writers and painters whose patrons enabled them to practise their art in country houses include Sidney, Dryden, Pope, Turner, Swinburne and Millais. Landscape gardening has been regarded as one of the fine arts, and according to Lord Clark, English gardens were
"the most pervasive influence that England has ever had on the look of things in Europe."
The PPG7 exception has been attacked on a number of fallacious grounds. It is alleged that the countryside will be ruined by a proliferation of new country houses. The truth is that the history of our countryside is one of intervention, whether through enclosure, agricultural change or the encroachment of industry and suburbia. Too often the altering of the character of the countryside has been an unhappy story, but the great landscape designers—Bridgeman, Kent, Brown, Repton—and the owners of estates have shaped landscapes which we regard as quintessentially English in their beauty and which we cherish as our heritage. As the Historic Houses Association has noted in its submission, for hundreds of years country houses have provided an essential element of the rural landscape in Britain: most of them are surrounded by deliberately created parkland and gardens, and are as much a feature of the landscape as parish churches, hedgerows and the rest of the man-made tapestry that is the countryside in Britain. Of course especially strict care should be taken of the green belt and other special areas and sites, but the real threat to the green belt has come from large and

61WH
poorly designed housing estates. We need a countryside that is cared for, and among the people who will care for it, with an outstanding commitment of knowledge and resources, are the owners of country houses.
It is also wrong to suggest that a choice has to be made between affordable homes and country houses. We certainly need more affordable homes, but we can have both. Indeed, I believe the Government should insist that, as a condition of planning permission, those who build new country houses should be required to provide some additional affordable homes, and do so to a high standard of design and construction.
Clearly, new country houses are not going to be centres of oligarchic economic and political power as country houses were; we do not want social history to go into reverse. However, we can realistically expect that new country houses will bring more investment and jobs to rural areas, at a time when we need to find acceptable land uses other than intensive agricultural production. Tourists come from all over the world to see our country houses. HHA member properties open to the public employ around 10,000 people. So long as policy is supportive of this part of our heritage there is every reason to think that tourists will continue in the future to come and view country houses old and new, to the benefit of rural employment and the rural economy.
Without the continuation of the country house building tradition it will be harder to perpetuate craft and woodland skills. The parkland of country houses also provides sanctuary for archaeological remains, as well as for plant, insect and bird life, and rare breeds of animals.
It is not easy, of course, for local planning authorities to deal with applications for country houses. They are, however, a type of scheme that already falls under the criteria for local authorities to consult CABE, which, in its formal response to the Government's consultation, has made it clear that it strongly opposes the ending of the country house exception. CABE has said that it would be happy, as now, to provide advice on the quality of country house applications under any future equivalent of clause 3.21. With access to CABE's expertise, it is manageable for local authorities to handle such applications, which in any case will never be numerous. The RIBA exhibition showed indeed how successfully local planning authorities have been able to recognise "truly outstanding" design.
I very much hope, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reconsider their position on the country house exception. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister fully appreciates the importance of this issue and has been thinking carefully about it. I can see no good arguments for discontinuing the exception; on the contrary, I believe that it would be a tragedy if we were to bring to an end our great history of country house building.
3.46 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) on securing the debate, and on a very good speech. I am grateful to him for providing this opportunity to debate two important issues: the protection of the countryside and the encouragement of top-quality design.
Turning to the first of those issues, there is a well established national planning policy that new housing development in the open countryside, away from existing settlements, should be strictly controlled. Planning policy guidance note 7, on the countryside, states that isolated new houses require special justification, although what might constitute "special justification" in any particular case is left open. However, one significant example given in PPG7 is when it is essential for a farm worker to live at their place of work.
The Conservatives' last Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), decided, when PPG7 was being prepared, that it would be appropriate to insert a further specific example of an exception to the general policy requiring special justification for isolated new houses. That, of course, was the exception for traditional, high-quality country houses.
Although the right hon. Gentleman is clearly proud of that addition—indeed, it is commonly referred to as the "clause" in his name—it was not welcomed in the round. Many local planning authorities and, I believe, other rural interests were disappointed and concerned about that proposal. They felt, and have continued to feel, that it was an unnecessary addition which went against the sustainable development principles underpinning PPG7. Nevertheless, despite the concerns expressed, the right hon. Gentleman was determined to proceed with his commitment to opening up a new era of traditional country house building, and the exception duly appeared in PPG7 when it was published in February 1997.
I fear that the effect of the exception has been to invite a mixture of speculative proposals of little or no architectural or planning merit, and—with perhaps one or two exceptions—designs that represent a pastiche of traditional, classical styles, with little evidence of real innovation. Those houses would, no doubt, enable a privileged few to live out their dreams of past grandeur, and a few specialist architects to enhance their reputations. However, such developments have little relevance to the majority of people, who are looking for well designed, affordable homes for themselves and their families; nor do such developments improve standards or push forward the frontiers of design.
The incoming Labour Government of 1997 inherited PPG7 with its country house exception. We had many other priorities and problems to tackle after the years of Conservative rule, but in due course we reached PPG7. In April 2001, just prior to the general election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), who was then an Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, said, in response to a parliamentary question:
"The Government believe that there is a need for more affordable housing in rural areas, and do not see the current planning exception for isolated large dwellings which may be built in unsustainable locations as consistent with that priority, or with its objectives for the countryside more generally. We therefore intend to consult on amendments to PPG7 to remove the exceptions policy which allows such large dwellings to be built."—[Official Report, 23 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 82W.]
That proposed consultation had to wait for our re-election in the spring of 2001, but following our return. the Government announced that they were to embark

63WH
on a major reform of the planning system. That would include the review of planning policy guidance notes, and their eventual replacement with shorter, sharper planning policy statements. PPG7 was subject to early review, and that led to a public consultation draft of a new PPS7 on "Sustainable Development in Rural Areas" being issued last September.
PPS7 reflects the Government's key priorities for rural areas: delivering inclusive, sustainable country towns and villages that have a high-quality environment; supporting strong, diverse economic activity, with support for our farmers to enable them to remain competitive in changing markets; continuing protection for the quality and character of the countryside, and enabling all to enjoy it. PPS7 also recognises the importance of planning when it comes to providing housing, particularly affordable housing, to meet local needs in rural areas. However, in line with the April 2001 announcement, draft PPS7 did not include the country house exception.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received nearly 600 responses to the consultation draft of PPS7 from local planning authorities and a range of other interests. Overall, there has been a positive response to the broad policy proposals in the draft, although there have been many varied views on specific policies. Not all commented on the omission of the country house exception, but of those who did, the majority welcomed our proposal.
However, I recognise that contrary views have been expressed, both through the PPS7 consultation and more generally; for example, through the appeal launched by The Architects' Journal. I understand and have been listening to those counter-arguments, including those put forward by my right hon. Friend. I very much agree with him that rural areas, as well as their urban counterparts, should benefit from high-quality design, including the best of contemporary British architecture.
My right hon. Friend has generously acknowledged the passion for good design felt by the Government, and in particular by the Deputy Prime Minister. The emphasis on good design is recognised as a key way of ensuring that the planning system delivers a quality outcome. That is why, as my right hon. Friend for Newport, East noted in his speech, we introduced the concept of design statements in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and it is why the consultation draft of new PPS1 on "Creating
64WH
Sustainable Communities" makes it clear that high-quality design, promoted through planning policies, is a key element of achieving sustainable development.
Good design is essential for achieving inclusive, successful and vibrant communities. PPS1 advises that design policies and guidance should focus on encouraging good, inclusive design and avoid stifling innovation, originality and initiative. Such polices and guidance recognise that the qualities of an outstanding scheme may exceptionally justify departing from those policies. That is a strong message that I want to see applied equally to rural and urban areas.
We have included as one of the key principles of draft PPS7 that all development in rural areas should be well designed, in keeping and in scale with its location and sensitive to the character of the countryside and local distinctiveness. The draft also encourages planning authorities to take a positive approach to innovative, modern designs.
My concern is to drive up the design standards of all housing in rural areas, not just that of big private houses, in terms of visual interest and impact, the innovative use of materials and construction, and a reduced impact on environmental resources. I believe that our best architects and architectural practices have an important role to play in that respect. However, I recognise that innovative, cutting-edge design can sometimes be helped along by private commissions. In that way, higher risk design solutions can be trialled and proven before being taken up more widely.
I have given careful thought to these matters in the context of PPS7 to see whether there is scope in the final version to provide further encouragement for top-quality housing design in rural areas. I have given careful consideration, too, to the many other views expressed on the consultation draft.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that I cannot anticipate the outcome either in terms of the proposed withdrawal of the country house exception, or of the other policy proposals. However, we are nearing completion of the final text and, with the agreement of my ministerial colleagues, I hope to be able to publish the final version of PPS7 shortly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the Minister for his reply. I think that the Minister responsible for fisheries has arrived in the nick of time and we can proceed with the next debate straight away.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has sought the permission of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who initiated the debate, the Minister and the Chair to participate in the debate and I am delighted that he should do so.

UK Fishing Industry
3.57 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: It is a rare occasion indeed on which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister and I are of a single mind, as we find ourselves to be in relation to the participation of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
It is both a pleasure and a slight irritation to have this debate here and in these circumstances. It is a pleasure because to my constituency and many other fishing constituencies, this matter is of exceptionally high importance. It is an irritation because it is at least three months since the report was published and a 30-minute debate—in fact, it is a 33-minute debate, courtesy of the Minister who spoke previously—in Westminster Hall does not do justice to such an important subject. I hope that this debate might be a taster of a longer and more substantial debate in the not-too-distant future on the Floor of the House.
I welcome the news that the Minister is to visit Shetland towards the end of July. We look forward to seeing him there. I have already had correspondence with him regarding his itinerary. As well as meeting the usual suspects, if I may bracket them like that—the local council, the local fishermen's organisation, the salmon farmers association and the other commercial agriculture interests—all of whom tend to come through London, where he could no doubt see them all if he chose to do so, I hope that he will meet some others. The real benefit of his visiting Shetland is to meet not just those people, but some of the heavily fishing-dependent communities in Shetland.
I have already referred in correspondence to the community of Whalsay, which is perhaps one of the most fishing-dependent communities anywhere in Scotland by virtue of its economy and geography. If the Minister can find time in his programme in Shetland to visit Whalsay, it would be greatly valued by people there and throughout Shetland. It would be seen as a practical example of his finding out for himself the impact on communities and families at the sharp end of some of the things that we occasionally tend to discuss in the abstract.
The Prime Minister's strategy unit report is a substantial piece of work running to some 217 pages, and I welcome a lot of it. A work of this nature that aims to be substantial and comprehensive is long overdue. Due to the time constraints, I will concentrate on the negatives of the report, but I want to stress that there is a great deal that is good and that the Government are to be commended on having undertaken such an exercise.
Since three months have passed since the publication of the report, what I would like to hear from the Minister today is: where is it going now? Who in Government has ownership of the report and what is their road map for implementing it? When the report was published, the fishing industry raised a number of substantial and fundamental concerns about some of its contents. I presume that he has been in dialogue with the industry about that. and I hope that he will tell us exactly what the Government's view is at this stage.
One of the most substantial areas of concern was the report's calculation of the size of the white fish fleet. The significance is that certain assumptions are made about
66WH
future decommissioning and tie-up that are based on the purported size of the fleet. I submit to the Minister that, if we start from the wrong base and try to decommission further, we will end up with a white fish fleet that has fallen beneath the critical mass that is needed for a recovered industry.
The report calls for 69 trawlers to be scrapped and another 160 to be tied up for four years. Given that the industry estimates that there are 120 white fish boats in the fleet, one can see the significance of the report's calculations. At the time, it was speculated that the strategy unit's over-estimate of the size of the fleet was caused by the inclusion of prawn boats in the figures, because they often catch white fish as a by-product.
At the time of the report's publication, Mike Park, then chairman of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, said:
"They have assumed everyone holding a white-fish licence is fishing for a targeted demersal fishery, which is utter nonsense. The majority of vessels within Scotland with a category A licence catch prawns, but they need the licence to land white fish as a by-catch. There are only 120 dedicated white-fish vessels left in the Scottish fleet compared with 290 three years ago."
Hamish Morrison, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, estimated that the size of the entire UK white fish fleet could be no more than 250 trawlers and not the 1,012 claimed by the strategy unit.
That is obviously fundamental, and it underpins everything else in the strategy unit's report. Where there is such a wide divergence of the views and figures held by the industry and the strategy unit, unless or until the matter is resolved, the credibility of the report in the fishing industry will be seriously undermined.
One suggestion made at the time by the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation was that the National Audit Office should look at the methodology and conclusions of the strategy unit with regard to the composition of the white fish fleet. Will the Minister tell us today whether the Government are prepared to undertake that? I suggest to him that the National Audit Office brings with it a degree of independence and a reputation for objective scrutiny that would be of immense assistance to all of us who wish to see the good points of the report advance.
As I said, following on from the assessment of the size of the fleet, there is a worrying recommendation for further decommissioning. The figures suggested by the strategy unit are that there should be a further 13 per cent. of decommissioning and that 30 per cent. should be tied up for the next four years. As I read it, the report says that 13 per cent. decommissioning would cost some £50 million in public spending, but that there would be no money available for Government support for tie-up. The report goes on to state that the industry itself cannot afford to tie up for that length of time, so I do not understand how the Government will square that circle. Perhaps the Minister can explain today his thinking about the situation.
I cannot envisage further decommissioning within the Shetland fleet and the communities that I represent. The Shetland white fish fleet has fallen from 27 trawlers to 14 in just over two years. Given that about 30 per cent. of our local domestic product in Shetland is dependent on fishing in one way or another, we must question what critical mass would remain for the white fish industry

67WH
and, following on from that, for Shetland as a whole. If the critical mass is lost in the fishing fleet, the onshore processors, engineers. chandlers and everyone else who depends on fishing will be lost, and once that happens, a substantial proportion of the community will be lost.
Once those jobs are lost in a community such as Shetland, people will not sit around waiting for things to change and get better; they have skills, and they will move on to make a living elsewhere. Such losses are never reflected in our unemployment statistics, because when people lose their jobs they leave the community. As the constant threat in a community such as Shetland is one of depopulation, the stakes for which we are playing in this matter are exceptionally high.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Would the hon. Gentleman, who shares my experience, care to reflect on how little—indeed, it is none—of the economic help through decommissioning, for example, feeds down to the supply-based businesses that are the lifeblood of his communities and mine?
Mr. Carmichael: I have been a supporter of decommissioning, inasmuch as we all have, as there was clearly a need to help people to leave the industry with some dignity, because the alternative was decommissioning by bankruptcy, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: there has been no trickle down. In fact, the net gainers from decommissioning have been the clearing banks. It is unfortunate that more could not have been done to maintain the position of the ancillary businesses to which I have referred.
The other aspect of the report that I wish to consider today relates to the Government's suggestion that we should adopt an aim of progressively regionalising the management functions of the common fisheries policy. The Minister knows that, like many people who deal with the fishing industry, I am sceptical about whether the common fisheries policy is capable of reform. We went through the whole process that ended up with the Fisheries Council in 2002, which gave us the curious creatures called regional advisory councils. That is not regional management, and it is certainly not what I wanted to see when I stood on a platform of regional management in the CFP in the last general election. Nothing that I have seen since makes me think that there is any political will in the European Union, and in the Commission in particular, to devolve power for day-to-day fisheries management to anything resembling regional management councils.
We have at last got a blueprint for the establishment of regional advisory councils. It is estimated that the first plenary council of the North sea regional advisory council will meet in November, about six weeks before the December Fisheries Council. I wish the regional advisory councils well, but I am sceptical, as I do not believe that they have the necessary powers. I fear that they will comprise stakeholders whose views are already nominally listened to but then ignored, and that all we will do is move from a process in which those people's views are informally listened to and ignored to one in which their views are formally listened to and ignored. That is not the progress that I want.
The Minister must realise that there is a degree of scepticism. What plan does he have to achieve the stated aim of a progressive regionalisation of the management functions of the CFP between now and its next reform in 2012? A pious hope was perhaps good enough in the run-up to the 2002 Fisheries Council, but I am afraid things have moved on to such an extent that that will simply not be enough anymore.
Finally, I want to deal briefly with a couple of issues that are not in the report. First, the report's conclusions and recommendations make no mention of the importance of sea food processors. That sector is also under the cosh, not only because of the situation in the catching sector, but because of importers. Given that the sector accounts for 10,000 jobs in some fragile and vulnerable communities, we need to see some clearer thinking from the Government on that front.
Finally, there is the question of industrial fishing. The Government have had a lot to say about what we should be doing in terms of decommissioning and further tie-up, but the strategy unit report does not seem to address the fact that substantial harm is being done to the ecosystem in the North sea by industrial fishing, particularly by the Danish fleet and by other countries that are now involved in multiple rig trawling. Such conservation issues have to be taken seriously, but there seems to be no place for them in the strategy unit report.
In order to allow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to make a short contribution and to hear what the Minister has to say, I conclude my remarks.
4.13 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on winning this debate and thank him for his courtesy in allowing this short contribution. In return, I endorse every argument that he has put forward to the Minister.
Given the time constraint, I want to touch on only one point, which is what the hon. Gentleman called the "pious hope" in the strategy unit about regionalisation of the common fisheries policy. I put it to the Minister that that is totally incompatible with the Government's allowing exclusive competence over the bulk of fisheries policy to be enshrined in the European constitution.
I do not have time fully to go through the history of how we got into this disastrous position, but it is reasonably well known that during the accession negotiations in the early 1970s, the Government of the day effectively gave away the central legal title over the fisheries policy of this country. That was followed by court judgments in 1976, the first of which was the Kramer judgment, in which the European Court of Justice indulged in Euro-creep and pooled exclusive competence into the purview of the European Commission.
That was a court judgment based on a treaty of accession. What the proposed constitution does is to sanctify and entrench that in one of only four exclusive competences of the European constitution. Those are proposed to be: monetary policy for those in the euro; the customs union, the very foundation of the common market; the commercial policy of the single market; and the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. Everything else—

69WH
agriculture, energy, social policy—in the full range of European Union policies has to be a shared competence, but not the bulk of the common fisheries policy. The importance of that is twofold.
First, anything that is a shared competence comes under the protection of subsidiarity. A point that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have made much of recently is that shared competences actually give an avenue and a protection for powers to be returned to member states; indeed, for member states to have pre-eminence where they can act better than the Union as a whole. Specifically in the European constitution, exclusive competences are removed from the protection of subsidiarity. I seriously doubt that the Prime Minister was even aware of the importance of what he signed up to. In an exchange in the House on 20 April with my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), the Prime Minister said:
"Fishing is still a shared competence, and we happen to believe that is right."—[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 171.]
Presumably the Prime Minister could not possibly have been misleading the House, so we must assume that at that stage he was not even aware of the importance of fishing as an exclusive competence of the European Union.
Secondly, the Fisheries Minister told us on 11 March in a Standing Committee that he was
"not an enthusiastic supporter of the common fisheries policy."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 March 2004; c. 19.]
The strategy unit has held out hope of the regionalisation of management functions of that policy. Our point today is: how is that compatible with a European constitution, which entrenches fisheries as an exclusive competence of the European Union? If there were a genuine desire and move to return at least some control of fisheries to the states—to the fishermen, the people who depend on the resources, and the communities for whom it is their lifeblood—that would not have appeared in the European constitution. The Government, unlike that of 30 years ago, would have made some attempt to defend the rights of our fishing industry.
I should like to make one final point. I am a vice-convenor of the European movement. I support the European cause and have done so throughout my political career. However, I shall not join the long litany of political parties and politicians who will sacrifice and jeopardise this vital industry on the altar of their politics. It is high time that the industry was given the priority in Government policy to which it is not accustomed, but to which it is certainly entitled.
4.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for securing this debate on a very important report: the first strategic report on the state of the fishing industry in this country, if not for a generation, then probably ever. He remarked at the outset that he was sorry that the debate was happening in Westminster Hall, and with relatively poor attendance—the business being what it is today—and I, too, hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss
70WH
this further on the Floor of the House. We shall certainly be looking for a slot to do that. I was also pleased that he generally welcomed the Report and emphasised at the beginning of his speech that, as is usual in these cases, one tends to concentrate on the negative, in the hope of getting a response from Ministers.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind suggestions on how I should spend my time when I visit his constituency, as I hope to do at the end of July. I cannot remember a visit that has engendered so much interest, which is probably a good indication of the level of interest in this matter in his constituency, and of its economic and social importance to his constituents. I look forward very much to my visit, although I fear already that I shall disappoint some people in terms of what I can and cannot do, but I intend to spend a day and a half there, which I hope will give me a good opportunity to see a lot and to meet as many people as possible.
The Prime Minister's strategy unit took a long, hard look at our fishing industry and where we should like it to be in 10 or 20 years. It is timely, because we all know of the difficulties that the white fish sector, in particular, has been suffering for some time. The report paints a very positive message: it says that the industry as a whole, including the white fish sector, has a sustainable and profitable future, provided that we do not shirk the task of addressing certain fundamental problems.
In summary, the basic message of the report is as follows: the industry must ensure the quality of its product and take steps to compete on the global market; some further reduction in the UK white fish fleet will be needed—I shall come on to the controversy about numbers in a moment—to make it economically viable; compliance and the quality of catch data must be improved in the UK and throughout the EU; we must progressively regionalise fisheries management both at the EU and national level and make it more flexible and responsive to fishermen's input; fishing must be integrated more fully into the broader marine management process, with a balanced set of rights and responsibilities; and the Government must adopt policies that recognise and support vulnerable fishing-dependent communities. I do not think that right hon. and hon. Members here today would disagree with any of that.
The Government have already said that they accept the report's broad conclusions, but the detail of how to put them into effect should now be the subject of full discussion among all interested parties, not least because action is required from the fishing industry and the wider range of users of the marine environment, as well as from the Government.
I shall move on to the process of where we go next in a moment, but let me address some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the strategy unit report. First, he expressed some disappointment with the extent of common fisheries reform so far, and asked whether this was the end. It certainly is not, and we are thinking all the time about how we can push CFP reform further. We achieved a significant reform in the Council the December before last, much of which is only now being implemented. As the hon. Gentleman said, the first regional advisory council for the North sea hopes to

71WH
meet this autumn. That was agreed at the last but one Council of Ministers meeting, which also agreed funding for regional advisory councils.
Things are happening, although there was quite a lot of scepticism when the process was set up that it would be just window dressing or a talking shop. I do not believe that the Commission would have agreed to set up such a structure if it was not going to take any notice of it. In the discussions that I have had—I had one yesterday on the issue of extra days for the white fish fleet under the haddock permit system—there is a recognition right at the top of the Commission that business as usual is no longer tenable. As illustrated in the strategy unit report, we would like to have regional managers, responsible for managing the industry in parts of the United Kingdom. Those individuals would be answerable to the regional advisory councils.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) raised the old chestnut, as he always does, of how there can be any meaningful regional management element to the CFP as long as the part—he generally avoids this point—of the policy relating to the marine environment remains an exclusive competence. I use the word "remains" because it always has been an exclusive competence of the CFP. We are going to have to agree to disagree on what the constitution says and whether it makes any difference. That seemed to me to be the major plank of his party's campaign during the European elections in Scotland, and it did not do him a lot of good.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bradshaw: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not. We have all been very generous to him in allowing him to contribute to the debate, and I want to respond to several points that were made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
The strategy unit suggested a number of other reforms such as setting up a marine agency in the UK. The Government are considering that; it is a medium to long-term measure, but as with other matters, we shall keep the momentum of reform going.
The report mentions processing, but it is largely concerned with the catching sector. It emphasises the economic importance of the processing sector, and its success in various parts of the country, not just in relation to fish caught by the domestic catching sector. We must also bear it in mind that when we discuss the industry, we are talking not just about the catching sector, but about processes, the food industry and so on. Much of that industry is doing very well and, as the strategy unit suggests, a lot of it could do better if we were better at adding value to what is a wonderful, natural resource.
Mr. Salmond: North of the Tay, from Dundee northwards, the Scottish National party was the leading party in the European elections, as the Minister knows. He referred to part of the fisheries policy. I have a letter from the Foreign Secretary, dated 26 August last year, which says that fisheries policy falls mostly within the area of exclusive competence.
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is aware that inshore fisheries and so on are matters of national competence.
I want to address a point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the size of the fleet. There still seems to be some confusion about that because originally the industry was talking about 157 boats in Scotland but, according to the hon. Gentleman, it is now talking about 120, and the official figure from the Scottish Executive was 370. My understanding is that there have already been discussions between the strategy unit and the industry in Scotland, and the reason for what the industry sees as the inflated number in the original report was that nephrops and saithe boats were included. I understand that consensus on numbers has now been reached. If that is not so, I am happy to look again at a possible role for the Audit Commission because it is clearly important that we all base our discussions on similar numbers. What I do not want is to have an argument about boat numbers ad nauseam as a means of avoiding some of the decisions that might have to be made on other issues.
The hon. Gentleman referred to decommissioning, which is a sensitive issue, particularly in Scotland. The strategy unit report recommends further decommissioning, and we shall have to discuss that in depth with the industry before deciding on the details of how to proceed. We shall certainly listen to the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the industry, and I shall not prejudge the outcome of those discussions this afternoon. In the end, what happens in Scotland will be a matter for Scotland's Fisheries Minister and not for me.
Mr. Carmichael: The Minister will be aware that Jack McConnell, Scotland's First Minister, has already discounted the possibility of further decommissioning. Given the dominance of the Scottish fleet within the white fish sector, does that not mean that it is finished as an idea?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is giving a fair representation of what the First Minister said, but the strategy unit is clear. We are not discussing anything in the short term and I am about to explain briefly how we will proceed.
We will launch the process of engagement with interested parties very shortly. That will involve three levels of engagement to ensure that everyone with an interest has a way of feeding in their views, concerns and suggestions. First, there will be a system of working groups to enable those with knowledge and experience relevant to particular issues, from outside Government and within, to feed in their analysis and suggestions. Obviously, the fish catchers will have a significant role reflecting their absolutely central interest, but we shall also need significant input from the wider fishing industry and from the wide range of other interests with a stake in or concern for the marine environment.
Secondly, there will be a higher level stakeholder advisory group, representing all interest groups, to enable the members of the entire community of interested parties to add strategic level comments to the work coming out of the working groups. Thirdly, there will be a more general engagement based on a consultation letter and a website where all-comers can check the state of thinking and feed in comments.
What we want to come out of this is a Government response informed not just by the comments of all stakeholders, but by active discussion with them, and an action plan for delivering the changes and improvements highlighted in the report, "Net Benefits".
Obviously, I cannot highlight the details of the response and the action plan now as they must emerge from the comprehensive engagement process that we have planned. We want a plan that addresses the whole range of issues identified by the strategy unit and does not cherry-pick some issues for attention and leave out others. The way forward, when it is adopted, must respect the analysis of the strategy unit and address the
74WH
problems that it identified. If the plans adopted are different from what the strategy unit recommends, they must still address the underlying problem.
I and my colleagues look forward to a constructive discussion on the way forward. This is the first time for many a long year that the chance has come along for those concerned about the future of fisheries and their place in our society, economy and the marine environment to come together to create a better future. We must not pass up that opportunity.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

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

Lord Giddens
Anthony Giddens, Esquire, having been created Baron Giddens, of Southgate in the London Borough of Enfield, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Blackstone and the Lord Grabiner, and made the solemn affirmation.
Lord Snape
Peter Charles Snape, Esquire, having been created Baron Snape, of Wednesbury in the County of West Midlands, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord King of West Bromwich and the Baroness Boothroyd.

London Mayoral Elections
2.48 p.m.
Lord Waddingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why voters in the London mayoral elections were instructed on the reverse side of the declaration of identity to, "Vote once for your first choice and once for your second choice", when there is no obligation to exercise a second choice.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, the wording on the declaration of identity in relation to the mayoral election is a matter for the Greater London Returning Officer.
Lord Waddington:My Lords, I am only partially grateful for that reply. Is the Minister aware that I first raised this matter as long ago as 2000 during the mayoral election? I pointed out then that voters were being wrongly instructed that they had to vote twice. Is the Minister aware that I returned to the charge at the beginning of 2003 and I raised the matter again in good time for the matter to be put right for the mayoral election in 2004? However, on 4 March this year a series of orders came before the House. Tucked away in one of them was the same wholly improper instruction to voters.
Is it not obvious from the Hansard report of the proceedings on 4 March that no one—the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, included—noticed that the order contained the improper instruction? In the debate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours,
126
suggested various forms of wording to bring home to the voter that he had a choice regarding whether to vote once or twice and no one suggested that the noble Lord was wasting his breath, although the matter was cut and dried in the regulations.
Noble Lords:Too long.
Lord Waddington:My Lords, no. This matter is important and I must explain the background. Will the Minister state categorically that voters are not required to exercise a second choice? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government will ensure that that will be made absolutely clear in future orders?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I have some sympathy for the noble Lord and I congratulate him on his diligence, but in the end I cannot agree with his conclusion. It is made clear to voters that they can vote once for their first choice and once for their second choice. It is up to voters whether they wish to use their second vote.
Lord Waddington:My Lords—
Noble Lords:Order.
Lord Waddington:My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council:My Lords, I really think that this is unacceptable. Perhaps the Minister should finish his answer.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, in the guide that is sent to all electors in the Greater London area it is made clear that they have no obligation to make use of their second vote. That was made clear in the mayoral address booklet that was sent to every elector.
Lord Peston:My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten me on a matter of elementary logic? Does my noble friend agree that it does not remotely follow from the proposition put in the Question that one has to exercise a second choice? Indeed, it does not even follow that one has to exercise a first choice. There is nothing in the proposition that says that one must exercise any choice at all and, therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is completely misguided—simply as a matter of logic.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I am drawn to conclude that what my noble friend says is absolutely right.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes:My Lords, is the Minister aware that a report published after the first mayoral elections for London on how the elections had been carried out showed that a great number of votes were considered to have been invalid? The reason given to the London group of this House was

127
that people had not fully understood the voting instructions. Is it too early to know whether a similar situation exists for this election?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I know that concerns were expressed about the first set of elections for the Mayor and the Greater London Assembly and that greater flexibility was then given to the returning officer with regard to the wording. Fewer ballot papers were spoilt in the most recent elections—a drop of 10 per cent. On an increased turnout, we should be happy with that progress.
Lord Harris of Haringey:My Lords, I declare an interest as a candidate in the recent Greater London Assembly elections—although the question I ask has no bearing on whether or not I was elected. The instruction given suggested that people had two votes in those elections. Many electors followed that to the letter by voting twice in the same column, thereby invalidating their vote. Did the Greater London Returning Officer take advice from focus groups or take other steps to establish whether electors would understand the instructions given to them?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I am not immediately aware of whether the returning officer conducted research with focus groups, but I know that there was extensive consultation. No doubt that will be fed back into the various inquiries which will be undertaken into the conduct of the elections, and suggestions and improvements can be made for subsequent elections.
Lord McNally:My Lords, has the Minister or the Greater London Authority considered inviting electors simply to number their preferences—1, 2, 3, 4—voting for as many candidates as they like? Many trade unions and other bodies use this system, which is clear. Why are we continually making it complicated to vote?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I do not necessarily agree that it was that complex because a large number of electors managed to get it right. We should congratulate them on doing so. However, the noble Lord makes a valid point and no doubt the Greater London Returning Officer will want to consider it in reviewing the outcome of the election.
Lord Biffen:My Lords, will the Minister remind the returning officer that up until and including the 1945 general election there were a number of two-Member constituencies? It was then accepted that one could use only one vote, called a "plumper" vote, and not be required to use the two votes.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, it is a matter for the electors. Adequate steps were taken to ensure that people were aware that they did not have to exercise both votes.
Lord Campbell-Savours:My Lords, is the issue here not the advice that was given to returning officers but
128
what was written on the ballot paper? The issue that surfaced in the debate earlier this year was the wording on the ballot paper. Can we be assured that, at the next mayoral elections, the proposal made in the debate in February that there be a particular form of wording on the ballot paper to clarify the position is put into effect?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I take my noble friend's point—it is clearly a matter for the Greater London Returning Officer. Doubtless it is an issue to which the returning officer will give full consideration.
Lord Waddington:My Lords, I apologise to the House for having got over-excited earlier. Can I point out to the noble Lord—
Noble Lords:Question!
Lord Waddington:My Lords, can I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that the regulations do not refer to voters having a choice? They state quite specifically that the voter is "instructed" to vote twice. That is my point—"instructed"—and it is wrong in law.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's interpretation. The regulations are clear. Obviously noble Lords are exercised about this matter and the Greater London Returning Officer will have to consider it, quite properly, in the fullness of time.
Baroness Hooper:My Lords, will the Minister confirm that anyone who voted only once in those elections was not considered to have spoilt his voting paper?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, electors were fully entitled to vote just once. The fact that they voted only once did not invalidate the vote.

Seafarers: National Minimum Wage
2.57 p.m.
Lord Harrisonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the rules governing the application of the United Kingdom minimum wage for ratings on British-registered merchant ships; and what is the effect of these rules on the recruitment of British ratings.
Lord Triesman:My Lords, the national minimum wage applies to mariners employed on a UK-registered ship unless their employment is wholly outside the UK or they are not ordinarily resident in the UK. Foreign seafarers qualify for the minimum wage when they are serving on UK-registered vessels trading in UK waters.

129
The effect of the minimum wage on the recruitment of British ratings depends on the crewing decisions of individual shipping companies, which are matters for the companies themselves.
Lord Harrison:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he in a position to say whether the tonnage tax introduced in 2000 has had the beneficial effect of increasing jobs for British ratings? Have the Government considered reforming the Race Relations Act 1976 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to ensure that all ratings on UK-registered ships are paid the full minimum wage?
Lord Triesman:My Lords, recent research by the London Metropolitan University analyses the position on UK ships and that probably provides the current best statistical evidence. It shows that there were about 28,000 active seafarers in 2003, a slight decline from the 30,000 in 1997. The figure has risen again to about 28,000, which represents a small recovery, and there is a parallel small recovery in the number of officers.
There is no loophole in the Race Relations Act. Section 9 was amended last year to allow payment of foreign seafarers at differential rates on UK-registered ships on the ground of nationality only. I point out to your Lordships' House that it is possible—indeed, it is easy—for ships to be reflagged in order to avoid any such regulations.
Lord Bradshaw:My Lords, does the Minister agree that the effect of insisting that all ratings on British ships, wherever they are, are paid at British rates would be a large part of the present British fleet being flagged out to avoid that happening?
Lord Triesman:My Lords, there is a distinct possibility that that is what would happen. It is relatively easy to reflag a ship. Indeed, in the past 24 hours I have come across evidence that, by logging on to an on-line site in Cambodia, one can reflag a ship in slightly under 15 minutes.
Earl Attlee:My Lords, can the Minister say what the situation is with regard to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary?
Lord Triesman:My Lords, I do not think that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is fully covered, but I shall check that and write to the noble Earl to confirm it.
Lord Harrison:My Lords, can my noble friend say how often the Inland Revenue has inspected UK-registered ships to ensure that the minimum wage is being applied?
Lord Triesman:My Lords, the Inland Revenue is responsible for compliance and, certainly, if it is aware that minimum wage regulations are being broken, it makes inspections. But other inspections are also undertaken under port authority regulations on
130
matters of safety on board ships, contamination, and so on. In all such cases, I am happy to say that reports place the United Kingdom's registered ships at the very top of the international league.

Guantanamo Bay: Detainees
3.1 p.m.
Lord Sheldonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the United States Government concerning the holding of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Baroness Amos:My Lords, we have long said that the British detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the UK. Following discussions with the US, we concluded that US military commissions would not provide sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards. We therefore asked that all British detainees be returned to the UK. Five returned in March. We continue to work to resolve the situation of the remaining four.
Lord Sheldon:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and welcome the statement of the Attorney-General that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are not being guaranteed a fair trial but that there should be a fair trial in accordance with international law and that there should be no compromise in principle. I note the statements from the Supreme Court, but the fact is that, after two years of incarceration, these prisoners are still being held in wholly unacceptable circumstances. For a country with ideals of liberty, which we have always admired and often copied and which have been an example to the whole world, is this not a matter which merits universal censure?
Baroness Amos:My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the Government have consistently sought to resolve the position of the British detainees. Our position has been that the British detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. That has been the core of our argument. We expressed our reservations about the military commissions nearly a year ago and it was on that basis that five detainees were returned. We continue to press the US Government with respect to the other four.
Lord Thomas of Gresford:My Lords, we sit within a stone's throw of the Star Chamber Court. Does the Attorney-General agree with Justice Stevens' opinion, voiced yesterday in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Padilla v Rumsfeld, that:
"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society ... Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber"?

131
Will the Government now support British citizens who are detained in Guantanamo with legal and financial assistance to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in the United States courts, as the United States Supreme Court said they could yesterday?
Baroness Amos:My Lords, we are obviously considering the implications of yesterday's judgment, and it is far too early for me to make any specific comments in relation to it.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford:My Lords, has the noble Baroness received any reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross on whether it is satisfied with the access that it has to prisoners and, in particular, on whether it is satisfied on the issue of mail? Relatives are receiving letters only infrequently and they are very delayed and heavily censored.
Baroness Amos:My Lords, I am aware that some concerns have been expressed by some detainees about the conditions in Guantanamo Bay, including the issue of mail. With regard to the International Committee of the Red Cross, I have not seen any specific reports, but I am happy to write to the right reverend Prelate if any issues relate to the substance of his question.
Lord Howell of Guildford:My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the United States Supreme Court majority ruling yesterday guarantees a fair review but it does not necessarily guarantee a fair trial, which is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, understandably called for the other day? Can she explain the Government's attitude to bringing home the remaining four British detainees at Guantanamo? Earlier in the year, it seemed that we were reluctant to have them back. Has the policy now changed on that? If they do come back, what will be their status and what will be the charges against them, and will the evidence for those charges be admissible in British courts?
Baroness Amos:My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, knows that I shall not be able to respond to much of the detail of the questions that he has just asked me. Following the return of the five detainees, we agreed with the United States Government to continue discussions about the remaining four. The circumstances leading to the return of the five detainees were explained to Parliament at that time. We have had further discussions, which are continuing, but there has not yet been a resolution. As I said in response to an earlier question, we are looking at the implications of yesterday's judgment and it is far too soon for me to say what those implications might be.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick:My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the decision of the Supreme Court is particularly welcome at this time as it underlines the importance of the rule of law on both sides of the Atlantic?
Baroness Amos:My Lords, I think that I made it absolutely clear in the responses that I have already
132
given that our position has always been that the detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. That has been at the centre of our approach and it will continue to be so.
Lord Bridges:My Lords, will the Government be offering financial assistance to those detained so that their appeals can be heard expeditiously and efficiently?
Baroness Amos:My Lords, I am not sure to which appeals the noble Lord refers. He will know that a judicial review process is currently taking place in the United Kingdom, on which I am unable to comment, and, of course, we had the ruling yesterday on the cases heard in the US Supreme Court.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon:My Lords—
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, this side, I think. My noble friend will be aware that analogous, although not exactly parallel, concerns have been expressed about the detention regime under Part 4 of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act in this country. Will she ensure that, in the Government's review of those provisions, exactly the same scruples and concerns are taken into account in the regime that we operate for foreign prisoners in this country?
Baroness Amos:My Lords, my noble friend is talking about a very different situation.
Lord Roberts of Conwy:My Lords, can the noble Baroness remind us what has happened to the five who have returned to this country? Are they now facing trial?
Baroness Amos:My Lords, they have returned and, so far as I recall, they are not facing trial. If I am wrong, I shall of course write to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon:My Lords, while I applaud the efforts of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the Government to return British detainees to this country, the Question does not relate simply to United Kingdom detainees; it refers to all those who are detained in very severe circumstances at Guantanamo Bay. Are the Government making strenuous efforts to ensure that the United States obeys the international conventions and the rule of law under which prisoners should not be held in dire circumstances for very long periods without facing charge and proper judicial process?
Baroness Amos:My Lords, I think that I have made our position clear, but perhaps I should repeat it for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. We have consistently sought to resolve the position of the British detainees. If noble Lords look at the many statements which have been made, they will see that no other country has visited its detainees as frequently or made such strenuous efforts on their behalf.

133
Again, I stress that our position has been that our detainees should either be treated fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. When we expressed our reservations over the military commissions last year, it was on the basis that the United States Government suspended all legal proceedings against two of the British detainees at our request.
Lord King of Bridgwater:My Lords, is it not clear, even for those who wish the United States well in the very difficult task that it has undertaken, that we have the greatest concern about the present situation? It has become a public relations disaster for the United States, and it is urgent and important that it makes its case more clearly to the world. In that connection, are the Government making any representations about the fact that the United States is not likely to have an ambassador in this country for the following six months?
Baroness Amos:My Lords, obviously the length of time that the United States takes to place an ambassador is very much a matter for it. The noble Lord will know, as I have said in response to many questions, that we have been strenuous in the representations we have made to the United States Government with regard to the position of the British detainees.

Regional Assemblies
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Hanhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
When the Bill on the powers and responsibilities of the regional assemblies will be introduced.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, we will introduce a Bill to establish elected regional assemblies when one or more regions has voted in favour of establishing an assembly in a referendum. Our intention is that there should be referendums in the three northern regions this autumn. We will publish a draft Bill in July when Parliament has approved the date of the referendums.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of that response and as it is expected that the referendums will take place in the autumn, does the Minister not accept that to publish the powers and responsibilities of the regional assemblies some time in July, which will be probably less than a week or two before the Summer Recess, and with Parliament sitting for only two weeks in September, means that there will be very little time for this House to consider those powers and responsibilities? Can he give an assurance that opportunities will be presented to the House to discuss the powers and responsibilities in the draft Bill in good time before the start of a referendum campaign?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness. I am sure that
134
there will be plenty of time for debate following the referendums. As regards time for debate before the referendums, clearly that is a matter which should be properly discussed through the usual channels. No doubt there will be sympathy for that discussion.
Lord Renton:My Lords, how many millions of pounds will these regional assemblies cost our people, and are our people not already well represented in the House of Commons, county councils, district councils and in other ways?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. In the end it will be for the people to decide. That is the purpose of the Government setting out a programme which enables people to vote in the regions on whether they wish to have a regional assembly. The Government take the view that regional government is of benefit, and no doubt many people agree with that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool:My Lords, will the Minister return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham; that is, that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill and proper debate in both Houses before these questions are put to a referendum? There is great anxiety in the north-west of England about the nature of the powers that will be given to the regional assemblies. Does the Minister not agree that those issues should be explored in this place and another place before they are put to the people?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, in the six and a half years that I have been in your Lordships' House I have never noticed its failure to take these matters seriously and to scrutinise in great detail Bills that come before it. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity for proper scrutiny of the powers and functions of the regional assemblies. I understand that the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has announced its intention to hold an inquiry into the Bill and will examine how it may work. I am sure that that and other opportunities within the parliamentary timetable will exist for adequate scrutiny.
Lord Newby:My Lords, there are those of us who, like the Government, are keen to see the referendums reach a successful conclusion but our campaigns are being hobbled at the moment. We do not know what proposition we shall advocate to the electorate in the regions because we do not have a draft Bill. Does the Minister accept that to say that the question of whether there is adequate debate is up to the usual channels strikes many of us as completely unacceptable? Until we see a draft Bill we cannot have any kind of debate, far less any assurance, on the basis on which these referendums will be fought.
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I do not hear people say that the usual channels do not work. Obviously there will have to be discussion there so that there can be debate before the referendums take place. I

135
do not agree with the noble Lord's assessment that there is a hobbling of the opportunity for debate generally. In the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, the Government made clear the way in which they wish to address these matters. I am sure that there will be ample opportunities for thorough debate on what I think we all agree are important issues.
Lord Elton:My Lords, does the Minister recall the question asked by my noble friend Lord Renton; namely, what will these assemblies cost the people who are represented by them? What calculations have the Government made of that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I do not have costings that I can provide today to your Lordships' House. I am happy to go away and see what figures exist. We have made plain our intention in this policy area. We spelt it out very clearly in the White Paper. In the end it is for the people to make the choice, and that is as it should be.
Lord Shutt of Greetland:My Lords, what are the Government doing to excite the people that there will be something really worth while in these regional assemblies?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I rather thought that the noble Lord was quite excited by them. Perhaps he can help us with this. We have been undertaking an information campaign over the past year or so, and I understand that there has been a very interested response. People are participating in public meetings and gatherings to discuss what might happen as a result of successful referendums. I am sure that any words the noble Lord can say to assist in that process will be gratefully received.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe:My Lords, if there is concern about the time available to address this legislation, will my noble friend convey to the usual channels that this House would be willing to meet exceptionally in the mornings to do that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I think that the usual channels have probably heard those words already.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry:My Lords, what will be the difference in powers between those regional assemblies that are elected and those that are not elected, such as in the south-east of England where I assume they will continue to exist? What powers will the non-elected regional assemblies continue to have?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, the non-elected regional assemblies will no doubt continue as they are. The elected regional assemblies will have a wide range of involvement in issues such as sustainable development,
136
economic development, housing strategy, jobs, skills, and planning. We have made clear our proposition on this and it is for the people to make a judgment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:My Lords, does the Minister agree with his noble friend Lord Rooker that the existence of regional assemblies that are not sustained by legislation and the ones that may be if the referendum is successful is an Orwellian state of affairs?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, the noble Lord puts me in a difficult position. I think that I shall have to settle for agreeing with my noble friend Lord Rooker.
Baroness Hanham:My Lords, in the light of these exchanges, can the Minister confirm that he has no idea when the Bill will be published? Can he also confirm that it is not the usual channels which will decide when the Bill is published? It is the usual channels which, presumably, will be given an indication as to when the matter is to be debated. Can he further confirm that if there are to be regional referendums in the autumn there is now insufficient time for this House and the other place to consider in the normal processes of Parliament the Bill that is to be introduced?
Lord Bassam of Brighton:My Lords, I simply do not agree with the noble Baroness. I made it plain that we intend to publish a draft Bill this July. It is for discussion whether there should be debate around the draft Bill in your Lordships' House. I hope that there is, but that is something for the usual channels to sort out. Following publication of the draft Bill there will be ample opportunity for scrutiny.

Euro 2004: Mr Garry Mann
3.20 p.m.
Lord Acknerasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the comments made by the Home Secretary about Mr Garry Mann on Mr Mann's return from Portugal and after his appearance before the Uxbridge magistrates were in accordance with government policy, and in particular the reported comment that the Home Secretary intended to "nail this individual".
The Minister of State, Home Office:My Lords, the individual concerned was convicted in Portugal of participating in, and leading, a riot and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The Home Secretary's concern was, and remains, seeing that any individual who is convicted by a court does not escape his sentence because of a technicality. My right

137
honourable friend the Home Secretary remains committed to co-operating with the Portuguese authorities.
Lord Ackner:My Lords, has the noble Baroness read the article by Simon Jenkins published in the centre page of the Times last Wednesday, which stated that knee-jerk David Blunkett is:
"The judicial equivalent of a football hooligan".
Does she take the view that a senior judge—perhaps our reluctant Lord Chancellor—might be prepared to explain to the Home Secretary the fallacy of the proposition that any publicity is better than none? He might also be prepared to continue by pointing out to the Home Secretary that his intemperate outburst seriously undermines the integrity of that great department of state, the Home Office.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:My Lords, I regret to tell the noble and learned Lord that I did not have the advantage of reading Mr Simon Jenkins's article last week. Needless to say, I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord's assessment. As to any tutelage that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may see fit to give my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I believe that may not be something that the Lord Chancellor would be likely to take up.
The suggestion that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has behaved improperly in this regard is not one with which I feel able to agree.
Lord McNally:My Lords, would the Minister agree that the interference of the Home Secretary, which is not an isolated case, detracts from the great success of the campaign against soccer hooliganism; and that if he generalised his comments and committed himself to nailing soccer hooligans between now and the World Cup in two years' time he would get general support?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I do not accept that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has interfered in any improper way. I accept that some would rather he had expressed himself more felicitously. For instance, if he had said, "We wish to uphold the rule of law and act in comity with our Portuguese colleagues and enforce their judgments", I should imagine that the whole House would say, "Hear, hear!". He chose more colloquial language.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester:My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has my noble friend seen the very welcome statement issued this morning by UEFA, the European football governing body, praising England fans for their behaviour during Euro 2004. It states:
"The English authorities have worked hard in the last 10 years. Their work is starting to bear fruit and they should be commended. There has been a change in the make-up of England fans and we need to keep out the hard element".
138
Is that not a great tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton and his working group on football hooliganism, and a tribute to the good sense of this House and the other place in passing the Football Spectators Act 2000? It has made a real difference and for the first time one can be proud to be an England fan watching the team abroad.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:My Lords, I agree without reservation with my noble friend.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts:My Lords, will the Minister comment on the view of Fair Trials Abroad that the recent comments of the Home Secretary in relation to Mr Mann will prejudice any chance of a fair retrial?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:My Lords, I do not think that that is right. The matter will be dealt with by the Portuguese authorities, not here. I have already made it plain that although some may wish that my honourable friend had expressed himself differently, the import of his comments was clear.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass:My Lords, surely government must adhere to a policy that justice should be seen to be done; or do they?
Is there not a similarity, in essence, to cases in Northern Ireland where public officials, given inadequate protection against terrorism and having had to employ pragmatic measures, can find themselves charged with offences that would not in themselves merit a criminal conviction? Otherwise, these "fall-guys" would not be held over for periods well in excess of a year, so that more dubious evidence can be accumulated out of time and certainly out of context. Is that justice?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:My Lords, perhaps we could remain within the context of this Question. The Portuguese authorities applied the rules. Your Lordships will know that in this case the defendant had an opportunity, if he so chose, to postpone the hearing for 30 days. He chose to have an expedited hearing. It was a valid process within the meaning of the Portuguese law.
Lord Tomlinson:My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in this case government policy was communicated to the population with great clarity? Could she urge her ministerial colleagues throughout government to communicate government policy with equal clarity on all other matters, so that it can be just as easily understood?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:My Lords, I know that many would prefer Anglo-Saxon terms to others.
Lord Roberts of Conwy:My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that it is quite clear to all of us that the Home Secretary, by using the words he did, has scored an own goal?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:My Lords, I do not agree.
Viscount Bledisloe:My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the fact that a very senior

139
government Minister can make remarks of this kind which are—to put it at its lowest—ambiguous, is a very clear demonstration of why it is important to have and to retain in the Cabinet a senior judicial and judicious figure who can seek to preserve his colleagues from these unfortunate errors? Does she also agree that noble Lords not cognisant of this point would do well to bear it in mind when we come to debate the Constitutional Reform Bill?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal:My Lords, I have to say to the noble Viscount that I am surprised that he should suggest that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was "ambiguous" in any way. I think that the reverse is true.

Human Tissue Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Traffic Management Bill
3.29 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Traffic officers: introduction]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovilmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out "management" and insert "movement"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that it is common ground between us that congestion is a nuisance and a source of irritation and expense. It may surprise the Minister to learn that I am ready to applaud the Government for bringing forward what seems a sensible Bill. I would welcome it even more warmly if the Minister, in replying to this very modest amendment, which I shall explain in a moment, could assure me that he was satisfied that the new powers given to the Highways Agency and the additional powers given to local authorities would be used. I am far from satisfied about that at the moment, because my own observations lead me to think that the highway authorities and the Highways Agency are extremely dilatory in some of their operations and thereby contribute considerably to blockages, which are a nuisance to us all.
This is a very modest and crude amendment. I do not for one moment expect the noble Lord to accept it; it would shock me if he did. But I seek an assurance—I hope that I have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I realise now that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, is to reply. I am glad that his attention is riveted on what I say.
In the past there has been a large measure of just going along with congestion as an inevitable fact of life. There has been no will on the part of government, local authorities or the Highways Agency to take steps to promote movement. When I was the Minister responsible for transport many years ago, I developed the rather old-fashioned idea that highways were
140
for movement. I would be grateful for a generous acknowledgement by the Minister that he and the Government whom he represents rate highly the idea of freedom of movement, and that it ought not to be sacrificed in the way that it has been in the past— that is all that I expect today.
Both the Highways Agency and local authorities can be blamed for the irritating habit of coning off large sections of road and leaving the restrictions in place in the pious hope that something may happen in their absence. It does not.
My attitude to the whole Bill will depend on my getting a satisfactory answer from the noble Lord that the desirability of movement on the highways will not be lost sight of and that it will be secured only if the measures in the Bill are accepted by those who give them an opportunity, with pleasure and determination. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie:My Lords, I had the unworthy thought that perhaps there is just a small element of mischief in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, because much of the Bill is concerned with easing movement, getting rid of congestion and dealing with traffic disruption.
Given that the noble Lord's amendment is based specifically on Clause 1 and the duties of the traffic officer, surely it will not have escaped his attention that in Clause 5, which sets out the special powers of the officer, the phrase "movement of traffic" appears at least twice. Clause 5(3) refers to the duties of the officer to maintain or improve the "movement of traffic". It also refers to,
"preventing or reducing the effect of anything causing ... congestion or other disruption to the movement of traffic".
Later on, when dealing with the highway authorities, the Bill is drafted in the same vein. Surely, there is no disagreement between Ministers and the noble Lord on the essence of what is being said about the need for the relevant authorities to ensure proper movement of traffic and to avoid congestion. I shall be amazed if the Minister disagrees with that, and if he wishes to accept the amendment.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for welcoming the Bill. He asks for reassurances; I hope that I can give them to him. He seeks a generous acknowledgement that the Government have taken on board his amendment. But I underline the point that my noble friend Lord Borrie has just made: the main purpose of the Bill is to keep traffic moving. The point was made over and over again in Committee in the Moses Room, where, I know, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, finds the acoustics dreadful. But there is no question but that keeping traffic moving is the fundamental point that underpins the Bill.
The use of the expression "management of traffic" is broad, encompassing the core activities that we intend traffic officers to undertake. It accurately captures the essence of a traffic officer's function and is also well understood by all stakeholders. Although a primary objective of traffic management is to help to keep

141
traffic moving, traffic management may at times involve stopping or delaying traffic. For example, in the event of a road accident, it may be appropriate and necessary to close a road or part of a carriageway.
Traffic officers will have the power to stop traffic and may use that power to avoid danger to persons or other traffic. In such cases, the traffic officer's duties and powers are used, not to keep traffic moving, but to protect people and property. Another example would be their powers to stop and direct traffic at traffic surveys. That would inevitably delay traffic, albeit for a very good reason.
We therefore consider that "management" is a more apt word than "movement", particularly in the light of the underlying principle that we wish to keep traffic moving. I will hold my breath in the hope that the answer that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, satisfies him. If it does, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil:My Lords, I am very happy to declare myself entirely satisfied with what the noble Lord has said. He will recognise that it is far from the case that my anxiety springs from a desire to be mischievous, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I am cut to the quick by the idea; I have no such intention. I am concerned that many of the powers to which the Bill will add have been unused in the past. I am sure that the noble Lord and the Government appreciate that. I take the whole Bill as evidence of that. However, I hope that they will keep their mind on the fact that energy in this field has not been particularly visible in either the Highways Agency or the local authorities. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind. Meanwhile, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, which, as the noble Lord said, I never intended to press to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, leave out "provided for by section 5" and insert "referred to in section 5(1)"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 10. All three amendments are small drafting improvements to improve consistency and accuracy. They have no policy implications.
Amendment No. 2 relates to the first clause and is to replace the words, "provided for by section 5" as they appear on page 2, line 7, with the more accurate wording, "referred to in section 5(1)".
Amendment No. 5 relates to Clause 5 and is to replace the word "regulations" as it appears on page 3, line 11, with the word "orders", for consistency with Clause 8, which uses the word "orders" not "regulations".
Amendment No. 10 relates to Clause 11 and is to replace the word "granted" as it appears on page 6, line 13, with the word "given", for consistency with Clause 2(2) which uses the word "given" not "granted". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Designation of traffic officers]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovilmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 4, and they suggest that Clause 2(1)(b) and Clause 2(5) should be deleted. I want to know why those provisions are in the Bill. Are they necessary? I beg to move.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, I did not intervene on the first amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton because I was sure that the Minister was going to give him a satisfactory answer, which he did. We are grateful.
My noble friend Lord Peyton has raised an important point about the designation of traffic officers. In the Explanatory Notes, the Government state that in the longer term there is the option to employ contractors to provide traffic officers. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could say what they mean by "the longer term" and when they would consider that these traffic officers could be employed by external service providers.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, I hope that I will be able to satisfy both noble Lords about this amendment. Traffic officers in England will be designated by the Secretary of State and will be employees of the Highways Agency, and there are no current plans to do otherwise. In fact, in the other place my right honourable friend the Minister made that clear when he said that there are no plans to contract out and that,
"the Government are keen to influence the development of the new role".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 27/1/04; col. 37.]
However, the Government wish to retain the flexibility to be able to exercise the option of employing contractors in the future. We would consider this only where there are clear value for money benefits and benefits for road users, without undermining the integrity of the service.
For example, this might be a suitable option for limited parts of the network, such as a tunnel or a bridge. Indeed, the Dartford and Severn crossings have already set a precedent where the operator or concessionaire may directly appoint persons as traffic officers or similar. For this reason, the Government are not happy to take out the flexibility that Clause 2 provides to enable the use and development of new procurement and service delivery options in the future. Because we have no plans at all to take advantage of this flexibility at the moment, it is impossible to put a time scale on our determination not to contract out, but I hope that the explanation that I have given is satisfactory to the noble Lord and he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil:My Lords, once again, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will forget entirely that word "mischief" as applied to myself. I am happy to say that I am content to withdraw the amendment.

143
I shall read with care what the Minister has said, but he has made a useful contribution to my peace of mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
3.45 p.m.
Clause 6 [Powers to stop or direct traffic]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 11, leave out "regulations" and insert "orders"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Simonmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 25, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 9. My principal concern is why Highways Agency traffic officers require the same power to stop any vehicle in the same way as a police constable. It seems to be a general power with no specific purpose, which could lead to some confusion.
I am aware that consideration is being given elsewhere for non-police to offer fixed penalty notices, both endorsable and non-endorsable, for moving traffic; that is, criminal offences. Unless this enforcement is always done as a conditional offer by post, non-police will need to stop vehicles.
That leads me on to Amendment No. 9, which would allow the traffic officer to stop a vehicle only for offences for which the officer can prosecute under this Bill and for no other reason. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, my noble friend seeks to remove the power for traffic officers to stop traffic as set out in Clause 6(4) and add a power to stop traffic in Clause 10(4). The effect of his amendment would be to stop traffic officers from being given the power under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to stop vehicles. This power is necessary for traffic officers to be able to carry out their functions effectively.
It is true that under Clause 6 traffic officers will already be given the power of Section 35 of the 1988 Act to stop traffic. However, the Section 35 power may only be used where the traffic officer is,
"engaged in the regulation of traffic".
Section 163 does not contain that qualification. This means that it could be used in circumstances where the primary duty being carried out by the traffic officer was not clearly "the regulation of traffic" as such, for example, escorting an abnormal load, or on patrol on a motorway. He might notice that a tarpaulin cover on the back of a lorry was coming off and thus liable to cause an accident, and he may pull the vehicle over to get the driver to secure it properly. I stress that the use of Section 163 by a traffic officer would not be unlimited. It would be restricted by Clause 5 to the purposes defined in subsection (3), such as avoiding danger to other traffic using the road.
144
It is on that basis that my noble friend will recognise that there are limited but nevertheless necessary powers with regard to this position, which are slightly wider than his amendment would permit. I hope that with this explanation, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Simon:My Lords, I am delighted with the full and clear explanation given by my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
"GUIDANCE AS TO EXERCISE OF TRAFFIC OFFICERS' POWERS

The appropriate national authority may—

publish guidance as to the exercise of any powers conferred on traffic officers by or under this Part, or

approve for the purposes of this Part any such guidance published by another person.

A traffic officer shall have regard to any such guidance in exercising any such powers to which the guidance is relevant.

Before publishing or approving any guidance under this section, the appropriate national authority shall consult and have regard to any representations made by—

such bodies representing the police,

such persons who exercise functions as undertakers in relation to street works or apparatus in streets, and

such other persons,

as the authority considers appropriate.

In this section—

"undertakers" has the meaning given by section 48(4) and (5) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c. 22) (streets, street works and undertakers), and
"street works" has the meaning given by section 48(3) of that Act."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment would ensure that guidance issued to traffic officers also deals with how to handle street works activity, and that the undertakers of street works are consulted on the guidance. The utility companies have argued that the objective of traffic officers of keeping traffic flowing must be tempered with the additional objective of paying due regard to the need to provide and maintain other essential services.
The Minister has indicated that traffic officers will operate primarily on motorways and major trunk roads where there are proportionally fewer street works. It is none the less important that guidance issued to traffic officers should also deal with how to handle street work activity. Indeed, at an earlier stage, the Minister indicated that guidance would cover this point. Perhaps I may give an example. Where a permit has already been issued, traffic officers should have the power to stop street works only under limited and agreed conditions.
The Minister in another place confirmed that the Highways Agency is already in the process of introducing a system of governance to guide traffic officers in their existing duties and powers. However, he also indicated that there would be clear guidance on how officers should operate in connection with those carrying out work on

145
roads for the Highways Agency or the utilities. It is therefore right and proper that the utilities should be included in the consultations promised by the Minister. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Davies, could repeat that assurance.
In our debate in Committee the noble Lord indicated that there was merit in the arguments I put forward, in particular in support of this new clause. But in his reply he also stated that he thought the new clause unnecessary because the national authority can issue guidance. However, the purpose of the new clause was not only to ensure that new guidance could be issued, but also to ensure that any guidance issued takes account of the consultation held with all interested parties, specifically including the statutory undertakers of street works.
In his reply the Minister focused on motorways where, as he rightly indicated, there are severe restrictions on statutory undertakers carrying out works. However, he neglected to refer to trunk roads where many street works take place and where traffic officers will perform their duties. Given that, is the noble Lord able to give me the assurances that I require? I hope that he will be able to do so and that he will realise that I am trying to be helpful in this process, enabling the Government to clarify what will and will not be included in guidance. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I have some sympathy with the arguments put forward by the noble Viscount, but he will recognise that his new clause is exactly the same as that which we debated in Grand Committee. Although I understand the intention behind it, I have to report to the House that our views have not changed on the desirability of the proposed clause. It is unnecessary because the appropriate national authority may issue guidance already and does not need a specific statutory power to do so.
Indeed, formal guidance would normally be appropriate only where an authority is providing it to a third party carrying out functions on its behalf. However, the traffic officer service will be provided by the appropriate national authority, so it is not necessary to have a statutory power, and certainly not a statutory duty, for the publication of guidance to be set out on the face of the Bill.
In practice, and this is where I come close to the arguments articulated by the noble Viscount both today and in Grand Committee, operational guidance is a necessity. I acknowledge that what was sought in Committee was a reassurance in relation to such guidance. As most noble Lords will be aware, traffic officers, albeit without the powers proposed in this Bill, are already operating in the West Midlands. I can assure noble Lords that they are following a comprehensive set of working agreements, procedures and guidelines drawn up by the Highways Agency and the police that are already in place. These arrangements are working well, but will remain under review and will be subject to change when traffic officers are able to use the powers that this Bill seeks to provide.
146
I can assure noble Lords that these documents have been prepared by working closely with the police. There has also been consultation—addressing the burden of the noble Viscount's remarks—where appropriate with other stakeholders, including local authorities, maintenance contractors and breakdown recovery service organisations. This consultation and liaison will continue.
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that the main issues put forward in tabling his amendment have been addressed and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I think that he has given me the assurances I require. However, I was not quite clear whether he said that the utilities would be included in the consultation. He mentioned a number of bodies, which I think included the utilities, but it would be helpful if he could confirm that.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I am happy to clarify the point. The utilities would be included in such consultation.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Removal of certain vehicles by traffic officers]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) In any regulation made under section 9(1), the Secretary of State shall not remove the right of a person present whose vehicle is to be removed pursuant to section 99(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (removal of vehicles illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked, or abandoned or broken down) to choose who shall remove the vehicle unless it would, in the reasonable opinion of the traffic officer, be unreasonable to do so due to an imminent danger to persons using the road or because the vehicle is causing an obstruction on the road."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment also refers to the perennial problem of this Bill in that so much of it is to be left to secondary legislation and guidance. We have to accept the assurances of the Minister that his department will deal with this in a way that noble Lords find satisfactory. As a result I have to come back to the Government on this because they have gone some of the way, but not all the way. I seek two specific assurances, which I hope that the Minister will be able to give, that will certainly satisfy those involved in the rescue of motorists who break down.
This amendment would put on the face of the Bill an undertaking that the Government will not interfere with the right of individuals to choose who should rescue them, assuming that they are not obstructing traffic on the carriageway or posing a danger. We had a lengthy discussion about this in Grand Committee which resulted in two simple questions that I want to pose to the Minister. I hope that he will be able to give me satisfactory answers.

147
First, in the secondary legislation, will the Government ensure that a motorist who breaks down on the hard shoulder of the motorway but does not cause an obstruction is to have the right to choose who will rescue him? Concern has been expressed by motorists and the rescue services about the risk of double charging. The Highways Agency will immediately ring a local contractor who will move the car off the motorway, but will not do anything more than that. The result will be a charge of just over £100. while the motorist will still have to call one of the other services to which he belongs, incurring a second charge. If the Minister can give me that assurance, it would be most helpful.
Secondly, we are concerned that unintentional muddles could be caused, ultimately resulting in motorists incurring higher costs. We want to make sure that traffic officers will not intervene if a vehicle is not obstructing traffic or posing a danger unless specifically asked to do so.
We have accepted the Government's assurances that they do not want to set up their own breakdown service. But we are concerned that the Highways Agency will use local contractors who could. in effect, re-charge the motorist. I know that the Minister's department has been in discussion with the rescue services, so I would be enormously grateful for his assurances. It will enable us to move on from this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie:My Lords, I have much sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. It could be called the "Automobile Association amendment", but is none the worse for that. The association is voicing a fear on behalf of millions of motorists belonging to that body. Other bodies engage in this exercise for a fee and provide a pretty satisfactory service overall. Unless there is an exceptional case of "imminent danger"—the phrase used by the noble Viscount in his amendment—surely there is no case for creating a situation in which the motorist is charged twice over.
I doubt whether there is a need for the amendment. We all hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory assurance on this point. I cannot imagine that the highway authorities would wish to get involved in anything more than dealing with emergency and disaster situations.
4 p.m.
Viscount Simon:My Lords, all I would like to add to the amendment is the consolation—or whatever one may wish to call it—that when the Bill becomes an Act traffic officers will give to someone who has broken down the same leeway as at present if he or she has already called an emergency organisation.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie, who has taken the words out of my mouth with regard to why the amendment is
148
unnecessary and the basis of the assurances that we need to give in order to render it unnecessary. I agree with his remarks in that respect. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Simon. I can give him a full assurance on the point that he raised. The same situation will obtain for motorists when traffic officers are exercising their powers as obtain at present when the police are exercising theirs.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, indicated, we have had discussions on this issue at each stage of the Bill thus far. This has been concomitant with the discussions taking place outside Parliament between the Government and the motoring organisations, which have been conducted, I am pleased to report, in a constructive vein. I understand that since Grand Committee the RAC and Green Flag have both written to my honourable friend the Minister indicating that they would be willing for their concerns to be addressed by secondary legislation rather than by any amendment to the Bill. The noble Viscount is right to articulate his concerns. However, I hope that he will recognise that those who express the greatest worries about the situation do not wish to see the Bill amended on this point.
The Government have consistently indicated that the proposed regulations would give traffic officers powers similar to those currently held by the police. The Minister indicated in correspondence with the motoring organisations that the Government would consider, in consultation with them, whether there is a need to set out more fully in the regulations or in other guidance material the criteria for the removal of broken-down vehicles by traffic officers. That consultation is taking place on the basis of the point articulated in this short debate—namely, that there should be no threat to the existing system whereby decisions are taken by the motorist as to which motoring organisation should be employed to remove the vehicle, except in those exceptional cases where the police at present, and traffic officers in addition in the future, need to institute immediate action in an emergency and as a matter of road safety.
Officials have prepared the groundwork for this. A working group, with representatives from the recovery organisations, has been established to help the Highways Agency to develop the detail of the policy and its implementation programme, including the preparation of the secondary legislation to which I have referred. It will also draft a memorandum of understanding setting out how the traffic officers service and the on-road services provided by the breakdown organisations will inter-relate in practice.
I am happy to repeat the assurances given by the Government that the Highways Agency will not operate an alternative vehicle breakdown recovery service. On that basis, I hope the noble Viscount will feel that he has had the necessary assurances and will withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurances, as far as they go. I shall study carefully what he has said. If I consider his assurances are satisfactory, I shall have no need to come back to the

149
matter at Third Reading. However, if I consider there are chinks in them, I shall reserve the right to do so. In the mean time, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Offences]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Uniform]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 6, line 13, leave out "granted" and insert "given"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [The network management duty]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) The Royal Parks Agency in considering or proposing a new closure or restrictions in any part of the road network under its control, or in assessing the results of any such experiment, shall have a duty—

to have regard to the effects of any such closure or restriction on the road networks controlled by local authorities embracing or abutting on the park or parks concerned;

to consult with those authorities and to consider the results of any local ballot concerning the proposed closure or restriction that may be conducted by those authorities; and

not to make permanent any experimental closure or restriction that the other authorities concerned consider to conflict with their duties under this section."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that the Royal Parks Agency had a duty to take into account the possible effects it may have on the road network of surrounding boroughs and to consult those local authorities in the light of any changes it proposes to make.
The Minister will be somewhat relieved that this issue was debated in detail on Friday by my noble friend Lady Hanham, with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, responding for the Government. That debate concerned the speed limit in Richmond Park, which the Royal Parks Agency has lowered to 20 miles per hour. I do not wish to go into the merits of whether the speed limit should be 20, 30, 40 or even 10 miles per hour; however, it is important that the Royal Parks Agency should have a commitment to consult the boroughs in which it is situated and which surround it. That is the main issue.
A local park may not be a park in isolation; some parks have major thoroughfares running through them, and some have strategic roads which are important to Transport for London with regard to the movement of traffic. The Royal Parks Agency has a habit of making up its own mind and, for example, closing gates. It wanted to close two gates in Richmond, but there was an outcry because those living south of the park found that such an action would treble the time of their journey to the local hospital. Ultimately, only one gate was eventually closed. However, it was not a satisfactory process.
Local councils represent the local populace; they are their elected representatives. It is only fair that the Royal Parks Agency should, at the very least, have a duty to consult local authorities before it makes any
150
changes. The amendment is reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has tabled a similar amendment, although I have no idea whether it is better than mine. I shall listen with care to the Minister's response. I hope he realises that this is a serious local issue and that those who live next to parks in London feel that it is important that decisions should not be made without any reference to their elected representatives. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley:My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall refer also to Amendment No. 95. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has demonstrated very well the perceived lack of democratic accountability with regard to the Royal Parks, an issue which was also referred to in the debate in your Lordships' House on Friday. It is particularly true on the highways and traffic management side.
I moved an amendment in Committee that would have enabled Transport for London to give directions to the Royal Parks, at least with regard to strategic roads. The Minister quite rightly said that TfL could not give instructions to the Government, the Royal Parks Agency being a government body. But, as we said on Friday, do the Government really need to worry about whether people take photographs or light bonfires in Royal Parks; have they not got more important things to do? However, that is a slightly different issue, to which we shall return.
I still get the impression that there are seriously bad communications between the Royal Parks, local authorities and some surrounding residents. I was advised that the best answer would be to move an amendment transferring the responsibility for highways and traffic in the Royal Parks from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to local authorities. I received a communication from Westminster City Council which said that it would welcome such a move. I do not know whether it is a good idea or a bad idea, but it would enable TfL to give instructions to the city council in respect of any strategic roads running through the Royal Parks, such as the Mall, Constitution Hill and so on. I was then advised that the amendment was not acceptable to the clerks so I tabled the present amendment, which takes the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 a step further. Rather than just consult, the two or three parties—the Royal Parks, the Highways Agency and Transport for London—would have to reach agreement. That might help.
I shall briefly explain the reason for my amendment. It is not a vendetta against the Royal Parks on the part of me or anybody else. A Written Answer which I received yesterday illustrates my argument. It concerned the lovely party celebration that has been taking place in Hyde Park. The Royal Parks will receive £1.1 million of revenue for it, which is great. However, in the process of setting up and operating the event, it closed North Carriageway to westbound cyclists. It shouts at them if they go down there. The Written Answer stated that they could go round Marble Arch instead. I know that the Minister is a keen cyclist like me, but I would challenge many people to go round Marble Arch, either in or out of the rush hour, as a sensible alternative to going

151
through the Royal Parks. In April, the Department for Transport issued a new document entitled Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and Cycling—Local Transport Note 1/04, which states in the first paragraph that the Government,
"recognises the necessity for improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists ... Promotion of walking and cycling is important in helping to support other major Government objectives such as improved public health, better air quality, and sustainable land-use planning".
It is therefore clear that the Government support cycling, but here is an arm of government—somewhat removed, I suggest—which says, "You can get knotted. You can go round Marble Arch on your bicycle and if you get killed, it's nothing to do with us".
A related matter is the use of the North Carriageway as a car park for the contractors who are building that lovely edifice. The explanation which is given is that contractors come from all over the country. Is that not true of anybody who comes to London? They are allowed to park in North Carriage Drive because it is close to the site on which they work and there is nowhere else they can park within a reasonable distance. Actually, there is. There is an underground car park immediately underneath. Alternatively, they could come by public transport like everybody else if they do not want to pay the congestion charge.
Royal Parks needs to develop some policies that are joined up with the rest of government. My amendment and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, would go some way towards encouraging or forcing it to do that.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for his amendment and for providing us with the chance to debate this issue again and, of course, I respect the trenchant views of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I shall address the majority of my remarks to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, but I pay due regard to the arguments of my noble friend. I assure him that joined-up government is an important concept. He will recognise that this issue touches on it.
If the roads in the Royal Parks were there solely for the effective movement of transport, there would be no gainsaying the argument of my noble friend; that is, that they should be fully integrated into a normal pattern of control. However, he will recognise that the roads in the Royal Parks are an integral part of the nation's heritage which those parks represent. We also have a responsibility to preserve the primary purpose of the parks, handed down over many generations, which is to provide enjoyment to the public. The Government are the responsible authority in that respect. I therefore assure my noble friend that although I am going to disappoint him in not accepting his amendment, which he would probably have predicted, he will recognise that the role of the Royal Parks goes beyond effective transport movements in London. They have a part to play in that, which I shall address shortly in responding to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. My noble friend will also

152
recognise that we have an obligation to preserve the parks for their primary purpose and that is why they are the responsibility of the Government. I shall speak about the interface between government departments and agencies in a moment, but I am sure that my noble friend will appreciate that to change the status of the roads of the Royal Parks would create not integrated, joined-up government, but a considerable dissonance between government departments.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Berkeley:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I shall be brief. I do not disagree with anything that he has said, but how are those sound objectives met by allowing contractors to park their cars there? I once saw a caravan parked there overnight. How does that enhance the quality and the beauty of Hyde Park?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I am not here to defend the Royal Parks in every conceivable detail of its policies. I hope that the complaints that my noble friend has articulated will be borne in mind by the authorities and his representations are appropriate. However, I emphasise that the issue of the Royal Parks amounts to more than its roads. Nor are its roads simply or even primarily a part of the public highway; they are an integral part of the facilities that we offer in our great cities, particularly in London, to the public.
In response to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I emphasise that it is essential that central government, who are responsible for the parks, can scarcely impose on local authorities the duty to consult if they are not prepared to follow the same principles in their own operations. In the particular case of the Royal Parks, I reassure your Lordships that the Government are concerned to fulfil their due obligations.
The Secretary of State is required under the Crown Lands Act 1851 to manage Royal Parks on behalf of the Crown for the quiet enjoyment of the public. The roads are an integral part of the parks. Although they have increasingly come to be seen in recent decades by those who use them as just another part of the local road network, park roads are not public highways. Their primary purpose is to allow access to the parks. They are not intended to be through roads for motorised traffic. Against that background, I emphasise that it would not make sense to impose a duty on the Royal Parks to manage their roads as if they were part of the local road network. We accept that where a volume of traffic is significant, there is a need to manage carefully the problem in conjunction with neighbouring authorities. My noble friend Lord Berkeley has voiced both today and in Committee some of the frustrations that have arisen when there has been insufficient consideration of the impact on the local network of decisions taken in respect of the Royal Parks.
The Highways Agency is already committed to consultation. The Secretary of State is required under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to consult local boroughs and TfL before exercising any functions in relation to the management of park roads in such a way

153
as to affect a highway for which the agency is responsible. There is a clear need for that form of consultation as park management would often involve different objectives to those of a local traffic authority. We all recognise that demands are sometimes made on parks which relate to their roads as part of the public highway. It is only reasonable that the Royal Parks should be considered a special case. For instance, in the case of a large event in the park which might lead to road closures, we insist that park managers work closely from an early stage with the local authorities, police and Transport for London on the arrangements for that event, including anything that might cause disruption to traffic. Sometimes it will be recognised that Royal Parks must accommodate projects or events, such as temporary stabling for the Household Cavalry in Hyde Park, which might impact on neighbouring roads. In each case, the organisation using the park is required to seek planning permission, which includes permission for any traffic arrangements.
In the same vein, local authorities are involved in planning the arrangements for national celebrations such as the Jubilee and other ceremonies. As for unforeseen incidents, as the GLA Act recognises, it might not be possible to consult local authorities when roads have to be closed through emergencies or at short notice. However, in such cases, the agency endeavours to communicate information to the relevant local authorities as soon as practicable. If authorities have any examples when that has not gone smoothly and wish to present those issues to the Royal Parks, I emphasise the fact that they will find a sympathetic response.
I recognise the points made about the necessity for some of the roads in the Royal Parks being relied on by the public as crucial routes, as has inevitably happened in recent decades. Because of that, we must balance the responsibility of the parks authorities to maintain the park as a public facility, while at the same time recognising that decisions in relation to those roads can have a significant effect on traffic flows. That is why the fullest consultation is necessary.
I hope on the basis of the assurances that I have given to the noble Viscount, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, the Minister has given a helpful answer. Of course, it is only really helpful if the parks authorities not only inform local authorities of what they are going to do but listen to responses. In many ways, they have done the first but not the second. I hope that this short debate will encourage them to listen more carefully to responses. In the mean time, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Arrangements for network management]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 38, after "make" insert "and publish"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this small amendment inserts a duty so that the local traffic authority shall publish such arrangements as it
154
considers appropriate for planning and carrying out the action to be taken in performing its network management duty, as set out in Clause 17.
We believe that the local authority should publish its objectives and policies. Many local authorities publish such information, but there is no duty on them to do so and no guarantee of uniformity in the terms of access to the information. If they were required to publish, it would help local accountability and it would help local residents and their local representative in another place—their Member of Parliament—to understand what was going on. It would also help the utility companies and any other road users, because they could see what local authorities were planning to do and how they were planning to achieve it.
It is important, if we are to have sensible traffic management, that we can all see what it is going to be. Each local authority should set out its plans, making them clear. I hope that the Government support this modest but useful amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, Amendment No. 12 would require a local traffic authority to publish its arrangements for carrying out its network management duty. We have deliberately not been prescriptive as to how a local authority should carry out its network management duty. Dissemination of relevant information is extremely important, but it is not for national government to determine how to do it in every circumstance. Those are local decisions, best left to a local authorities.
If the duty were to be considered in isolation, it might have its attractions. However, the provisions in the Bill have been designed to reflect the wider relationship between local and central government. Both central and local government have signed up to the new modernisation agenda. The principle of plan reduction is a key element in this. The aim is to reduce the amount of planning documents that central government departments require for approval or monitoring, looking instead for other means of achieving the same goal. Requiring the publication of an additional plan, as this amendment suggests, runs counter to that idea.
That said, we agree with the noble Viscount on the need for a robust monitoring and evaluation framework under which to assess an authority's performance. That is intrinsically linked to the determination of success and, ultimately, consideration of failure and possible intervention. As such, this framework will be developed for inclusion in the guidance under Clause 27.
The guidance will be developed with assistance from the working and advisory groups set up by the department to consider Part 2 of the Bill. The advisory group is composed of road user representatives. The working group consists of local authority practitioners and includes representatives from organisations such as the Local Government Association, the County Surveyors' Society, and the Association of London Government. The aim is to provide a proportionate framework of analysis which is consistent with the modernisation agenda, while allowing proper assessment of performance.

155
As the guidance document will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, noble Lords will be able to satisfy themselves that these issues are adequately covered. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, the Minister said that the guidance would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Will it be subject to an affirmative order?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, I am advised that it will not be subject to an affirmative order.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, then I am not sure how we are going to scrutinise it—perhaps that is an issue that we may consider. It is another issue in the Bill on which the Government have said, "Don't worry, we'll put the details in the guidance", yet we have to take on trust what the guidance is going to say. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has told me that the details will be in guidance and has given me assurances, I take him entirely at face value. I am sure that they will be there. But it would be helpful between now and Third Reading if the Minister could write to me and explain how we are going to scrutinise that guidance.
The Minister has been helpful in his reply, but he made one statement which I believe will come back to haunt him during later stages. He said that the Government were not being prescriptive in the Bill. Under a later amendment I shall demonstrate to your Lordships' House how they have been over-prescriptive. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Borriemoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 8, line 9, leave out "and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak to the amendments grouped with it, which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and myself.
I know that the Government recognise that alongside the need expressed very clearly in the Bill to reduce congestion and disruption of traffic on our roads, there is also a need from time to time to dig up our roads in order to maintain essential services. Clearly, a collapse in the supply of gas, water, electricity or telecoms is at the very least inconvenient and at its worst catastrophic to the general public and commercial enterprises alike. Therefore, roads must be dug up to deal with those requirements. It would be of value if that need were set out in Clause 17 and were traffic authorities were required not to discriminate between their own roadworks and those carried out by the utilities. As I understand it, local authorities are responsible for about half the roadworks that are regularly carried out.
156
I was pleased in Grand Committee to hear my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting say that the Government sought to ensure that all works—whoever was responsible for doing them—would be better co-ordinated in future and based on an objective assessment, without discrimination as to who was performing them. But it is difficult to be convinced of that without explicit confirmation in the Bill that traffic authorities will not discriminate.
Of course, I see the absurdity of treating local authorities and utilities completely alike. It would be absurd if local authorities charged themselves for permits or fined themselves for offences under the Bill. But why cannot the same general terms and conditions—indeed, detailed terms and conditions—apply to whoever is carrying out the roadworks? For example, if night-time working is required of utility works at certain times of the year, such as Oxford Street in December, why should local authorities not be similarly constrained?
There has been some suggestion that local authorities will incur bad points rather than fines for committing offences as a way of measuring compliance. Why could the same not be done for utilities? At the very least, utilities should incur fines only for failure to reach, say, 90 per cent of a compliance target, with the target being raised in subsequent years in order to raise the compliance levels from year to year. This would be a positive incentive towards compliance, which would be less punitive in its immediate effect and which would certainly discriminate less between local authorities and utilities doing roadworks. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley:My Lords, I rise to support the three amendments in this group in my name and the names of my noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I shall not delay the House long because my noble friend has articulated the importance of a level playing field between the utilities and local authorities very well. It is very important that local authorities are seen to be playing the same game with the same targets as the utilities. A time may come when some kind of permit scheme is necessary because as a noble Lord—I cannot remember who—said in Committee, the part of the local authority that deals with the permits is likely to be different from the part that deals with road surfacing.
I suspect that in the longer term it may be a good thing to treat everybody exactly the same. Otherwise, as my noble friend said, the incentives for local authorities will not be the same as the incentives for the utilities. Something like 50 per cent of delays are caused by surfacing and other local authority works and the other 50 per cent are caused by the utilities. I think it is important that this is addressed. I hope that my noble friend will have something to say about it. I gather that there have been some interesting meetings between Ministers and the utilities on this matter. I think it is important that the Government come up with some assurance that everybody will be treated equally.
The Earl of Erroll:My Lords, I added my name to this set of amendments in the names of the noble

157
Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Berkeley, because they seem eminently sensible. People may have good intentions about working together but unless it is specified, it probably will not happen. I am not convinced that bureaucrats always obey the spirit, rather than the letter, of what is written down. We need something of the letter. If we do not unify the system and bring it together, I can see that there will be two sets of regulations with cracks between them and they will not work together properly.
There is a big issue about why local authorities should charge themselves or fine themselves. The concept of one part of government paying another part of government for services is quite common, so I do not see it as much of a problem. It is called transfer charging or transfer pricing. One transfers charge from one part of government to another. I do not see a problem with it.
The idea of fining a utility does not seem to be particularly sensible. Utilities have to exist and utility companies have to provide utilities. The fine is basically a hidden tax as it will be passed on to consumers or the utility will go bust. One cannot allow water or electricity companies to go bust so there is no point in fining them. The suggested system of points, which I can see could be built into the comprehensive performance assessments of local authorities or other assessments, would be very sensible. I do think that it is sensible to have one unified approach to highway authorities, local authorities and utilities, which may have been privatised but which are carrying out a public service.
Lord Monson:My Lords, although I have some sympathy with this amendment I have a slight quarrel with its scope. Nobody can deny that gas, electricity and water supplies are essential services, but can the same always be said of telecommunications? A few years ago, I was seriously concerned by the road outside my house constantly being dug up in order to install cable television to some, not all, of the neighbouring houses. Can anybody seriously claim that cable television is an essential service? I think not.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, I very much support the principle behind these amendments. It is important that utilities and local authorities are treated on the same basis. We know that they are equally responsible for roadworks in our streets and they should be treated as equally as possible.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, utility companies already have a statutory right to carry out their own works in order to install or maintain their apparatus. In Committee, we made it clear—but clearly not clear enough—that the duty placed on highway authorities in Part 2 of the Bill will not change this. My noble friend Lord Borrie makes the very specific suggestion that equal conditions should be applied to highway authorities' own works and to utilities' works. Where permit schemes operate, the regulation-making powers in the Bill would enable the same conditions to be applied to all works. The network management duty will require the effective management of utility works
158
and authorities' own works. That would be based on an objective assessment and decisions taken on the basis of the best overall outcome without discrimination.
The statutory network management duty guidance will make clear to authorities the importance of parity in their dealings with all works and I must underline "all works". Authorities must, and will, have regard to this in meeting their duties. In drawing up the secondary legislation and guidance underpinning permit schemes, we will ensure that highway authorities take proper account of the disruption that may be caused by their own works. We will ensure that they do not discriminate unfairly against utility works.
I hope that on the basis of the very direct reassurance that I have given noble Lords these amendments will be withdrawn.
Lord Borrie:My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for the support of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I also welcome the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggesting that the amendment was too broad in including telecommunications. However, my response is to consider commercial enterprises. If telecoms are not functioning, so work is needed in the roads, they are losing business, money and work day by day. Therefore, telecoms, as an essential service, rank alongside electricity, water and gas in the year 2004. I have no apology to make for including telecommunications in essential services.
I shall have to read how the Minister responded. I detected a slight sign of irritation on his part that I had not accepted his reassurances in Grand Committee. However, there were a number of uncertainties in his response. I will look closely at what he said today. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) A local traffic authority shall publish information (street works monitoring information) relating to the duration, location and extent of—

street works within the meaning of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c. 22); and

works for road purposes within the meaning of section 86(2) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (highway authorities, highways and related matters); on the authority's road network.

( ) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision with respect to the content of street works monitoring information and when it must be published."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment deals with another "uncertainty"—as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, put it—to the reply given in Grand Committee. My amendment makes provision to ensure that local traffic authorities have a duty to publish information relating to street works—their location, their duration and their planned extent. It aims to enhance the accountability of the highways authority in carrying out,

159
and the traffic authority in monitoring, such works. It also helps with the Government's often-stated intention to bring the local authorities more fully in line within the same requirements as apply to utility companies.
It remains the case that the highways authorities—which, as we know, are responsible for half of the street works—are also charged with approving and policing the works of the utility companies, which are responsible for the other half. This is in itself an unequal situation, which of course we have recognised during the passage of the Bill.
In Grand Committee, the Government said that they would encourage local authorities to make publicly available any relevant information. However, encouragement is not quite a good enough incentive. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, indicated that Section 53 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 covers much of what this amendment is meant to do by enabling regulations to be made by the appropriate national authority requiring local authorities to keep a register of undertakers' work and their own works. We all know that there is no duty to ensure that local authorities make that information about their own works available. That is the important point.
My amendment will provide the basic information on which others can check that highways authorities are carrying out their duties properly and will also enable greater coordination of works where possible. It will also enable the Government to assess properly the impact of the Bill on reducing congestion by reviewing not just utility works but local authority works and indeed any other works. I am aware that there have been concerns that this might create a bureaucratic burden for the local authorities. But they are already collecting and registering this information. We want to ensure that it is published and available to the public. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, this amendment was debated in Grand Committee. I said then that in principle we would encourage parity between street and road works. The New Road and Street Works Act 1991 already enables regulations to be made by the appropriate national authority, requiring local authorities to keep a register of undertakers' street works as well as their own works for road purposes.
Regulations made in 1992 already prescribe that the description and location of street authority works for road purposes must be kept on the register. This could already be extended to cover duration under the existing legislation. Under the same Act it is required that, as long as the information is not restricted, it must be made available for inspection.
4.45 p.m.
The amendment requires this sort of information to be actively put in the public domain. This is on the basis that it could then be used to establish whether authorities were treating utilities' works and their own in the same way. However, while some of the works
160
and some elements of those works may be similar, others will be different. Information on the location, duration and extent of works would not necessarily provide for an assessment of equitable treatment of all works within an authority.
Authorities maintain and upgrade the roads as well as undertaking safety and quality of life improvements such as junction modifications, home zones, traffic calming and the like. Utilities' interests require them to occupy the highway in a different way. Parity is extremely important and local authorities will need to take this into account when considering their own works and those of utilities. If they do not it might contribute to the failure of their network management duty.
The draft network management duty makes this clear. This has been developed with the assistance of the utilities to ensure that it reflects their concerns. The question of how best to assess this falls to the monitoring and evaluation framework and the criteria for determining whether to intervene. As the guidance will be subject to parliamentary process, your Lordships will be able to satisfy yourselves that this is adequately covered.
We have just debated the principles underpinning the modernising government agenda. Again, our desire is to avoid placing this sort of prescriptive burden on local government. I hope that with these assurances, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He said my amendment produced a prescriptive burden. I think my amendment was rather unprescriptive and produced hardly any burden at all. He said that this should be dealt with in guidance. I shall study his response carefully. However, I am somewhat disappointed. We are trying to encourage open government, and I am sure that the noble Lord would agree in principle with that sentiment. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Guidance to local traffic authorities]:
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) Subject to any guidance published by the national authority under subsection (1), the Mayor of London may publish further guidance to local traffic authorities in London in relation to Greater London Authority and strategic roads about the techniques of network management and any other matter relating to the performance of the duties imposed by sections 16 and 17."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know this is a matter that we debated in Grand Committee and I am seeking—on I think a very appropriate day—some sort of assurance from the Minister that arrangements exist for the proper consideration of the strategic bus network in London.
On a day when the whole of the capital is about to be held to ransom by the most irresponsible action by the Tube drivers—one about which I believe the Government should take action, because I think we are seeing a monopoly being exploited to the detriment of all of us—we need to know that we have a bus

161
network that is coherent and extends over several London boroughs. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we have proper direction of that network and that it is not subject to the maverick concerns of any one borough. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley:My Lords, I support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has outlined the reasons behind it. We discussed at length in Grand Committee which roads might be subject to the guidance from the Mayor, a point which was certainly unclear. If most, if not all, bus routes could be included in such guidance, it would be a very important part of keeping London moving and of course filling the lovely buses that we have. It is an excellent idea and I fully support it.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Perhaps I may interpret the amendment not specifically in terms of any particular day, but in terms of the significance of the bus network and bus provision throughout the year. I hear what the noble Lord says about the salience of buses, particularly today, but, as we all recognise, buses have a very significant role to play in public transport in London. That is why, as my noble friend indicated, there has been a very substantial increase in the number of buses and bus journeys, which we all recognise as a reflection of a more efficient transport system in London initiated over recent years.
As we explained in Grand Committee, the Government's view is that the issues specific to London are best set out in the national guidance. We shall consult on that guidance shortly, but it may help if I give a flavour of the relevant part. The guidance is intended to set out our view of what constitutes the objective to facilitate the expeditious movement of traffic on the road network for which another body is the traffic authority. It refers to joint working arrangements and ensuring that policies are consistent, which I think is the burden of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
In London TfL has responsibility for activities such as bus services on some roads, as the noble Lord indicated, without having direct control over those roads. As he said, for that to work effectively across London, TfL will clearly need assistance from the boroughs and vice versa. We see part of TfL's role as London's strategic transport authority as identifying reasonable and practicable outcomes from borough activities to support the Mayor's transport strategy and TfL's policies for meeting the network management duty. Examples would include ensuring so far as possible that bus services were uninterrupted throughout the year, and that enforcement was undertaken to prevent unnecessary congestion.
It seems reasonable for boroughs to take into account both the objectives of the Mayor's transport strategy and the outcomes identified by TfL in their approach to their duty. It also seems reasonable for the boroughs to look to meet those outcomes when considering the arrangements that they need to put in place to meet the duty. This should all be reflected in boroughs' local improvement plans. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, local improvement plans are subject to the Mayor's approval.
162
Subject to consultation it is our intention to include these principles in the network management duty guidance to which local traffic authorities must have regard. We recognise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made that this is particularly significant in the capital city with regard to effective bus operation which is such a crucial part of transport provision. I hope he will recognise that we have addressed this issue as a matter of great significance and that on the basis of the points that I have made about how we intend to tackle this issue, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bradshaw:My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his statement, which I am sure is reassuring to many of us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rotherwickmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) The guidance shall cover, among other matters, the respective responsibility of a local traffic authority, the police and fire service to attend to spillages of diesel fuel and render the road safe again for the passage of motorcycles and other vehicles."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that diesel spills are cleared up by the authorities so that they do not pose a threat to road users, especially motorcycle riders and bicyclists. The problem of diesel spillage is a major concern to motorcycle riders. Indeed, Northamptonshire police launched in February of this year a year-long series of innovative initiatives, codenamed Operation Biker, to cut deaths of motorcyclists. So serious is the problem of diesel spillage that one of these initiatives is a diesel spillage campaign aimed at lorry drivers and other diesel vehicle drivers.
There are some awful statistics, enough to make a seasoned motorcyclist like myself give up his efficient mode of transport. On average more than 3,500 people are killed on British roads each year—the equivalent of 10 each day. However, new findings show that motorbike riders represent 22 per cent of this figure, even though motorcycles account for only 4 per cent of road traffic.
Nationally in 2003 about 28,000 riders were killed or seriously injured. A rider is 35 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than any other class of road user, albeit the vast majority of motorcycle collisions occur in perfect riding conditions; that is, in daylight with dry road conditions. Surely the Government can demonstrate their concern for these vulnerable road users. By accepting this amendment they would demonstrate their concern. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw:My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, the need for which was amply demonstrated in the answers given to me yesterday by the Minister in response to my Starred Question regarding road casualties.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment No. 18 would require that the

163
guidance on the network management duty must include information on the respective responsibilities of traffic authorities, the police and fire service in dealing with diesel spillages. We have deliberately not singled out on the face of the Bill specific issues like this to be included in the guidance in order to avoid giving some more prominence than others. Part 2 of the Bill specifically deals with network management by local traffic authorities, thus any guidance under Clause 18 would not be binding upon the police or fire services.
That said, we are aware of the importance of tackling diesel spillage. I will aim to demonstrate that the issue is already covered and therefore this specific amendment is unnecessary. Guidance on dealing with diesel spillages and similar accidents is already available in Section 14 "Weather and Other Emergencies" of the Code of Practice for Maintenance Management published by the Institution of Highways and Transportation in 2001, and in the Highways Agency's Trunk Road Maintenance Manual. The existing provision in the Bill covering the network management duty guidance already allows us to build upon this. We have gone to great lengths to understand and reflect the needs of all road users, particularly those on two wheels, in the development of this policy.
We are about to go to public consultation on the draft of network management duty guidance. The department would be very happy to receive comments from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, as part of that process. The guidance has been prepared with the help of the advisory group for Part 2, as mentioned previously, made up of representatives of all the major road user groups, including the Motorcycle Action Group and the British Motorcyclists' Federation. The advisory group is happy with the content of this draft.
The draft guidance recognises that both police and local authorities have responsibilities for the management of traffic on the road network. It also states that the best outcome will be achieved by authorities and police working together to establish which activities should be carried out by each organisation, and which are best carried out together.
On the specific question of diesel spills, these are covered in the advice to local traffic authorities on the management of incidents. This points to the need for local authorities to work closely with the emergency services to support them both in the management of the incident and the active management of its effects on the road network. Of course, this would include restoring the road to a safe condition. It talks of the need for local traffic authorities to have robust processes and procedures for dealing with the types of incident that occur frequently on the network. Authorities are also reminded of Section 14 of the code of practice in the network management duty guidance. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will accept that this amendment, however well intentioned and however important, is unnecessary and I ask that he withdraw it.
Lord Rotherwick:My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for his kind support. I also thank the
164
Minister for his comments. However. I do not believe that I was asking for too much in asking the Government to accept my amendment. After all, I believe that the guidance to local authorities states, "may publish guidelines". Therefore, there is no compulsion to publish guidelines. I do not accept the Minister's comment that motorcyclists should not be given more prominence than other road users. I have amply demonstrated that they should be given more prominence than other road users due to the horrific statistics. As I said, motorcyclists represent 22 per cent of those killed on British roads each year. Surely that more than amply demonstrates why more prominence should be given to the section of road users comprising motorcyclists.
In addition, the examples that I gave today and in Grand Committee show that the present system is not working. I have no reason to believe that any change that the Minister proposes would alter that fact. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. It is more than likely that I shall return to the issue at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Clause 19 [Power to require information relating to network management]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 8, line 35, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on an earlier amendment, the Minister accused me of trying to be prescriptive and said that the Government were not prescriptive. In Clause 19, the Government are being prescriptive—perhaps over-prescriptive. It gives the Secretary of State additional powers to demand information from local authorities. My amendment would strengthen the principle that any information demanded by the national authority should be only what could be obtained reasonably and at reasonable cost.
The amendments also make it clear that the reasonableness principle should apply equally where more than one authority has been issued with a direction. Clause 19(3) would allow the Secretary of State to require all authorities to provide some information at short notice, and there would be administrative and financial costs. There must be good reason for demanding that information, and it is not stated or clear as the clause is written. I hope that the Minister will think my amendment entirely reasonable, because this time it is the Government who are being over-prescriptive. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, when we were dealing with Amendment No. 12, I said that we had deliberately not been prescriptive about the way in which a local authority should carry out its network management duty. I did not say that the Government would not be prescriptive; I did not use the word in its absolute terms. Hansard will confirm that I used "prescriptive" and then heavily qualified it to local authority and management duty.

165
The clause provides the ability to gain supplementary information without having to use the more formal intervention notice process. During the Bill's progress through Parliament, the Government have made it clear that we will not be looking to use the clause as the main way of gathering monitoring and evaluation information from local authorities. We will look to embed that process so far as possible within existing processes, such as the local transport plans. I am more than happy to repeat those assurances.
With that in mind, I will aim to demonstrate to the noble Viscount that his amendment is not necessary. Proposed new subsection (3B) requires a statement accompanying any request. That addresses issues of good governance, but those are not for the Bill. I cannot think of a circumstance where any request for information would not be accompanied by an explanation of why. If he would like reassurance that that would be the case, I am happy to give it.
The question of cost gets to the heart of the test of reasonableness. Either the request is reasonable or it is not. If an authority feels that the test has not been met, I would expect it to draw it to the attention of the appropriate national authority. No additional statement would be needed to ensure that that happened. The Bill in its entirety is subject to a regulatory impact assessment, as is only right and proper. However, that becomes disproportionate when extended to the exercising of individual provisions such as this.
Proposed new subsection (3A) looks to link the test of reasonableness to the specified period for a response and reflect the fact that a direction could be given to more than one authority. Clause 19(1) introduces the concept of a specified period for a response, and Clause 19(2) states that the information must be that which would be in an authority's possession, or that it could be reasonably expected to acquire. It is implicit that it would be for the appropriate national authority to request information that an authority could be expected to acquire within the specified period.
The addition of "authorities" is also unnecessary as that is implicit through the drafting of Clause 19(3), which allows the order to be given to more than one authority. I hope that the noble Viscount finds my explanation satisfactory and feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, the Minister has gone some way to reassure me. I shall have to study his response with care and consider whether it is satisfactory. However, I am grateful certainly for the spirit behind his response. The devil is always in the detail, and we will have to look carefully at that. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Intervention notices]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 21:
Leave out Clause 20.
166
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 to 31. Those amendments would leave out Clauses 20 to 30. On this group, the Government and I have a difference of principle. It is not a difference about how the Bill will work or its technical details, but a major difference. The clauses give the Secretary of State the power to intervene in local government in a way that no Secretary of State can intervene in any other area. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has much more experience of local government than I, may develop that point.
The Secretary of State will have the power to appoint a person or persons—it could be rather a lot of people—to be traffic directors. They will be appointed because the department and the Secretary of State consider that a local authority is not doing its job in traffic management. However, as we heard in Committee, we will not know the basis on which the decision is arrived at. There will be no criteria, so we will not know why the Secretary of State will decide that one local authority is managing and that another is not.
Some local authorities have agreements with others on traffic management. If one is intervened on, does that mean that the other takes over? We also heard in Grand Committee that there was no estimation of the cost, how many people might be involved, how long the appointment would last, under what criteria they would operate, or when the Secretary of State would consider that a traffic director had succeeded. The powers are the most interventionist that central government have ever produced in the area.
The power is extraordinary; I do not know how the Minister's department got away with it. I do not understand how it ever got it past the Deputy Prime Minister's department, which believes in local democracy, referendums and regional assemblies. If a local authority is failing that badly, the local electorate will throw it out. It will be obvious; the Secretary of State will not need to intervene, because the electors will. That is local democracy. The clauses are undemocratic. They take away power solely on the Secretary of State's judgment and give it to him. So far as I can see, he does not have to prove why an authority is failing. The Minister might say that an authority could take the Secretary of State to judicial review, but we all know the cost of that and the time that it takes; by that stage it would be far too late.
I looked very carefully to see whether we could table any amendments to the clauses that would make them more palatable. We could have tabled a raft of amendments, but they would not have made the clauses any better. The principle is wrong. It is undemocratic and interventionist, and will not produce better traffic management. The only thing that we can do is to take out this part of the Bill. It does not work. I do not know who dreamt it up, but I find it staggering that the party that the Minister represents could come forward with it. It seems against every principle that his party has ever enunciated when it comes to dealing with local government.

167
I hope that noble Lords will support me because I have been unconvinced so far by the Minister's responses to all the amendments we have tabled to this part of the Bill. I shall listen with care, as I always do, to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, says but he will have to produce a much better argument than he managed to produce last time. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market:My Lords, I wish to offer the support of these Benches for this group of amendments. I shall be brief, not because they are not important, but because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, they are matters of principle. No amount of fiddling around with the detail of the Bill will get around that. Two fundamental points of principle are at stake. The first is whether it is right for any government to pass legislation that allows intervention into the work of local authorities in circumstances that are unspecified on the face of the Bill. That would be fundamentally wrong.
The second point of principle is that of intervention. Not only will we not know fully when the Bill is passed under which circumstances a traffic manager will be imposed on a local authority, but such a person will be accountable to no one in the local community. They will be able to effect policies that will affect the lives of many people living in an area. Those people will not know who that person was, they will not have voted for that person and the wishes of the democratically elected local authority will be overridden. That will be a step too far for almost anyone.
The proposals are also impractical. I need to declare two interests. I am a local councillor and chair of the Local Government Association's transport executive. I am also a member of the board of the Audit Commission which has a raft of inspection and regulatory powers over local authorities. It would be almost inconceivable to imagine a local authority that could undergo Audit Commission tests and not have any major failings picked up at that stage. This group of clauses is unnecessary and, sadly, seems to have been inserted as a knee-jerk reaction to Daily Mail-type stories about local authorities that do not know how to manage the traffic.
It would be a shame if we were to move to that type of centrist intervention in the work of local authorities just to satisfy ill-informed, vocal minorities made up of only a few people.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie:My Lords, I am somewhat surprised by the extremes to which the Conservative and Liberal Democrat speakers have gone. This group of amendments seeks to remove 11 clauses. The noble Viscount said that the Government's proposals were so bad that he had been unable to think of any way to amend them. Certainly, no suggestions have been made as to what should replace them. Some of the statements made were extreme. The noble Viscount said that there was no clear basis for intervention. But the basis for intervention would be a failing by a local
168
authority to perform the duties set out clearly in Clauses 16 and 17—at least the noble Viscount must believe that they are clear, because he accepts them. The noble Viscount must have noticed Clause 20(2). The authority must be given, it says,
"particulars of the grounds for giving the notice",
and,
"an opportunity … to make representations".
Those words provide suitable safeguards to ensure that the grounds for intervention are rational, sensible and not capricious.
The electorate has been brought into play by both previous speakers as the be-all and end-all of what the local community could do if it did not believe that traffic management was being run properly. Elections do not come every year; there are gaps. There would be a long gap if something went seriously wrong now, because we have just had a number of local authority elections. Is it being suggested that there should be no powers of intervention by anyone because local autonomy is so important that the electorate should have to wait two or three years before anything could be done? That would be unreasonable.
Local autonomy is vital. Local authorities have been treated with tremendous respect by all parties for a long time and that is an important part of the governance of the country. However, to suggest that nothing should be done when they completely fail in their obligations that are set out in the clauses passed today—and no one could intervene unless the matter was very serious—would be most unreasonable. Her Majesty's responsible opposition, whether Conservative or Liberal Democrat, owe it to us to make proposals or suggestions other than to say that there is a major difference of principle between us.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. If this power of intervention is needed so badly, can the noble Lord give a recent example of when this power should have been used? Why has there been no clamour for that over the years?
Lord Borrie:My Lords, I cannot help the noble Viscount. I am just suggesting that by proposing powers in a Bill we should take into account the possibility of something going wrong. There should be some fail-safe mechanism and none would be provided if the two parties opposite were successful in removing these 11 clauses.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I should welcome the calm, lucid voice of my noble friend in destroying the case of the Opposition in, as he rightly pointed out, all its extremism. If there was ever a weapon of mass destruction fired at a Bill it would be one which did not include any amendments to any of 11 clauses, but proposed that all of them should be taken out of the Bill on an issue of principle.
We have discussed the matter of intervention with some intensity in both this House and another place. I recognise the force of the Opposition's arguments on certain issues of principle. Of course I accept that

169
local authorities are in the best position to deliver improvements in their area and ensure that maximum use is made of the existing road network. But, as my noble friend indicated, the question is what should be done if they fail. Should the Government do nothing, particularly considering the responsibilities of a local authority that would be likely to impact on a much wider area than that local authority?
The concept behind the Bill, the issue of traffic management, is that we are addressing the problems of congestion, which are not the several and individual problems of any single local authority. So often a problem is solved in one place and not tackled in another and that merely moves the issue on. Of course we require some degree of integration with regard to this policy. We need responsible positions to be taken up by local authorities. As my noble friend indicated, the premise behind the Bill is that local authorities have that responsibility. It is clear that the power of intervention—certainly the final power—would be taken as a measure of last resort. A whole raft of prior processes are to be undertaken, beginning with guidance. They give the authorities a clear indication of what is reasonably expected of their traffic management.
After hearing the speeches of Members opposite. anyone would think that intervention was a new or novel concept. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked me directly, "How on earth did you succeed in getting this past the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister?". Both local and central government accept the principle of intervention and have even gone so far as to agree a protocol governing how intervention should operate in practice. And which department is responsible for signing off that protocol? It is the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Therefore, if the noble Viscount tries to suggest that my department has been involved in some sleight of hand to bypass the vigilance of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I can reassure him that we are working entirely consistently with the protocol, which is agreed with local authorities.
The process outlined in Part 2 of the Bill is consistent with that protocol. Furthermore, it contains a long list of existing service-specific powers for statutory intervention. These allow the relevant Secretary of State to tackle failure relating to a range of areas. I do not know which planet some Members opposite have been inhabiting if they have not noticed intervention by Secretaries of State in relation to specific local authorities defined as failing in certain areas. Those areas include housing, the environment, planning, education, libraries and museums.
Of course, intervention of such a dramatic kind as envisaged in the Bill as last resort is exactly that—it is an intervention of last resort. How on earth could we propose to deliver the national management if we had no capacity to intervene in any local authority which was manifestly failing to live up to its duties in this respect?
Therefore, the powers of intervention are not at all unusual. It is a widely accepted concept that the appropriate national authority should intervene if an
170
authority is failing in its duty. Surely it is not unreasonable to extend this in respect of something as important as the new duty of national traffic management.
It is also not unreasonable for the appropriate national authority to exercise the power without returning to Parliament. I emphasise the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not upbraid the Government or criticise the provisions of the Bill in this respect. Its concern related to the guidance on criteria in Clause 27 and we have addressed that by ensuring that it is subject to the parliamentary process.
That is entirely right and proper. Parliament's role is to agree the framework within which this should operate, but individual decisions should fall to the appropriate national authorities. This is not an unfettered power. Any decision taken must be consistent with the principles outlined in the guidance under Clause 27, which would need to stand up to scrutiny. I also emphasise that this, too, could be subject to judicial review.
There are parallels elsewhere. The Local Government Act 1999 provides for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as the case may be, to direct that a specific function be exercised by him or by his nominee if a local authority is deemed to be failing. This can cover the work of the whole authority. The intervention powers are exercised by statutory direction and no parliamentary order is necessary. In practice, that is no different from the checks and balances of the intervention order contained in the Bill, so we are not breaking new ground. We are following a well-trodden path of prudent provision and of the necessary responsibility of the national authority to respond where there is conspicuous failure to deliver the objectives which are sought by the legislation.
We have offered reassurances throughout the parliamentary process, but I am happy once again to put on record our clear intention that these powers are very much a measure of last resort. We look for every opportunity to resolve problems with the local authority before considering the imposition of a traffic director. Even where that was unavoidable, the provisions are constructed in the Bill in such a way as to confer on the traffic director only the provisions that he would need to do the job.
The Bill therefore offers a flexible, proportionate approach to be taken to address the problem of a failing authority. I emphasise that there is nothing new in this Bill in terms of its powers in this respect. They are necessary powers and surely it will be recognised that, as regards all the powers of local authorities, traffic management is bound to have an impact on areas beyond the scope of those powers. It is therefore necessary to have a structure which tackles the significantly failing authority.
As I have indicated, the Opposition have not tabled amendments to refine the process and to indicate areas of improvement. They have said that 11 clauses of the Bill—11 clauses—are unacceptable and they propose that they should be deleted. I have not the faintest hope of dissuading them from pressing their deletion today.

171
However, I am concerned that in this House and in the country as a whole the strength of the Government's position should be recognised.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, the Minister accused me of wanting to get rid of 11 clauses. But he will have another 87 left, so he should not worry too much.
The Minister did not address the very strong argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, who rightly pointed out that a scheme is already in existence under the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment that can be utilised to judge how effectively a traffic authority is performing. As she said, it is there and it can be used, and that is why these clauses are unnecessary. That is the central point of my argument and that of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. He rightly pointed out that in Clause 16 there is a network management duty. Local authorities will have to abide by that in any case. Removing those clauses will not affect their duties.
This whole part of the Bill is interventionist and undemocratic. It is objected to by most local authorities, including Conservative and Labour authorities. They believe in local democracy. This part of the legislation is extraordinarily interventionist. I believe that those clauses should be taken out. I have grouped together amendments to remove Clauses 20 to 30, and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 154; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Astor, V.

Courtown, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Attlee, E.

Craigavon, V.

Avebury, L.

Crathorne, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Barker, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Dholakia, L.

Bowness, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brittan of Spennithome, L.

Elles, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Elton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Falkland, V.

Buscombe, B.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Byford, B.

Flather, B.

Caithness, E.

Fookes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Freeman, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Garden, L.

Carrington, L.

Geddes, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Glentoran, L.

Cobbold, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

172

Greenway, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Palmer, L.

Hamwee, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hanham, B.

Parkinson, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Patten, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Peel, E.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Henley, L.

Plumb, L.

Higgins, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Prior, L.

Hooson, L.

Quinton, L.

Howe, E.

Rawlings, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Razzall, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Reay, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jopling, L.

Rees, L.

Kalms, L.

Renton, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Kingsland L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Rogan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Roper, L.

Liverpool E.

Rotherwick, L. [Teller]

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lucas, L.

Seccombe, B.

Luke L.

Selborne, E.

McColl of Dulwich L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Sharples, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

McNally, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mar, C.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Marlesford, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller]

Monro of Langholm, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Moynihan, L.

Tope, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Tordoff, L.

Naseby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Newby, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Noakes, B.

Ullswater, V.

Northesk, E.

Vinson, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Waddington, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Onslow, E.

Walmsley, B.

Wilcox, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Carter, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Alli, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Clinton-Davis, L.

Andrews, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Crawley, B.

Bach, L.

David, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bhattacharyya, L.

Desai, L.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Drayson, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Elder, L.

Brennan, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Campbell-Savours, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

173

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Filkin, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Fitt, L.

Morgan, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gale, B.

Nicol, B.

Gavron, L.

Paul, L.

Gilbert, L.

Pendry, L.

Golding, B.

Peston, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goudie, B.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Radice, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ramsay of Cartvale. B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rendell of Babergh. B.

Harrison, L.

Richard, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Rosser, L.

Haskel, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Henig, B.

Sheldon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hollis of Heigham. B.

Snape, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hoyle, L.

Tenby, V.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thornton, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Triesman, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Truscott, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Warner, L.

Levy, L.

Warnock, B.

Lockwood, B.

Whitaker, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.39 p.m.
Clause 21 [Intervention orders]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 22:
Leave out Clause 21.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Appointment of traffic director: supplementary]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 23:
Leave out Clause 22.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Monitoring and reporting]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 24:
Leave out Clause 23.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Intervention in activities of local traffic authority]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 25:
Leave out Clause 24.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
174
Clause 25 [Exercise of local traffic authority functions]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 26:
Leave out Clause 25.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Application of sections 20 to 25 to local traffic authorities exercising functions jointly]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 27:
Leave out Clause 26.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Criteria for making intervention orders]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 28:
Leave out Clause 27.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Guidance to traffic directors]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 29:
Leave out Clause 28.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Traffic directors in London]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 30:
Leave out Clause 29.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Recovery of costs from local traffic authorities]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 31:
Leave out Clause 30.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Meaning of "permit scheme"]:
Lord Rotherwickmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 14. line 27, after second "specified" insert "traffic-sensitive"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of the amendment is to ensure that the permit scheme is applied "intelligently", focusing on areas where it is most needed. It has arisen out of concerns expressed by the utilities industry, which are being ignored. that there is unnecessary bureaucracy in the permit scheme. There is also considerable concern that the secondary legislation will not deliver, particularly as it is felt that the working groups are being guided by the Government. I hope that the Minister can clarify the situation with regard to the concerns that I have put forward on behalf of the industry today.
A "traffic-sensitive street" can be defined by a whole range of criteria which are measurable and on which all local authorities will have data and local knowledge. Traffic-sensitive management will deliver results by focusing on the areas where it is needed. It will save on resources, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, affect delivery of vital utility services only where absolutely necessary, and will meet the Government's objectives on congestion on our streets. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, when utilities carry out works on traffic-sensitive streets, they are required to give more advance notice of those works than they do in relation to other streets. Traffic-sensitive streets are designated by authorities. They have to satisfy certain criteria, including being trunk or principal roads, or having a high vehicle or pedestrian

175
traffic flow. Other streets can also be designated as traffic-sensitive but only with the agreement of all the utilities that have apparatus in that street.
Given that the highway authority is responsible for managing the roads in its area and for securing the expeditious movement of traffic, we do not believe that any one utility—I emphasise that there are now about 150 of them—should be in a position to veto the inclusion of a particular road when unnecessary and unmanaged delays on that road might lead to serious disruption on other parts of the network.
We do not believe that permit schemes should be confined on the face of the Bill to sensitive streets. Indeed, there is a strong case for saying that where an authority operates a permit scheme, it is better that it applies to all roads in that area. That means that those wanting to execute works would not have to deal with two different systems for managing their works, one on permitted roads and one on others.
We think that the question of what types of streets should be covered should be left to regulations. These will be prepared with the help of the interested parties, such as authorities and utilities, and debated in Parliament having been subject to public consultation. I should also remind the House that no permit scheme could be put in place without approval of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly in Wales. So, there are adequate safeguards to prevent authorities from operating permit schemes in an unreasonable manner.
On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that the Government's position is carefully thought through and that we could not possibly contemplate a situation where among a vast plethora of utilities, any one would be able to operate effectively a veto on a scheme. I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rotherwick:My Lords. I have listened with interest to the careful explanation given by the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 14, line 44, at end insert "(including provision with respect to applications for such variations)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 to 44. Clause 34(6) to (8) and Clause 35(4) to (6) allow the national authority—the Secretary of State for Transport or the Welsh Assembly Government—to vary or revoke permit schemes which are already in operation. These might be needed, say, where a local authority chooses to stop operating a scheme and where it has to be wound up or where at some point in the future a second set of permit regulations makes changes to the earlier ones and where these changes need to be carried through to the details of individual permit schemes.
176
We believe it seems sensible to tidy up the provisions and bring them together. Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 delete the existing powers in the Bill covering permit schemes operated by local and national authorities respectively. Amendment No. 42 is simply a consequential one, following on from Amendment No. 43.
Amendment No. 44 replaces these and makes clear that schemes must be revoked or varied by order, and that a single order can apply to more than one scheme. The permit regulations have the power to modify or disapply existing enactments, for example, to ensure that undertakers do not have to comply with both permit rules and similar provisions under other Acts. The amendment provides that an order can also disapply enactments to reflect any changes needed to schemes already in operation at the time that future permit regulations make changes to the existing rules governing schemes.
Finally, Amendment No. 33 clarifies that the power in Clause 32(2)(e) allowing for permit regulations to provide for the review or variation of permits can also cover applications for variations. That might include, say, where a person granted a permit to dig up the street wishes to apply for conditions attached to it to be varied, perhaps because it is no longer possible to do the work to the original timetable. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick:My Lords, these amendments apparently aim to set out in a more straightforward way the powers of the appropriate national authority to vary or revoke permit schemes by order. They allow for a single order to vary more than one permit scheme. The Minister said that they intend to use these powers for the purpose of the good administration of permit schemes or simply to make changes to reflect alterations in the permit regulations.
The utilities industry feels that this may have been an attempt by the Government to respond to complaints raised in Committee regarding the difficulties of varying permit schemes from authority to authority for those trying to comply, particularly when the works cut across boundaries. If so, the amendment arguably does not tackle that as it still does not introduce any degree of consistency between permit schemes for those utilities operating across the country which will be forced to contend with all these different schemes. It tightens up the existing wording but does not address our fundamental concern and very much leaves open the possibility of having a multiplicity of different systems throughout the country. For any one utility having more than one system to comply with and on which to train staff it will be a logistical nightmare. I would welcome any further response that the Minister could provide.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, where a permit scheme is in force and the local authority needs to put into force another one, here is the method for getting rid of the first set of permit schemes. Clearly, the noble Lord raised issues other than that. I should like to take them away, consider what he said and write to him with our views.

177
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
The Earl of Northeskmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 14, line 44, at end insert—
"(f) as to cases in which it is appropriate to draw the distinction between minor works and other more extensive works."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45. I recognise that the subject matter of minor works in the context of the Government's proposed permit scheme was well aired in Grand Committee, notably with amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. As he observed, it is explicit in the drafting of Clause 32(2)(c) that circumstances are envisaged when certain "specified works" will be exempted from the permit scheme. However, to repeat what the noble Lord said, these are not defined in any way on the face of the Bill.
I do not dispute the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, that the Government need,
"to discuss carefully how sensible it is to exempt minor works as these can cause significant disruption if they are in a busy street".

Nor do I dissent from the view that the fine detail of what constitutes "minor works" would be,
"best left to regulations rather than on the face of the Bill".—[Official Report, 27/4/04; col. GC 116.]
Nevertheless, there is merit in establishing the principle that the distinction between minor and more extensive works will be taken into account in drawing up the relevant regulations. That is what the amendment would do, although I am bound to say that Amendment No. 37 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, probably deals with the matter rather better than my effort.
Of course were the Minister to give an unequivocal assurance that the Government intend to draw up the regulations on this basis, the amendments would be unnecessary. In that sense, they are probing in nature, and I await the Minister's response with interest. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll:My Lords, it is important to examine the whole area of what is minor and what is not. I was made to think about it when my noble friend Lord Monson pointed out the noise caused by digging up his pavement for cable TV. He was worried that that was part of a telecommunications emergency. There is a difference which some people do not understand. The matter just needs to be thought out. That is why the amendment is worth thinking about.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, Clause 36(2)(c) already allows regulations to set out which works can be carried out without a permit—for instance, emergencies or very minor works; and there is the flexibility to vary requirements for obtaining a permit for different types of works.
As we made clear at an earlier stage of the Bill's progress, the working group looking at the details of permit schemes is considering whether certain minor
178
works should be exempted altogether from the need for a permit. It goes without saying that the working group will be looking at today's discussions in Hansard to assist with its conclusions. The working group is also considering whether the level of supporting information that those applying for permits must supply to the permit authority should be reduced for lesser works. That seems sensible. There is no point in imposing unreasonable burdens on those carrying out works which have minimal impact.
However, it is also important to remember that more often than not the most significant factor in determining how disruptive individual works are is where they are carried out rather than how extensive they are. So, minor works in Trafalgar Square can be far more disruptive than major works in a residential road such as Chester Street in Belgravia.
We take on board the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. Given my explanation about the consideration being given for different treatment for minor works, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes:My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he say what attention is paid, in designating minor works, to the duration of the works? Although they might be small, they could continue for an unacceptable length of time.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a point that I mentioned when I talked about minor works in Trafalgar Square being far more disruptive than those in a quiet residential road such as Chester Street in Belgravia. The working group is looking at the question of what constitutes a minor work. Obviously, when it does so, it will take into account the amount of time taken for the minor works to be completed.
The Earl of Northesk:My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. On balance, I think I am satisfied that the Government intend to pay due attention to the distinction between minor works and more extensive works, notwithstanding the caveats that the Minister mentioned. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Borriemoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 14, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) Without prejudice to subsection (2)(c), a permit scheme must include provision enabling works urgently required—

for public safety, or

in other specified cases appearing to the authority to constitute an emergency or otherwise to be urgent,

to be carried out without a permit."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. In the previous short debate, my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting said that Clause 32(2)(c) provided for a permit

179
scheme to enable specified works to be carried out without a permit. He cited emergency works and minor works. The important point I want to make is that Clause 32(2)(c) does not mention either emergency works or minor works. It provides in general terms for a permit scheme to enable certain works to be carried out without a permit.
The purpose of my amendment is to exempt emergency works, which I would describe as works to deal without delay with gas, water escapes or electrical faults, from the permit requirements and similarly to exempt minor works. I say to my noble friend, and indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, that we have referred to minor works as works which,
"involve little or no disruption",
to be carried out and that would be part of the definition. We think such works should be allowed without a permit.
In Grand Committee, my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting said that Clause 36(2), which we have not yet reached, already allowed for regulations to be made for the purposes of exempting emergency and minor works from the permit schemes. I do not think that Clause 36 specifically gives the Minister power to make regulations requiring emergency or minor works to be exempt from permit schemes, but merely to make regulations about procedures, publicity and what it calls "standard provisions" for permit schemes. Perhaps—I obviously put this in the form of a question to the Minister— he intends to make regulations imposing—because anything less than that would be not worth while—standard provisions on local authorities about what are emergency and minor works and to the effect that such should not require a permit. Perhaps he could answer that in his response. Anything short of that would leave local authorities free to make no exemption or to make an inadequately worded exemption in respect of emergency and minor works.
In Grand Committee, my noble friend Lord Evans gave the impression that any regulations made, presumably under Clause 36, would distinguish between dealing with the immediately potentially dangerous emergency situation which could be carried out at once without a permit and the follow-up work—the filling-in of the hole and the resurfacing—which perhaps would need a permit.
Although the Minister suggested that it was commonly the utilities' fault when delay occurred in filling up holes after emergency work was completed, his proposal that the latter part of the work should require a permit would cause bureaucratic delay while a permit was being sought. So there are many problems here. I suggest that Amendment No. 36, combined with Amendment No. 37, would help to make clear what is involved in allowing emergency and minor works to be completed without the need for a permit. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has raised an important issue. I certainly support all the sentiments that he expressed in moving the amendment, because these are crucial issues dealing with permits and emergency work. The general public—the customer—will not be forgiving if there is an emergency and it turns out that supply has been disrupted because we introduced a cumbersome system that did not allow remedial work to be carried out straightaway.
Lord Berkeley:My Lords, I support the amendment. Further to the noble Viscount's point about having to get a permit retrospectively after an emergency, it is worth pointing out that only 40 per cent of the holes that Transco digs are as the result of an emergency. We should take into account that a requirement to get a permit after dealing with an emergency without a permit could delay the process even longer, causing more traffic jams.
I wish to expand on what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said in an earlier debate. What is the definition of an emergency? We ought to accept that, in this day and age, urgency is the important aspect. A 999 call centre or a hospital losing power is an emergency because it affects people; so, too, is a major bank losing its connections to a data-network. It may be that nobody is hurt, although that would not be the case in a hospital. The consequence of losing power on such occasions is very serious. I hope that, when the detailed definitions of an emergency are drawn up, such cases will be included as emergencies and treated with the seriousness that they deserve.
The Earl of Erroll:My Lords, I have attached my name to these amendments because I feel strongly that the danger with bureaucracies is that they like to invent regulations to try to cover every situation. Real life never works that way. There must be some discretion for people to get the job done to prevent a crisis becoming an emergency or a disaster. If, for example, an incident were classified incorrectly as an emergency, or if unwisely the regulations were tightened further, suddenly one might find everything paralysed. I feel strongly that the Bill should not just provide discretion possibly to put such provisions into regulations; emergencies must be provided for and human discretion must be permitted in trying to cope with such events, and then we can sort it out afterwards.
Equally, it would be ridiculous to slow everything up on account of a minor incident. "Minor" is well described in the amendment as,
"little or no disruption to traffic".
If there is little or no disruption to traffic, what is the problem? Why create a huge bureaucratic event out of it? I cannot see the point of it, and I am sure that the Better Regulation Task Force could not either. I hope that it has cast its eyes over this.
I support in particular the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that losing telecommunications and such incidents constitute an emergency. Nowadays, certain

181
procedures are done remotely, perhaps over a remote telecommunications link—for example, a surgeon instructing another one at a distance. There are all sorts of cases where we are totally reliant on communications and we will lose lives if those communications go down. In many cases, restoring communications is not highly disruptive and will not require huge amounts of work. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a very good point about the need to include those in the emergency provisions.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil:My Lords, I think that I am in the minority. I would be a little surprised if, under the present law, any utility faced with a real emergency could not do it straightaway without difficulty. I would be surprised if that were not still the case after the Bill was enacted.
One of the reasons for introducing the Bill is the widespread feeling that utilities have abused their privileges and made too much of them. I, for one, would be nervous about saying, "We really didn't mean what we threatened to do. We do not want to do anything that would make you uncomfortable or put you under pressure". I believe that the purpose of the Bill is to put pressure on utilities to be fair and sensible when it comes to the interests of other road-users. I do not think that they have done that to date. I accept the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. On the face of it, the amendment is very reasonable, but it might be the thin edge of the wedge, allowing the utilities to revert to their previous, rather callous practices.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, I apologise to the House. In responding to the previous amendment, I made a point about Clause 36; I should have made it about Clause 32. Similarly, in this amendment, any references to Clause 36 should read "Clause 32". Therefore, we should not be surprised that my noble friend Lord Borrie could not find what he was looking for on Clause 36. Due to a mistake on our part, we had directed him to the wrong clause. I apologise to my noble friend and to other noble Lords for the error.
I agree in principle with the arguments that my noble friend Lord Borrie has raised in moving his amendment. The Government agree that permit schemes should not delay essential works unnecessarily. I gave assurances in Grand Committee that the Government would consider these points carefully in the drafting of regulations, and I am happy to repeat those assurances today.
Clause 32 already allows regulations to state that certain works could be carried out without a permit. We are exploring what exemptions would be sensible, with the help of authorities and utilities, and will later go out to public consultation on draft regulations. All interested parties. including cable companies, will have a chance to put forward their views.
I repeat the assurances given in Grand Committee. We believe that no obstacles should be put in the way of dealing with dangerous, or potentially dangerous, situations—that is an unqualified statement. However, the issue of emergency works is not straightforward. For
182
example, once the emergency is over, there can be lengthy delays in dealing with the work that follows. After the immediate danger has passed, a utility may take some time to fill in the hole that it has dug. In these circumstances, it may be that dealing with the emergency itself would not require a permit, but that utilities would still be expected to comply with appropriate conditions when completing the job. Explicitly exempting emergency works in the Bill would prevent regulations making this kind of distinction. The end result of such an exemption could be that, for weeks after an emergency occurred on a busy road, a utility would not be required to complete the works within any set timescale.
The Government may also consider further exemptions. Exempting minor works would require very careful consideration, as we pointed out in response to the previous amendment. For example, a customer connection completed within three days may appear very minor to the utility carrying out the works. However, if those works take out a lane of a busy city-centre street, they could cause very serious disruption.
The noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Berkeley, asked whether emergency services should be exempt. We agree that it would probably be sensible to exempt certain works. However, we can do that in regulations, and it does not have to be done in individual permit schemes. There is no question of permit schemes delaying dealing with emergencies.
With these explanations and assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I renew my apologies for our mistake in referring to Clause 36 instead of Clause 32.
Lord Borrie:My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. However, I hope that I have not misheard him; I am still somewhat confused by his references to Clauses 32 and 36. Clause 32 does not specify the making of regulations at any point, whereas Clause 36 is not only headed "Permit regulations", but talks about permit regulations setting out standard provisions that must be included in a permit scheme. I hope that the Minister means that there will be permit regulations, which will set out standard provisions dealing with emergency works and minor works in the ways in which he has described. If that is what he means, I am reasonably content. I am happy to rabbit on a little while he reads his note. I will be ready then to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, I very much hope that the note I have just been passed answers the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Clause 32(2)(c) allows schemes to exempt works. Clause 36(3)(a) enables general regulations to deal with this, making general provisions for all schemes. Minor works and emergencies would be dealt with by these provisions. I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation.
Lord Borrie:My Lords, I am grateful, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]

183
Clause 33 [Preparation of permit schemes]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 15, line 8, leave out "him" and insert "the national authority"
The noble Lord said: In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, expressed concern that the wording in Clause 33 was ambiguous as regards to whom applications to operate permit schemes should be directed. We agreed to go away and consider that, and I am glad to confirm that having done so, we agree with the noble Lord. These amendments make clear that where directed to do so, one or more local highway authorities must submit a permit scheme to the national authority and that it must take such form as the national authority may direct. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley:My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for listening so assiduously to previous representations about this issue. I thank him for bringing forward this amendment, which I welcome.
Lord Rotherwick:My Lords, we are happy with these minor drafting changes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 15, line 9, leave out "he" and insert "the national authority"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Implementation etc. of local highway authority permit schemes]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 15, line 32, leave out subsections (6) to (8).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Implementation etc. of other permit schemes]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:
Page 16, line 2, leave out "("the authority")"
Page 16, line 8, leave out subsections (4) to (6).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
"VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF PERMIT SCHEMES

The appropriate national authority may by order vary or revoke any permit scheme which for the time being has effect.

An order under this section—

may relate to one or more permit schemes,

may vary or revoke any order under section 34 or 35, or any order previously made under this section,

may (in accordance with permit regulations) include provisions which disapply or modify enactments to the extent specified in the order."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
184
Clause 36 [Permit regulations]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
The Earl of Errollmoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 16. line 23, at end insert—
"( ) Without prejudice to subsection (2)(b), permit regulations shall set out provisions which may be included in a permit scheme prepared by a local highway authority for its area and, if included in one such scheme, must be included in all such schemes."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put this amendment forward because trying to standardise these schemes will prevent things from falling through the cracks between them. If we have a myriad of different schemes throughout the country, even if they differ only in minor points, it will be a job creation scheme, because we will have to have different people who understand all the complexities of the possibly very minor differences between schemes in different parts of the country. As things come together and we centralise things more, and information I hope becomes available electronically on the Internet—which I will get on to in my later Amendment No. 55—standardisation is essential, or it will cause chaos. The whole point of this amendment is to ensure a consistent approach across England and Wales.
Interestingly, in Grand Committee the Minister said that it could not be sensible to have dozens of entirely different schemes operating in different parts of the country. This amendment would allow him to carry out that intention, and would assist him in that objective. I cannot see why it is not eminently sensible. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting:My Lords, as drafted, the intention of Amendment No. 46 seems to be to provide that regulations may set out provisions that may be included in a permit scheme prepared by a highway authority. However, the effect of the amendment would be that once one authority has taken advantage of the provision to determine the details of the scheme that it wishes to run, all other authorities wishing to operate a scheme would have to include identical provisions in the schemes that they submitted to the national authority for approval. We are not clear that this is the purpose of the amendment.
The Government agree that it is desirable that there should be some degree of standardisation between different permit schemes, and the relevant working group is considering how far that should extend. When the deliberations of that working group go out to public consultation, I am sure that it will be happy to hear from the noble Earl. It would be best for the primary legislation not to be prescriptive as to how far that consistency should extend. I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Erroll:My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I was not sure that it was the best way of achieving it, but I thought that I should sow the seeds of the concept in the mind of the Government. I thought that they might like to introduce something to

185
say that there should be standardisation of these schemes across the country. To have local variations would lead to trouble. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker:My Lords, if Amendment No. 47 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 48.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 16, line 34, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) for or in connection with the determination, or facilitating the determination, of disputes (including provision with respect to the appointment of persons to determine, or facilitate the determination of, disputes),
(ba) for or in connection with appeals (including provision with respect to the appointment of persons to hear appeals),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 47, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49. I also, in passing, hope to make a brief reference to Amendment No. 48, which I hope my noble friend will regard as unnecessary, given the arrangements that we seek to make.
In Committee, there was considerable discussion about what arrangements should be in place to allow for an appeal system as part of the permit scheme. As we explained then, we have asked a working group of local authorities, utilities, and others, to consider what rights of appeal should be allowed for; for instance, an appeal against a refusal of a permit for particular works, or any conditions that are attached to the granting of a permit, and who should hear such appeals. Utilities and local authorities in particular would be most affected by permit schemes. It makes sense to allow them to consider and recommend a sensible appeals system before we make final decisions on the arrangements.
When my noble friend Lord Evans wrote to noble Lords after the Committee stage, he explained that while the Government are not in a position to define exactly what appeal arrangements would be in place, we would be able to explain the principles that underlie them. The aim is to create a system that is not unnecessarily bureaucratic, drawn out, or expensive to operate. At the same time, we must ensure that any grievances are given proper consideration, and that there is recourse from those decisions to a court or to another independent tribunal. There are a variety of possible options, including arbitration, or an appeal to a panel of adjudicators; and the working group is looking at these options.
Amendment No. 47 fleshes out the existing provisions in Clause 36(4)(b) to make clear that the Government are able to make extensive provisions in regulations to allow for dispute resolution and a system of appeals. Amendment No. 49 makes clear that if regulations provide for adjudication, the consent of the Lord Chancellor would be required for the making of the regulations. That is in line with normal practice for making provision for adjudication in legislation. On that basis, I hope that my noble
186
friend will recognise that we have covered the ground that he is concerned about. I hope that he will not feel the need to press his amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor:My Lords, I thank the Minister for addressing through these amendments the concerns we raised in Grand Committee.
Lord Berkeley:My Lords, I should also like to thank my noble friend. There has been extremely positive correspondence and discussion on this point and I am most grateful to him and to the Government for proposing government Amendments Nos. 47 and 49. Of course I shall not press my Amendment No. 48.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 49:
Page 16, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) Provision under subsection (4) in respect of adjudication may not be made without the consent of the Lord Chancellor."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 50:
Page 16, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) Permit regulations may make provision for or in connection with the giving of fixed penalty notices (including, in particular, provision applying Schedule 4B to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c. 22), with or without modifications) in relation to any offence created by permit regulations."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 50 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 60. Clause 40 allows for certain criminal offences under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to be made subject to fixed penalty notices. Schedule 2 to the Bill lists these offences, which all relate to undertakers notifying highway authorities about works in the street which they are carrying out or which they intend to carry out.
Clause 36(4)(d) allows for permit regulations to define certain criminal offences in relation to permit schemes. The working group of local authorities, utilities and others which is considering the detail of how permit schemes would work, will look at which criminal offences should underpin them—for instance, carrying out works without a permit. While we do not know as yet what those offences may be, it is likely that at least some would be of a similar nature to those under the 1991 Act. Given this, we consider that they could be suitable candidates for dealing with by means of fixed penalty notices. So Amendment No. 50 will allow permit regulations to make provision for one or more of the permit offences to be fixed penalty offences.
Amendment No. 60 is consequential on this and simply provides a definition of "fixed penalty notice". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 51:
Page 16, line 44, leave out from "with" to "provision" in line 46 and insert "the payment of a fee in respect of any one or more of the following—

an application for a permit,

the issue of a permit,

an application for the variation of a permit or the conditions attached to a permit,

the variation of a permit or the conditions attached to a permit.

(5A) Provision made under subsection (5) may include"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there was considerable discussion in Grand Committee over what level fees for permits should be set at, and we agreed to go away and consider these issues. We are now bringing forward amendments which I hope will meet the concerns expressed.
Amendment No. 51 makes clear that permit regulations may make provision for fees to be charged in relation to a person applying for a permit, the permit being issued, or for the permit—or conditions attached to the permit—to be varied. This allows some flexibility for permit regulations to determine at which stages of the process fees should be payable.
Amendment No. 52 covers the level of fees. This provides that the national authority, in making permit regulations, can prescribe which costs incurred by a permit authority in operating a scheme can be taken into account in setting the level of fees payable for a permit.
Amendment No. 54 makes explicit that permit regulations can make provision for the keeping of accounts on individual permit schemes and for the preparation and publication of statements of account. This would ensure transparency on how much authorities raise from permit schemes.
The exact details of permit fees will need to be set out in regulations, following the deliberations of the working group. Nevertheless, I hope that these amendments address the concerns expressed in Grand Committee and make clearer the Government's intention that permit schemes should not be able to be used by local authorities to raise significant revenue at the expense of those carrying out necessary works in the street. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw:My Lords, I raised this point in Grand Committee. My concern is that while local authorities should not make a profit, they should be able to cover their costs. I must draw attention to the fact that regulations in respect of vehicles emitting pollutants provide for penalties so low that it actually costs local authorities money every time they stop a vehicle. While I have no wish to object to these amendments, I ask the Minister to ensure that the costs incurred in issuing permits are met by the fees set. The Minister should not bend over backwards to those people who complain that the fees are too high.
Lord Rotherwick:My Lords, we welcome these amendments and we are glad that the Government have taken note of the industry's concerns regarding
188
the permit schemes. As the Minister can see, we have withdrawn our amendments on this issue. However, we would not have had half as many concerns regarding this Bill if these regulations had been made available in draft form. Can the Minister tell us when they will be published?
Lord Davies of Oldham:My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. Of course I shall bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. In the same way that we do not look at the permit scheme as a means by which local authorities can make a profit, we do not expect them to incur significant losses either.
Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, I am sure that the burden of his remarks is that we should have the regulations ready before Third Reading. I cannot give that undertaking. The noble Lord will recognise the amount of work that is going on. However, I can assure him that we recognise the significance of these regulations and we intend that they shall be completed by the end of this year.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 52:
Page 17, line 5, at end insert—
"(5B) In making provision under subsection (5), the appropriate national authority must try to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the fees payable in connection with permit schemes do not exceed such costs in connection with permit schemes as may be prescribed.
(5C) For the purposes of subsection (5B), the national authority may rely on such estimates (including estimates with respect to the average costs of highway authorities or particular descriptions of highway authority) as the national authority thinks fit."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Errollmoved Amendment No. 53:
Page 17, line 6, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 55, which is the key amendment in the group. These amendments are an attempt to help the Government achieve their e-government 2005 targets. All local authorities are supposed to be able to provide most of their services online by that year.
I have some experience in this area. Some local authorities are excellent examples of how to use modern methods of communications to enhance their service delivery to local people, to increase productivity and to facilitate communication. But others make snails look positively rapid. Some local authorities are debating what e-government is and do not even know what they are meant to be doing in the next year or so.
The amendment would,
"require the registers to be kept in electronic form",
and to make them available on what I imagine would be an Internet site which could be accessed for free. People will be able to find out what is going on.
While it is all very well to make regulations, what will make these schemes work well is good communication. If people do not know when others are digging up the

189
roads and so forth, they will not know when to cooperate. This amendment will help the Government achieve what they really want to do, which is not to regulate everything out of existence, but to make it possible for people to communicate well, thus enhancing their productivity and allowing the roads to be dug up faster and with less disruption to the public. This amendment takes us forward into the 21st century. I know already that the Minister thinks that this is basically a good idea, because he said so on the previous occasion. I beg to move.
Lord RotherwickMy Lords, these amendments aim to ensure that all registers are kept in electronic form, enabling those to whom a permit is issued by an authority to have unrestricted access to the information contained therein. We welcome the idea of increasing accessibility to information and thus the promotion of transparency and accountability. However, I want to ask the Minister what estimates have been drawn up for the costs of running such an online system, and where he envisages that money will come from.
Last week I was fortunate enough to be given an opportunity to see the London Traffic Control Centre control rooms. I was enormously impressed with the electronic systems already installed and the detail of the information provided by them. That is a great achievement since the centre has been up and running only since May. I understand from the staff that the information will be made available to undertakers and, perhaps, some of it to the general public in the future. I hope that this will be the standard to be set throughout the country, not only in London.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment and to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for the way in which he introduced it.
As the noble Earl said, the Government have considerable sympathy with the thinking behind these amendments and we have already charged the working group of utilities and local authorities looking at the details of permit regulations to consider what provision needs to be made in relation to the keeping of registers and permits. Our initial view is that such registers should build on the registers which local highway authorities already have to keep under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 on works which take place on streets in their areas.
We do not want to confine the group unnecessarily, especially as Clause 36 already allows for regulations to make the necessary provision in the light of the group's work. The work is going ahead in the hands of a useful, constructive working group. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, recognises the importance of that.
As to Amendment No. 55, I should emphasise that the noble Earl is making a request to a Government who are very concerned that we should be up to date
190
in the electronic age. He will know that a very large amount of government material is now kept in electronic form. We recognise the point he makes.
As they stand, the clauses already allow such matters to be prescribed in regulations but, once again, we believe that they are best left for the working group to consider and make recommendations before we take any firm decisions. In particular, there may be circumstances under which it would not be appropriate for information on certain works to be universally available—for instance, for reasons of commercial confidentiality. The noble Earl will recognise that automatic electronic access in those circumstances could raise some interesting points. It may be necessary to introduce appropriate checks and restrictions on the communication of such information.
We recognise the constant prods that the noble Earl gives us in relation to certain aspects of legislation and the need to move into the electronic age. We are not being obstructive, but the working group has one or two knotty problems to resolve. I hope the noble Earl will accept the assurance that we are making progress on this issue and feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of ErrollMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind comments. I am trying to prod some of the people behind the Minister rather than those on the Front Bench, who fully appreciate the need to move forward. However, certain elements are more hidebound and it sometimes needs a good prod from somewhere else to get them moving.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that there will be a cost in not doing this because the Freedom of Information Act will become active from 1 January 2005. I believe that this is the kind of information that could be requested under that Act; I see no reason why it should be suppressed. Simply because some information may be embarrassing or difficult is no excuse for not producing it within 20 days.
It may be worthwhile looking at such systems to ensure that the information can be retrieved economically. Many government departments may not have become fully aware of these systems, although I know that they are thinking hard about them. They have been implemented in Northern Ireland and Scotland to great effect, although I believe that Susiephone has now changed its name.
I am delighted that the working group is looking at the issue. I am sure that its members are good people who, with a prod from their leaders, will get on with the job and ensure that this kind of enhanced communication takes place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 17, line 10, at end insert—
"(c) with respect to the keeping of accounts, and the preparation and publication of statements of account, relating to permit schemes."

191
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Lord Borriemoved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause
"WORKS CARRIED OUT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision for the control of the carrying out by local authorities of works which would be subject to a permit scheme if carried out by undertakers.

Regulations made under subsection (1) must secure that the controls correspond so far as possible with those that would apply if the works were carried out by undertakers.

Regulations made under section 36(6) (permit regulation) shall require the registers to include specified information concerning any specified works that the local highway authority proposes to undertake or is undertaking in the area to which the register relates."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.
We have all been concerned, both in Grand Committee and earlier today, that there should be a measure of equity as between the utilities, on the one hand, and local authorities, on the other, when they are carrying out road works. The terms and conditions applied to utilities in order to constrain traffic disruption should, as far as possible, be also applied to local authorities when they are carrying out road works.
My noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting said in Grand Committee that the word "works" in the interpretation clause, Clause 38, can be required to include works under the Highways Act 1980, covering a wide range of works carried out by local authorities, including road maintenance work. So they can be included in permit schemes. I was not entirely clear as to whether "they can be" meant "they will be". Perhaps the Minister will explain that a little further.
Given that highway authorities frequently work through the use of external contractors on annual contracts or even completely outsource the work, it seems appropriate that such works should require some kind of permit scheme in order to ensure compliance and a level playing field for the utilities. Indeed, when highway authorities grant licences to third party developers seeking access to the public highway, it is even more obvious that such works should attract some kind of permit scheme.
The amendment seeks to provide that regulations will ensure that controls over local authority works will correspond as far as possible with the controls applicable to works carried out by the utilities. I beg to move.
Lord BerkeleyMy Lords, I support the amendment. We discussed earlier today the principle of equity between highways authorities and those who dig up the road for other purposes. We should not forget that the definition of "roads" includes footpaths and cycle ways.
192
As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, contractors are often used and, as the noble Earl said, within local authorities the department which issues the permit is often different from the one which organises the roads. It is therefore very important that an amendment of this kind is included for reasons of equity.
Whether contractors are working for Transco or the local authority, they all have the same signs—including "road works ahead", "footpath closed", "cyclists dismount" and all kinds of other horrible things. But it does not make any difference; they have all got the same road signs and they all need to come under the Bill, whoever they are working for.
Viscount AstorMy Lords, as we have discussed on previous amendments, local authorities are responsible for half the works that we see. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley is right; we often do not know the difference between one and the other. This is an important principle and I support the amendment.
The Earl of ErrollMy Lords, the reason I have not spoken to the amendment is that I thoroughly concur with everything that has been said, in a much better way, by everyone else.
Lord BradshawMy Lords, the modern information system which the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, saw in the control room of Transport for London displays all work carried out by the highway authority as well as that carried out by contractors and the utilities. I believe that all modern systems do the same. It is important that the Government, whether through regulations or in the Bill, should insist on this.
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy Lords, works cause disruption whoever is carrying them out. Further to the assurances given in Grand Committee and by Ministers in another place, I wrote to all Peers who spoke at Grand Committee making a clear statement that the Government believe that permit schemes should apply to an authority's own work. That remains the Government's policy. As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, I pointed out in Committee that Clause 38 makes it clear that permit schemes can include works under the Highways Act 1980. That covers a wide range of works by authorities, including road maintenance. We have asked the relevant working group to consider how, not if—I repeat "not if"— authorities' work should be incorporated in permit schemes.
My noble friend Lord Borrie asked whether contractors who work for highways authorities can be covered by permit schemes. The answer is "yes" and they will be.
I have given a clear statement on behalf of the Government on a matter that has been of concern to your Lordships both in Committee and now on Report, but I hope that, given my assurance, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount AstorMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said that it is a question of "how" and not

193
"if". Does that mean that, once the working group has produced recommendations, the Secretary of State will come forward with an order that brings them into effect, as stated in Clause 38(3)?
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingYes, my Lords. The working group will come forward with its recommendations. We are absolutely determined—I hope that it is now crystal clear—that local authorities will be treated in the same way as other undertakers. My guess is that an order will be brought forward to confirm that.
Lord BorrieMy Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. His words sound exceedingly clear and encouraging. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Crown application]:
Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 58:
Leave out Clause 37.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is similar to that which I tabled in Grand Committee. I am grateful to Ministers for engaging in some interesting correspondence with me since then, but I regret to say that I still do not understand the clause. Perhaps I am being thick.
My problem is with "Crown application". As I read the clause, the Crown may introduce a permit scheme, but Her Majesty in her private capacity or in the right of the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy of Lancaster cannot be affected by one. Nor can they can be guilty of criminal offences, which is quite amusing.
The first letter I received from the Minister states that,
"permit schemes will be capable of applying to works carried out by, or on behalf of central government on publicly maintainable highways".
I assume that that may or may not include the Royal Parks, because their roads are not public highways but owned by central government. When I asked my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey last Friday for the definition of a private road, he replied that it is one that is not a highway. I do not know whether a private road is a road on which one can drive or one on which one can be arrested or accosted for going down it. I do not understand the definition of "private".
The Minister went on to state in his letter that,
"works carried out by the Queen in her private capacity, or by the Duke of Cornwall on such highways, will not be capable of being governed by permit schemes".
I thought that Clause 37 was about who sets up permit schemes rather than who is governed by them, but I shall leave that aside.
In the second letter which the Minister kindly sent to me, he stated that,
"the Royal Parks Agency could run a permit scheme that covered its roads".
194
That is regardless of whether they are private or public. He continued:
"Where the exemption comes in is with regard to works carried out by or on behalf Her Majesty or the two Duchies. Others carrying out work on Her Majesty's roads might still be required to apply for a permit. The Queen in her private capacity does not do much by way of works in the street".
But she could set up a permit scheme.
Where are all these roads that the Queen owns on which we are allowed to drive and which are not part of the Royal Parks? Where are the Duchy of Cornwall roads and where are the Duchy of Lancaster roads? If they are important roads which could be subject to traffic delays when people dig them up, whether the Queen has authorised it or not, surely she should apply to herself for a permit if she is the contractor. It seems odd that the Queen should be exempt in her private capacity from giving herself permits. I am sorry to confuse your Lordships, but I am totally confused. I do not know whether the Minister can help me or whether we should just put the matter to bed and say that it is just one of the consequences of having a constitutional monarchy. I look forward to my noble friend's reply. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am sorry that our voluminous correspondence has not assuaged the anxieties of my noble friend. Of course, we recognise that works conducted by all bodies should be subject to appropriate controls and should be managed in a way that bears in mind the need to minimise disruption among other things.
Clause 37 leaves quite unchanged the existing controls applied to Her Majesty and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall by the Highways Act and the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. That should not impact on utilities which conduct works that would benefit Her Majesty, but it might mean, for example, that Her Majesty would not have to apply for a permit for an activity which might obstruct a street. In practice, we would not expect that to hamper an authority's ability to manage its road network effectively.
I shall make an obvious point to my noble friend. In Westminster, where there is the greatest potential for such a problem to arise, there is an arrangement whereby Westminster manages the Crown Estate's works on its behalf. Therefore, the authority conducts the estate's work. My noble friend may say that the authority might thereby be applying for a permit to itself, but he will recognise that those are exceptional arrangements for a particular case.
I cannot answer my noble friend's questions about roads which may be in the royal purview. We have discussed the position of the Royal Parks. As far as I know, in all other circumstances, there are no royal highways in the country. They all come under some form of public authority. My noble friend would recognise that when a highway is obstructed, it is often related to events which we all recognise as needing special and proper priority, such as the necessary arrangements for a constitutional monarchy. While

195
my noble friend is not entirely satisfied by my letters to him, he will recognise that we are operating under the constraints of particular arrangements and that I have gone as far as I am able to go.
Lord BerkeleyMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He has tried very hard, both in writing and in the House, to answer my concerns. That is a pretty impossible task, but I shall not pursue the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 60:
Page 17, line 35, at end insert—
""fixed penalty notice" means a notice offering a person the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for an offence by payment of a penalty;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 18, line 18, at end insert "or different areas"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is a simple one, designed to make clear that the power for the national authority to make permit regulations or to make orders approving, varying or revoking permit schemes can make different provisions for different areas.
We believe that it must be sensible to have that flexibility. To take just one example, it may be, after considering the recommendations of the working group which we set up to consider permit schemes, that the Government deem it sensible to put different arrangements in place covering permit schemes in urban as against rural areas, perhaps to reflect the greater disruption that occurs in those areas. The amendment allows us to do that. I beg to move.
Lord RotherwickMy Lords, can the Minister clarify the definition of "different areas"? Will that mean urban versus rural, or from city to city or borough to borough? Furthennore, will that enable the implementation of permit schemes, and the action taken if the work is carried out without a permit, to vary from area to area? What steps will be taken to ensure that all those who may be affected by differences in different areas are aware of those differences? How will the notices of differences be published—electronically, or how else?
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy Lords, a few moments ago, I said that after considering the recommendations of the working group that we set up to consider permit schemes, the Government deem it sensible, for example, to put different arrangements in place covering permit schemes in urban as opposed to rural areas. The answer to the noble Lord's questions is that we must wait for the working group to come up with its proposals. We shall go out to consultation, and the department will ensure that the noble Lord is
196
involved in those consultations, so that he can get satisfaction on the points that he raised. I hope that that reassures him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Increase in maximum fines for certain summary offences under the 1991 Act]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 60, line 10, column 2, after "works" insert ", etc."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Schedule 1 increases the level of fines for a number of offences under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Amendment No. 62 corrects the description of an offence under Section 54(4) so that it refers to a failure to meet all of the duties under that section, not just the giving of advance notice.
The new clause amends Sections 54 and 55 of the 1991 Act. It provides that the advance notice that must be given under Section 54 should contain the date when the works are intended to start and such other information as may be prescribed. If an undertaker does not submit before this start date a notice required under Section 55, it must supply the authority with a further notice. This will contain such information as may be prescribed—for example, whether it still intends to go ahead with the works and, if so, when.
If the works referred to in an advance notice do not start within a prescribed period after the original start date, then the undertaker would have to start the process of giving advance notice all over again. That will deter undertakers from giving random dates for the expected start date. An undertaker is also required to give a notice under Section 55 giving the exact start date of works. If the works do not start within a prescribed time of that date, the Section 55 notice becomes invalid and the works cannot go ahead until a further Section 55 notice has been issued.
The new clause requires that where a notice becomes invalid, the undertaker must provide a further notice to the authority with certain information about the works. Again, that is likely to be whether it still intends to go ahead with the works and, if so, when. If the undertaker fails to provide that further notice under Section 55, it commits a criminal offence and can face a level 4 fine of £2,500. It will also have to provide the information to the relevant transport authority, when the works affect a level crossing or tramway.
Amendment No. 67 is consequential on Amendment No. 74 and adds the new offence to the list of offences under the 1991 Act in Schedule 2 to the Bill, which can be made subject to fixed penalty notices. I beg to move.
Lord RotherwickMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the amendment. We welcome the idea as a whole, but we have one question. Should not the local authorities also have a duty to inform others of any planned works that they might have to cancel, in case that then influences their plans for trying to get works done in the road? If they do not do

197
that, should they have to pay a fine? How do they intend to notify people of their intention to cancel works?
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I cannot give a categorical response to that question, although the noble Lord makes an entirely reasonable point. We are concerned to create fairness among the participants in the scheme. I shall consider the matter further and write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Fixed penalty offences]:
Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 63:
Page 19, line 24, at end insert—
"(3A) The Secretary of State may by order modify that Schedule so as to designate any offence listed in that Schedule involving a failure in respect of a notice as an offence for which different fixed penalties are to be prescribed in accordance with paragraph 4 of Schedule 4B, according to the seriousness of the failure in question."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 63, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 64. The amendments are designed to discover whether my noble friend agrees that there needs to be some means to ensure that the fixed penalties are proportionate to the offences committed and take into account the level of congestion and disruption caused and, therefore, the seriousness of the offence.
We heard in Grand Committee that the working groups had considered a penalty of £750. Noble Lords may say that that is not very much. However, given the fact that there may be 5 million notices every year, as there are under the current scheme, and will probably be a lot more, if the utilities start off by getting 90 per cent of them right and 10 per cent wrong, they might end up paying something like £375 million. In the end, that money would come out of the customer's pocket.
Serious offences clearly deserve serious levels of penalty. However, spelling variations in street names, leaving one cone around or making a mistake with a sign on a side road, which clearly has minimal effect on traffic, are failures that could have a much lower penalty rate. The amendments would add a requirement that there should be a sliding scale relating to the level of congestion or disruption caused—that is, the seriousness of the offence. I beg to move.
Lord RotherwickMy Lords, the amendments would ensure that the fixed penalties awarded are proportionate to the offence committed and take into account the level of congestion and disruption caused—and, thereby, the seriousness of the offence. We would perhaps agree that there could be different levels of failure. However, failure is failure, regardless of degree.
Furthermore, I foresee difficulties in how the decision could be made with regard to different levels of failure. Failure can be relative and subject to different interpretations, depending on the individual making the judgment. As decisions will be made by
198
individuals, that may open up a call for appeals and result in an endless bureaucracy of utility companies appealing over the level of failure that has occurred.
I question how the levels of congestion will be measured. There can be a small traffic jam or a big traffic jam, but how does one measure the difference between traffic jams? To what will they be compared? Congestion levels may vary throughout the day, so something may cause a high level of disruption at rush hour but not be a problem for the rest of the day. The amendment is a difficult one to judge.
7 p.m.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, for once the Government and the Opposition are united in one respect: we are having difficulty with this amendment. This is a difficult area as there will be variations in the seriousness of certain offences. However, it would be extremely difficult to devise a workable system that easily identified and measured the seriousness of the offences in certain circumstances and set different amounts accordingly and accurately.
The level of seriousness will vary according to the facts of each case. It is possible that certain factors could make the consequences of failing to notify street works correctly more serious on one day than on another, for instance, if the street works in question are carried out on a busy diversion route. It would be very difficult to prescribe how serious an offence is in advance of the offence occurring. I think that this is the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, was hinting in his contribution.
I understand that utilities are concerned that they may receive penalties for offences that they may consider to be minor. I want to get to the root of the concept behind fixed penalties because I cannot cope with the refinements that my noble friend sought to introduce. The concept of the fixed penalty is that it is an opportunity to discharge liability for conviction. If the utility wishes to make representations to the authority, it may do so. If the utility is still convinced that the penalty should not have been given it can refuse to pay and argue its case in court if the authority pursues the matter.
On balance, we feel that the fixed penalty system needs to be a straightforward, simple scheme. It is the first point of penalty. It would not be practical to try to categorise offences and fix differential amounts in relation to them. It is clear from the concept behind the fixed penalty that, if the utility feels that it has been unfairly treated, it is a question not of going to appeal but of challenging the authority and taking the matter to a further stage when the particular circumstances of the case would be identified. The concept behind the fixed penalty is the simplicity of the offence being triggered and the penalty being applied without a great deal of sophistication. We cannot see, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and I outlined, that each offence could be so very different in its implications.
I hope that my noble friend will recognise that we are not seeking to let people get off when they have made mistakes but nor are we seeking to produce

199
anything remotely like the punitive regime that his rapid mathematics conjured up for us as the potential cost to utilities over the course of a year. Our concern is not to fine utilities or anyone else who causes obstruction. It is to make the highway as clear as possible and to ensure that people obey the law when it comes to any intrusion that they need to make. That is the basis behind the legislation. I hope that my noble friend will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord BerkeleyMy Lords, I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. It is a difficult problem. My fear was of the figure of £750 that has been bandied around. My noble friend is quite right: if it is a lower figure and a fixed penalty then it comes into the same category as fixed penalties for bus lane offences, yellow box offences or even speed camera offences, which we may be discussing later. If that is the level of penalty that is appropriate, I think everybody will be much happier. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 19, line 28, leave out "notices" and insert "offences"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 65 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 66, 96 and 97. These are minor technical amendments to the fixed penalty notices provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 65 corrects an error in Clause 40. The Bill incorrectly says that Schedule 4B makes provision "for fixed penalty notices". It should read "for fixed penalty offences".
Amendment No. 66 also amends Clause 40. It is not necessary to refer to the power to prescribe notices in relation to the New Roads and Street Works Act fixed penalties, as the power is already implicit in the existing provision in Section 97. The subsection is therefore deleted.
Clause 61(2) refers to a "penalty charge notice" as being disapplied from provisions relating to the service of notices under the Highways Act. Amendment No. 96 corrects this so that it only refers to a "notice". The "notice" will include the fixed penalty notice and a notice withdrawing a fixed penalty.
Amendment No. 97 inserts a new subsection into Clause 61 providing for a power in the New Roads and Street Works Act to prescribe notices for the Highways Act fixed penalty offences. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 66:
Page 19, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
200
Schedule 2 [Schedule 4A to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 61, line 37, at end insert—
"An offence under section 55(9) Failure to give notice in accordance with s.55(8) (notice to be given on s.55 notice ceasing to have effect)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Schedule 4B to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991]:
Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 68:
Page 64, line 8, at end insert—
"Appeals about fixed penalty notices
7A (1) A person who is given a fixed penalty notice under paragraph 1 may appeal against it on the ground that in all the circumstances—

it was unreasonable to give the notice to him; or

the amount of the penalty is unreasonable.

(2) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the hearing and determination of such appeals by independent adjudicators.
(3) Regulations under this section may, in particular, include provision—

for the appointment of such adjudicators;

for requiring the street authority whose officer gave the notice to reconsider, before an appeal is determined, whether the notice should be withdrawn; and

for giving effect to the adjudicators' decisions.

(4) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 68 follows on from our discussion of Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. It is about appeal procedures for fixed penalty notices. My noble friend very kindly tabled Amendments No. 47 and 49, which I think the House welcomed, on appeals in respect of permits. This amendment is designed to do the same for fixed penalty notices as an alternative to clogging up the court system at an intermediate stage. It is another attempt to find something that is a bit more acceptable to the Government than what I proposed in Committee. It is designed so that regulations could introduce a system of adjudication, which works well in other areas that we discussed in Committee. I do not think that I need speak to this amendment any longer. I hope that my noble friend will consider it. I beg to move.
Viscount AstorMy Lords, I support the principle behind this amendment because there should be some simple alternative to going straight to the courts to appeal on a fixed penalty notice. After all, a fixed penalty notice can be sent out for rather minor reasons or it might have the wrong address or the wrong date. As we know, that often happens. This way, it would mean that there would be less time in court and the process could happen simply and easily. It would not affect the system. I think that the Government may welcome the process.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, the Government do not welcome the process for the reasons that I

201
identified when we were discussing the earlier amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend. The fixed penalty system does not in itself make the offender any worse off than he is now under the existing provisions in the 1991 Act. The system is designed to offer a quick and efficient way of dealing with offences. The notice is simply a means of discharging liability for conviction.
As I mentioned in response to the previous amendment in which this issue was identified, if a utility believes that it should not have received a fixed penalty notice it can make representations and the authority will have to consider whether the fixed penalty notice should be withdrawn. If the authority still believes that the fixed penalty notice was justified, it would then be up to the utility to decide whether or not it wanted to pay it. If it chose not to pay, it would then be for the authority to decide whether it wanted to pursue the offence in court, where both sides could argue their respective cases.
We expect the utilities to behave reasonably. If the fixed penalty notice is justified and it is clear that the offence was committed, they would be able to make payment and that would be the end of the matter for both. That is the beauty of the concept. However, if they think that the authority was unreasonable, they are no worse off than they are now under the existing arrangements. They can refuse to pay and they can argue the facts of their case in court.
This system is not the same as a decriminalised penalty charge notice for a parking contravention. In such cases non-payment of the notice can of course be enforced. However, the fixed penalty notice does not confer guilt or innocence and there is no provision for its enforcement. We would accept that appeal or adjudication would be necessary if there was a provision to enforce it, but there just is not. If we provided for appeal or adjudication it would effectively rule out the courts' involvement in resolving the matter if an offence has been committed. That would mean decriminalising the offence.
However, we take these offences seriously. Notification of where and when works are taking place is essential if authorities are to co-ordinate works effectively. We do not wish to send out a message that these offences are in some way becoming less important and for that reason we do not wish to decriminalise them. It is important to have the ultimate sanction of the courts if need be. There are precedents for this type of system with fixed penalty notices, such as those for litter, dog fouling and fly posting.
That is the basis behind this scheme. We had an insight into it during the discussion of the previous amendment, when my noble friend was gracious enough to withdraw his amendment. I hope that I have fleshed matters out further so that he feels able to do the same with regard to this amendment.
Lord BerkeleyMy Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. Half way through his contribution I thought that he was issuing an invitation to the utilities to ignore any payment that they did not think was reasonable—but I do not think that he is saying that. However, there could come a time when, if there are a lot of complaints, the courts and local authority resources become clogged up. But we will have to see what happens. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 [Directions relating to timing of street works]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 69:
Page 20, line 33, at end insert—
"(1B) A direction may not be given under subsection (1A) in respect of works for which a permit has been issued under a permit scheme which is in effect under Part 3 of the Traffic Management Act 2004."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had this amendment in Committee. I had hoped that the Government's thinking had moved on somewhat and that we might hear rather more about how these two bits of legislation are expected to work together. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy Lords, the Bill would allow permit regulations to modify or disapply primary and subordinate legislation. One reason for that is to make sure that we do not duplicate certain controls. I said in Grand Committee that we would expect permit regulations to set aside various sections of the New Roads and Street Works Act, including provisions governing where, when and how works take place.
I hope that it is of great reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when I tell him that we have asked the working group of utilities and local authorities to consider precisely what legislation should be dealt with in this way. As the Government accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, these regulations will be subjected to the affirmative procedure, and Parliament will also have an opportunity to scrutinise them. I hope that, in these circumstances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord LucasMy Lords, he does. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 46 [Duties relating to the location of unexpected apparatus]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 23, line 17, leave out "and keeps"
The noble Viscount saidMy Lords, as we discussed in Committee, it seems sensible that any person or entity undertaking work on the streets who happens upon unexpected apparatus, which is referred to in Clause 46, should be asked to record it. It also seems sensible that

203
those records are held centrally. Clause 46(6)(5) allows for that. In Standing Committee in another place the Minister helpfully commented:

"It is right and sensible to set up a practical regulatory regime …that balances the need to ensure that all apparatus under the street is accurately recorded with not placing an unfair burden on the 'innocent persons carrying out the work'".
He continued:
"They are not responsible for what they find under the road, but as and when they find apparatus, it seems logical to mark it and inform whoever keeps the register".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 3/2/04; col. 229.]
Under the Government's proposals, the utilities that find an apparatus—it is most likely that the utilities will find them—will be asked to store and make records of the find. However, as the apparatus does not belong to them, it seems inappropriate to place on them the burden of storing it. Every utility's records will have to be searched to determine what is under the ground and what has been discovered there in the past. It would seem much more sensible to require the local authority, as the road network manager, to keep those records. That would better meet the need for record keeping without placing an unfair burden on innocent parties. It would also increase safety and accessibility of relevant information that is held by the interested parties, which will know where to look for it.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Evans—rather generously, I thought—said that we had laid out the problem very fairly and that the Government must think about the matter "between now and Report". I hope that he has had a chance to think carefully about it and will be able to give us his conclusions or helpful assurances. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was kind enough to refer to my noble friend's generous spirit. But I am not going to be outdone by my noble friend; I am going to seek to be equally generous.
We have not yet made a decision on when the regulations might be brought forward, but I expect that when the time comes the option for which the noble Viscount has argued will be one that the Government will consider very carefully indeed. We all recognise that there is a problem if we do not have a proper record of the location of apparatus as that could result in great damage and consequent massive disruption to traffic flows. A central register showing the location of apparatus may be set up in the future. In that case, it may be that all the undertaker would have to do is pass on the record to the person keeping the register. We are consulting on the regulations.
I assure the noble Viscount that we do not intend to place an unfair burden on those who find unmarked apparatus. If he doubts our good faith in these terms—and I am asking him to take the regulations on trust— it will come as some comfort to him that Section 80 of the New Roads and Street Works Act, which this clause amends, has never been commenced, precisely because the Government believe that, as it stood, it
204
would have placed too heavy a burden on the finder of the apparatus. So there has been a genuine recognition of the difficulties that attended the matter in the past.
I assure the noble Viscount that we intend to make progress with similar sensitivity. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount AstorMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. He has certainly satisfied our concerns. I thank him for taking the issue on board. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 73 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 74:
Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
"NOTICES OF STREET WORKS
(1) In section 54 of the 1991 Act (advance notice of certain works)—

in subsection (3) for "contain such" there is substituted "state the date on which it is proposed to begin the works and shall contain such other";

after subsection (4) there is inserted—

(4A) If an undertaker who has given advance notice under this section has not, before the starting date specified in the notice, given to the street authority a notice under section 55 in respect of the works, he shall within such period as may be prescribed give to that authority a notice containing such information as may be prescribed.
(4B) An advance notice under this section shall cease to have effect in relation to the proposed works (so that subsection (1) applies again in relation to the works) if those works are not substantially begun before the end of such period beginning with the starting date specified in the notice as may be prescribed, or such further period as the street authority may allow.
(4C) Different periods may be prescribed under subsection (4B) for different descriptions of works."
(2) In section 55 of that Act (notice of starting date of works) after subsection (7) there is inserted—
"(8) If a notice under this section ceases to have effect the undertaker shall, within such period as may be prescribed, give a notice containing such information as may be prescribed to those to whom the notice under this section was required to be given.
(9) An undertaker who fails to give notice in accordance with subsection (8) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale."
(3) In section 93 of that Act (works affecting level crossings or tramways) in subsection (2) for "(7)" there is substituted "(9)"."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Restriction on works following substantial street works]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 26, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) In section 57 of that Act (notice of emergency works)—

205
(a) in subsection (1) after "works)" there is inserted "or paragraph 2(1)(d) or 3(1) of Schedule 3A (notification of proposed works or directions as to timings of works)";
(b) in subsection (2) after "is" there is inserted "(or would, but for paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 3A, be)".
( ) In section 64 of that Act (traffic-sensitive streets) in subsection (1) after "works)" there is inserted "or paragraph 2 of Schedule 3A".
( ) In section 74 of that Act (charge for occupation of highway where works unreasonably prolonged) in subsection (3)(b) after "date)" there is inserted "or notification under paragraph 2(1)(d) of Schedule 3A (notification of proposed works)".
( ) In section 88 of that Act (provisions relating to bridges) in subsection (4) after "date)" there is inserted ", or making a notification under paragraph 2(1)(d) of Schedule 3A (notification of proposed works),".
( ) In section 89 of that Act (provisions relating to sewers) in subsection (2) after "date)" there is inserted ", or making a notification under paragraph 2(1)(d) of Schedule 3A (notification of proposed works),"."
The noble Lord said:My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 75, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77.
Amendment No. 75 makes minor drafting amendments to the Bill in relation to the notification of street works where restrictions on works following substantial street works are proposed.
Schedule 3A provides that if an authority intends to restrict the carrying out of further works in a particular street, it must publish a notice informing undertakers. Such a notice can also require the undertaker to notify the authority if it wishes to carry out works in that street before the restriction takes effect. This means that the normal requirement for the undertaker to send a notice of the starting date of any of its forthcoming works to the authority under Section 55 of the 1991 Act is replaced by noticing requirements under Schedule 3A.
Under the 1991 Act, a number of other actions need to be carried out in combination with the sending of a notice under Section 55. The amendment makes a number of consequential amendments to provide that these other actions also need to be carried out in relation to the notices required to be given by the undertaker under Schedule 3A. The amendment makes consequential amendments to the following parts of the 1991 Act: Section 57 (emergency works); Section 64 (traffic sensitive streets); Section 74 (charging for overrunning works); Section 88 (works affecting bridges); and Section 89 (works affecting sewers).
Under Schedule 3A, undertakers that want to carry out works before a restriction should notify the authority. Amendment No. 76 widens the power to prescribe the notification requirements so that the form and information contained in such notification can be prescribed as well as the manner of the notification.
Amendment No. 77 clarifies that the replacement of the Section 55 noticing arrangements with those under Schedule 3A relates to works which begin in the period between the deadline set by the authority for notifying it of works and the completion of all those works set
206
out under paragraph 3(1)(a) of the schedule. Other works will remain subject to the Section 55 arrangements.
Schedule 3A provides that in certain cases it is a criminal offence to carry out works before the restriction comes into force, where these are not notified to the authority or where they are carried out in defiance of a direction from the authority. The Bill provides that certain prescribed works could be carried out in this way without constituting an offence—for example, emergency works.
Amendment No. 77 also provides that the disapplication of the Section 55 noticing rules under paragraph 2(6) of the schedule would not apply to such prescribed works. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Schedule 3A to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 76 and 77:
Page 65, line 30, after "be" insert "in such form, contain such information, and be made"
Page 65, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—
"( ) Section 55 does not apply in relation to works in the part of the highway specified under sub-paragraph (1)(c) that are begun between the end of the notice period and completion of the works referred to in paragraph 3(1)(a) to (c).
This sub-paragraph does not apply to cases prescribed under paragraph 3(6)(b)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 78:
Page 66, line 21, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"( ) where no reasonable alternative method exists for the connection of a customer to a utility;"
The noble Lordsaid: My Lords, I hope that we may be able to hear a little more on how the Government's thinking has moved since Committee in conjunction with the thinking of the many committees working on the regulations. I am very fond of beautiful new tarmac. I bicycle into work most days, and the little holes and dips are extremely inconvenient. I have not yet been thrown off, but I shall be one day, thanks to Lambeth and its cohorts. Therefore, I am all in favour of smooth roads, but none the less if someone wants a utility connection, that should be allowed, even though the road has just been redone. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord moved his amendment. I have sympathy for his cycling endeavours.
I emphasise that Schedule 3A already allows regulations to allow certain types of work to be carried out during a restriction period. We have asked a working group on utilities and authorities to consider what exemptions should be allowed for.
Existing regulations providing equivalent powers for restrictions after substantial road works set out exemptions for urgent works, and also for customer connections which it was not practicable to carry out

207
before the restriction began. No decision has yet been taken on what exemptions it would be sensible to allow for in relation to this new power.
We believe that it would be sensible to retain flexibility to provide for exemptions in secondary legislation so that initial decisions can be taken in the light of expert advice and public consultation, and so that if it proved necessary, particular categories of works could be added to or taken away from the list of exemptions in the future. We are seeking to maintain a degree of flexibility on this. I hope that in the light of those comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord LucasMy Lords, I think that is about as much comfort as I am going to get, and I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Power of street authority to require undertaker to re-surface street]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 27, line 24, leave out from "to" to end of line and insert—"(a) execute such re-surfacing works in the street as may be specified, or
(b) make a specified financial contribution to the cost of future resurfacing works,"
The noble Lord said:My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 79, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 and 82.
There is to my mind a rather more serious question involved here. I think we all agree that liability should be placed on people who dig up the road to put it back nicely. I do not think that any of us are arguing against that. It is a question of whether we can put utilities in a position where they can quantify the liability, ideally at the time when they are doing the installation, so that they can make a proper charge to the customer, certainly within a reasonable time limit, and can provide properly in their balance sheets for this liability. I beg to move.
Viscount AstorMy Lords, I take this opportunity to ask some questions about how resurfacing affects utilities. It seems to me that this could be a responsibility that they might have to carry for some time. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister in responding to my noble friend could say something about the circumstances and the timescale that will apply to the duty to resurface roads. How long would a company be liable to resurface the road to the standard required after the works have finished? Will there be a cut-off date? This is possibly a liability that the company would have to accrue on its accounts. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how this would work. I presume that a utility could, as it were, pass the responsibility on to someone else to carry out, or pay someone else to do it. It would be helpful if the Minister would explain how he envisages Clause 53 operating.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to the debate, although I am afraid that I have a very limited answer. On the
208
question of timescale, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, appropriately drew attention, we have not taken a decision. We recognise that it is an important matter, and it is under active consideration, but we have not reached a decision on it.
A number of important points were made by the two speakers to the amendment, and we discussed the issue extensively in Grand Committee when important points were also made. I reiterate that the Government envisage that the powers would be used only where serious problems arose and where a succession of works had left roads in a particularly bad condition. We hope that those will be relatively exceptional circumstances. Regulation will place appropriate limitations on the circumstances in which the powers could be used. That would obviously also involve the question of the time factor to which the noble Viscount referred.
I can give an assurance that the powers will not provide authorities with a neat way of having their roads resurfaced at someone else's expense. Indeed, as noble Lords will recognise, assurances were given in another place that we envisage that, however the costs of resurfacing will be shared between the various parties in the circumstances, the authority itself will still be expected to make the largest contribution.
7.30 p.m.
The government amendments on the resurfacing powers clarify the responsibilities of undertakers to contribute to resurfacing in appropriate circumstances. They also clarify the processes involved. That, together with powers under Section 78 of the New Roads and Street Works Act, covers the aims behind Amendments Nos. 79 and 82. Those and finer details, such as of what formula might be put in place to determine which bodies pay how much, and to which works the power could apply, will be set out in regulations. I draw attention to the fact that the Bill would apply the affirmative procedure to the first set of such regulations, so there would be proper and full parliamentary scrutiny of what we all recognise are important regulations. The negative procedure would apply only to subsequent refinements to the legislation.
As and when the regulations are brought forward, they will be developed with the help of authorities and utilities, and will be subjected to public consultation. I agree that the question of how utility companies' balance sheets might reflect those resurfacing costs is a difficult one. However, the effect of the government amendments is that the liability to resurface or to contribute to the cost of resurfacing will arise only in connection with works undertaken after commencement of the clauses, irrespective of whether regulations have been made under them. That is an important point. We are not engaged in the exercise of a retrospective recouping of resources from utilities.
The Government believe that the broad powers in the Bill reflect a justifiable principle; namely, that where utilities' street works have made a significant contribution towards damaging a road, the utilities in question should contribute towards the necessary resurfacing. Amendment No. 81 will be recognised as

209
a problem, as it would undermine that by limiting liability only to undertakers planning to carry out future works.
We cannot emphasise too much that the road network is one of our most valuable national assets in resource accounting terms. The Highways Agency's road network alone is valued at £65 billion, and the 10-year plan set aside £30 billion for local authorities to maintain their road networks between 2000 and 2010. We should not be content to see such valuable assets and high levels of investment undermined. With that in mind, and with the reassurance that the regulations will be brought to Parliament for scrutiny in the light of public consultation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord LucasMy Lords, of course I shall withdraw the amendment. I shall consult my noble friend on the Front Bench to see whether we can think of anything ingenious that we might bring forward at Third Reading. The Minister gives lots of reassurances, but nothing in the fundamental legislation will prevent it being used much more extensively than the Minister says will be the case initially. If we could find a way to limit things reasonably closely to the promises given by the Minister, that would be desirable, but that will take some reading and thinking. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingMy 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.

Asylum Support (Amendment)(No. 2)Regulations 2004
7.34 p.m.
Lord Aveburyrose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 13 May, be annulled (S.I. 2004/1313).
The noble Lord said:My Lords, the regulations abolish the six-monthly single additional payments of £50 to NASS-supported asylum seekers. When the SAPs were introduced, the argument was that support was provided largely in the form of vouchers with only a small cash element, making it difficult for the recipients to save for larger purchases and limiting where they could shop. At the end of the six months, the £50 was to make up for that disadvantage.
The scheme was ended in April 2002 when the vouchers were replaced by cash payments equal to 70 per cent of income support—£38.96 for a single person over 25, and £61.11 for a married couple—plus their accommodation and utility bills. When the order abolishing the vouchers was debated in March 2002, my noble friend Lord Dholakia asked the noble Lord,
210
Lord Bassam—I am glad to see that he will reply this evening—to explain the arithmetic. The Minister then said:
"The calculation has been made that the discount, the 30 per cent, is approximate to the value of housing accommodation which is fully furnished and has all the necessary utensils and furniture in place. It is felt that 70 per cent is a fair reflection of the true cash needs of asylum seekers and that the 30 per cent covers utility payments such as rent and so on. It is assumed that that is all included".—[Official Report, 14/3/02; col. 1018.]
The Minister was evidently confused by the difference between utility payments and rents, so can we get that straight from the start? From the initiation of the voucher scheme in the 1999 Act, both the rent and the furnished accommodation were provided, and the utilities were paid for separately. It was calculated that the support provided was equivalent to 90 per cent of income support, as was explained by the Home Secretary at the time, Mr Jack Straw, in another place on 16 June 1999.
When the vouchers were scrapped in 2002 because the Government finally conceded that cash benefits did not after all provide an incentive to come here for non-genuine claimants—as Mr Straw said that he strongly believed less than three years before—the value of the package remained unchanged. Therefore, people on NASS support still received 10 per cent less than if they had been entitled to ordinary income support and housing benefit. For a single person, that comes to £434 over the six months before which he becomes entitled to the SAP £50.
In response to the representations made by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby about the hardship felt by people who had been on NASS support for more than six months, Lord Williams of Mostyn explained that the Government had,
"decided to introduce a discretionary payment to asylum seekers who stay in the support system through no fault of their own for more than six months".—[Official Report, 2/11/99; col. 824.]
It was acknowledged that long-term asylum seekers would not have the money to replace essential household durables, or buy expensive replacement items such as children's shoes. In that respect, they were different from natives or persons settled here, who were entitled to income support. No one suggested, as the Government do in the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the order, that the £50 would actually make asylum seekers better off than UK citizens. That is a specious argument worthy of the Sun or Daily Mail.
Utility bills were always paid from the inception of the national scheme in 2000. It was that, together with the value of fully furnished accommodation, that took the NASS-supported asylum seeker up to 90 per cent of the level of those on income support. Now the Government come along and say—as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, did on 15 June when we debated the ending of back-payments𠅅that the value of those items comes to 30 per cent, not the 20 per cent of the income support with which it is compared. NASS pays for the bare necessities, and the model contract does not specify, as some malign commentators have suggested, that telephones, TVs, new cookers or washing machines would be provided. For a married couple, it is assumed

211
that basic utilities and household durables will come to 30 per cent of income support of £87.30 a week or £681 over six months, the difference between the NASS payments and income support.
I want the Minister to listen carefully to my arithmetic, because it is the basis of my challenge to the regulations. Comparing the £87.30 with the detailed household expenditure figures for the bottom 10 per cent of households by income in table 1.3 of Family Spending—a report on the Expenditure and Food survey, for 2002—03, published this month by the Office for National Statistics, household goods and services less routine maintenance, such as cleaning materials, came to £9 per week and electricity, gas and water to £11.80 per week. The total of those items for six months was £540.80, compared with the difference of £681, which I have calculated before, between NASS payments and income support. So the payments made on behalf of the asylum seeker couple leaves them short of £140 at the end of the six months, compared with their counterparts on income support. The continuation of this payment of SAP 𠄔£50 to each—would still leave the couple out of pocket to the tune of £40.
In the debate on back payments, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that, on the basis of the number granted asylum and the average wait for decisions of six months, the cost of back payments came to about £11 million per year. I worked out a cost of £1 million on 16,000 successful appeals and on an average wait of three months. I took the number of successful appeals dealt with by the IAA in the first quarter of 2004 and multiplied that by four, which is likely to be an overestimate given that the rate of appeals is declining and will be reduced still further as the backlog is cleared and non-suspensive appeals kick in.
Regarding the wait, the Government are to be congratulated on speeding up initial decisions so that 80 per cent of cases are now dealt with inside two months. In 2002–03, 87 per cent were dealt with within six months. If one took 13 per cent of the 575 favourable decisions on initial applications in the first quarter of this year, it would come to 75 per cent. If those 4,000 successful appellants had been waiting for an average of six months, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggested, it could be assumed that half of those would have qualified for that payment. That is also an overestimate, given that the average figure is weighted by the small proportion of appellants whose cases take much longer to resolve. The total cost would then be about £100,000 per quarter and falling. That is a small amount, but not insignificant in the budgets of people who have been trying to exist for the previous six months on levels lower than income support.
Another way of looking at the 30 per cent claim made by Ministers in recent months would be to examine the number of people who receive support from NASS, the length of time that each recipient is supported and the total cost. Unfortunately, NASS does not maintain its accounts in a way that would enable such an assessment to be made. The independent review of
212
NASS, submitted to the Government in May 2003, but published only recently after a nine-month delay, said that the authors found,
"a worrying lack of financial discipline permeating the organisation, stemming … from the fact that NASS has never had a meaningful three-year budget to work to".
Two months after beginning of the financial year, NASS did not even have a budget for the current year, 2003–04. That was because the IND was still engaged in discussions with the Treasury about its own budget. A figure of £35 million as its running costs was mentioned in the review, but that did not include payments to the asylum seekers.
The review gave some statistics on the applications for NASS support and the numbers receiving subsistence only and, respectively, full support, but there was no indication of the length of time for which they were receiving that support. If the original targets in the White Paper are reached, the majority of asylum seekers would not be in receipt of NASS support for more than six months; and a diminishing number of SAP claims would then be made.
I hope that the Minister can assist the House, first, by telling us what the NASS budget is for 2004–05 and, secondly, by telling us the calculations on which that budget is based. There are no figures whatever on the NASS website, which is one of the least informative that I have looked at of any public sector organisation. In the past year I must have looked at several hundred websites relating to local and national government. How many people, is it assumed, will be on subsistence-only benefit and how many will be on full support during the year and for what average time? The Minister must have had those figures, otherwise it would have been impossible to construct the budget. If we knew the figures we could assess the Minister's claim that the value of utility payments and household expenses amounted to 30 per cent of income level and not to the 20 per cent originally stated by Jack Straw.
7.45 p.m.
Two further reasons were given by the Government for abolishing the SAPs in an e-mail to stakeholders on 11 May. First, the Government said that it would be difficult to continue to make the payments given that UK citizens receiving income support had no access to additional payments. That is wrong. In fact, people on income support have access to Social Fund payments, which depend on individual circumstances and needs; and they may also apply for community care grants if, say, they have an unsettled way of life or their households face exceptional pressure. That grant could be used to pay for the same article or service every 26 weeks, which is the same interval between successive payments of SAP. Asylum seekers have an unsettled way of life, by definition, and face exceptional pressure. Unlike most people on income support, they left behind them when they fled their countries a lifetime of possessions and usually arrived in the UK with few clothes, household items or standard belongings, such as radios and TVs.

213
Secondly, it was said that the administrative costs of processing the SAP claims was disproportionate. I do agree with the Government in that matter. The solution is to make the payments automatic, like, say, winter fuel allowances for pensioners. Even if the Government's 100 per cent claim was correct, it would not apply to those who opt for NASS subsistence-only support or who receive cash payments amounting to 70 per cent of income support. That was confirmed in a Home Office fact sheet, published in May. Nor does the 100 per cent claim apply to asylum seekers who fail to apply within three days of arriving in the country. Whatever the reasons for the delay, they receive nothing at all and have to live on thin air while they wait for their applications to be decided.
This is a mean proposal to save taxpayers a small amount of money at the expense of some of the worst-off people in this country and I am sorry that the Government brought it forward. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 13 May, be annulled (S.I. 2004/1313).— (Lord Avebury.)
Viscount BridgemanMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing this matter before the House for due consideration and discussion. While I am grateful to the noble Lord for highlighting this highly topical issue, we on these Benches cannot support the line that he is taking, although the noble Lord has, at least, given us an insight into the disorganised state—or the not "joined-up" state, to use the current phrase—of the asylum legislation in this country. Somewhat vicariously I look forward to seeing whether the Minister and the noble Lord can settle their arithmetical differences.
I should like to take this opportunity to raise other grave concerns about the state of asylum in this country. We how have a situation where, on the one hand, the Government are withdrawing single additional payments to asylum seekers, while at the same time we read in the press that approximately 25,000 properties rented to asylum seekers are empty due to a lack of tenants, allegedly costing the Government £110 million a year. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour raised this matter yesterday at Report stage on the re-committal of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, to which the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in cols. 38 and 39 of Hansard, gave a spirited, but not wholly convincing reply. In a period of acute housing shortage and at this huge cost, this is a failure of resource management on the part of the Government on a massive scale and I hope that the Minister can give us some more information on how the Government propose to address the problem.
It appears that the Government have never been able to develop a proper system of asylum that benefits both the applicants and the country at large. Apart from the well-documented difficulties in processing applications and tracking their progress, it is becoming increasingly difficult to remove failed asylum seekers due to the implementation of the Human Rights Act. Currently the Government face a major court defeat
214
over a ruling that a policy denying shelter to asylum seekers breached human rights law. This is yet another example of the chaotic asylum situation that we have in Britain today.
On these Benches, we would urge the Government to think through the implications of their policy instead of pushing through asylum Bill after asylum Bill and ending up with challenges in the courts due to their ill thought-out policies. We all know that the Home Secretary does not like challenges in the courts.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord for introducing this interesting debate. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister's reply.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising this issue. I congratulate him on doing so with his customary charm and precision. He is good at following up these points and it is right and proper that we, as the Government, are held to account for what we seek to do with the asylum process and the improvements and changes we make.
It is worth reminding ourselves where we have come from and put on record how the Government see the position changing. On 3 April 2000, we revised the system of support for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. This provided that support would mainly be provided "in kind", through vouchers. These were exchangeable for goods at shops affiliated to the scheme. They were issued to supported asylum seekers. A small amount of the support entitlement—£10 for each supported person—was issued in cash.
Vouchers were unpopular with many asylum seekers and their representatives and many working in the voluntary sector who give aid to asylum seekers. Concern was expressed that the use of vouchers was socially divisive and demeaning. Asylum seekers complained that the limitations on the number of outlets affiliated to the scheme limited their choice. Asylum seekers could not, for example, purchase food from markets or use low-budget and charity shops to obtain necessary clothing.
The Home Secretary ordered a review of the voucher system and published its findings on 29 October 2001. At the same time, he announced that all asylum seekers would be issued with application registration cards— ARCs, as they have become known to the trade. The voucher scheme was to be superseded once these cards were introduced. The Home Secretary said that,
"by the Autumn of 2002 we will have established a robust but less socially divisive scheme".
Application registration cards were introduced much more quickly. Goods vouchers ceased to be issued in March 2002 and from April 2002 all regular support payments to asylum seekers have been made in cash.
The purpose of paragraph 2 of the Asylum Support (Amendment)(No. 2) Regulations is to remove the now obsolete references to vouchers in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. That has been broadly welcomed. This amendment is solely aimed at tidying

215
up the regulations as vouchers have not been issued for over two years. It is therefore appropriate to remove references in the 2000 regulations to voucher support and to replace them with terms relating to the provision of cash support.
Paragraph 4 of the same regulations revokes Regulation 11 of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. This provided that asylum seekers and their dependants in receipt of support for a continuous period of six months could apply for a single additional payment of £50. That has caused the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to table this Motion.
As the noble Lord acknowledged, asylum support is set at 70 per cent of the income support levels for adults and 100 per cent for children. The level of asylum support is intended to reflect the fact that NASS-supported asylum seekers do not have to meet the cost of accommodation, furnishings or utility bills. Single additional payments have previously been payable to asylum seekers after six months if their claim was still outstanding and thereafter at six-monthly periods to asylum seekers whose claims were awaiting a final determination.
On 25 March this year, Beverley Hughes, the then Minister, announced in a Written Statement that single additional payments to asylum seekers and their dependants supported by NASS were to cease. Single additional payments were introduced when support was provided mostly in the form of vouchers exchangeable for goods, with only a small cash element. The six-monthly payments of £50 in cash were intended for the purchase of renewable items such as clothing. Now that support is provided entirely in cash, asylum seekers are no longer limited to where they can shop and can get better value for their money by visiting markets and charity shops. That point was argued in discussions and debates on the need to replace vouchers.
The payment of support in cash gives those who receive asylum support a greater amount of flexibility and choice in how they spend their support and allows them to shop at a wider range of outlets. As a result, they can budget more effectively and shop at the most competitive retailers.
Asylum seekers can still apply for a ?300 maternity payment and since March 2003 additional support for pregnant women and children under three has meant that the level of asylum support has increased overall for these more vulnerable groups.
We intend to phase out these payments over six months following their abolition to ensure that final payment is received by all of those eligible up to the date of abolition. The changed effected by the Asylum Support (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2004 are intended to improve the Government's system of asylum support.
Some concern has been raised about the difference in the way support is paid to asylum seekers as opposed to income support and jobseeker's allowance, which is payable to UK residents. There is no direct
216
comparison between asylum support and income support or jobseeker's allowance, which are intended to serve different roles in supporting people.
Asylum support is paid to eligible asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute and is intended to provide a safety net for those who are in need of help while deterring those who may attempt to abuse our asylum system for the economic benefit it may bring. The level of financial support paid to adults is, as commonly agreed, set at 70 per cent of income support levels. Children receive 100 per cent of the personal allowance paid for children and families in receipt of income support. This level of support is intended to reflect the fact that NASS-supported asylum seekers do not have to meet the cost of accommodation, furnishings or utility bills.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help the House. I gave some calculations based on recent statistics published by the Government showing that the value of the accommodation, furnishings and utility bills paid by the state on behalf of the asylum seeker did not come to 30 per cent claimed by the Minister or by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. They came to 23 per cent and therefore the asylum seeker was out of pocket to the tune of 7 per cent as compared with someone receiving basic income support. Will the noble Lord address that part of my arithmetic?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, in his earlier contribution, the noble Lord said that he wanted me to listen carefully to what he had to say and I did. The noble Lord has given us statistics and his own calculations and I should like to have the opportunity to reflect on them. I am more than happy to write to him going over the points he has raised because it may be a more useful and constructive way of dealing with the issue. The noble Lord knows that this has been a rough-and-ready approach, but we have provided improvements. I have previously argued the case from the Dispatch Box—and I am happy to do so again today— that we are providing a safety net for those who are destitute. I believe that the noble Lord understands that.
In developing the asylum system, we are trying to drive up the efficiency and effectiveness of the support system. We now have through NASS 12 established offices in the regions of the UK. Staff already deal with "outreach" work, involving visiting newly arrived asylum seekers to help them access services, housing management and investigations. Regional management teams liaise closely with local authorities and others to ensure an effective system of support. That is particularly helpful in continuing the improvement of community relations and in ensuring that we preserve community cohesion, which is an extremely important part of their work.
It is worth putting on the record that we do not see this as the end of our plans for NASS to have a greater presence in the regions. We are now working on decentralising to the regions some of the NASS casework which is carried out in Croydon. We are approaching that with care and sensitivity because it is important that the processes that are in place enable the work to be done well and effectively.

217
NASS is also working on procuring new contracts for accommodation—a matter about which I know the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, is concerned —post 2005 when the current ones expire. Again, NASS is working closely with local authorities on that as it is vital that we take account of local issues in determining where to place asylum seekers.
Budgetary pressure has encouraged NASS to make efforts to reduce its costs, and it is estimated that the abolition of the discretionary single additional payment will save approximately £4 million in the next financial year. The Government are also proposing to abolish back-payments of income support to successful asylum seekers and to replace that with a refugee integration loan, which will be available on application to those who qualify. We want the asylum process to be as efficient, as timely and as effective as possible. Therefore, we believe that it should be forward-looking and that we should look to move away from retrospective payments that, in effect, reward time spent as an asylum seeker.
It is important to remember that no scheme directly equivalent to the single additional payments scheme is available to United Kingdom citizens who receive income support or jobseeker's allowance. Therefore, we intend to proceed with the Asylum Support (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations as implemented.
There were a few other points which I do not think I covered in my commentary on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I want to reiterate that I do not believe that I was confused when debating these matters earlier. It is our contention that asylum seekers receive roughly the same amount as those on income support when payments in kind are taken properly into account. I know that the noble Lord disputes those figures. I am not saying that they add up exactly; I am saying that they are broadly the same.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, if we can prove from the statistics, as I think I have done with the figures that I gave, which, after all, are the Government's own figures, that the asylum seeker is worse off to the tune of 7 per cent of the value of income support compared with the native who is on the basic rate of income support, will the noble Lord reconsider what he said? He said that the objective of the Government is to put people on broadly the same footing as those on income support. If it can be proved that they are considerably worse off than someone on income support, will the Government take action to correct that?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, that is not the kind of commitment that I intend to give from the Dispatch Box. But, of course, the Government always keep carefully under review the levels of support that are provided through schemes. We can argue the finite detail of these matters, but I believe that we are providing a scheme which is effective, which covers the fundamental needs of asylum seekers and which I think many would say is generous in the way in which it works and in its application.
We have to stick to budgets. NASS now has a budget. I am happy to provide the noble Lord with some more details and I shall be happy to write to him
218
on that point. We are working to achieve a better level of prediction in terms of the demand for asylum support in the context of the 2005 accommodation strategy.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked a further question, which I believe concerned the denial of support to late applicants and whether that had been the subject of litigation under human rights law. In our view, Section 55 has played its part in reducing the asylum intake. The Court of Appeal has granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords and the Government are preparing their case further. I hope that that clears up the point raised by the noble Viscount.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising this issue and I appreciate the sensitive nature of it, but we in government believe that we have a responsibility to the nation to provide proper systems of support. However, those systems of support must be effective and efficiently organised and must also keep to budget.
Viscount BridgemanMy Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he give an assurance—if he is not able to answer it tonight, perhaps we can have something in writing—about the large stock of houses which remains unoccupied at great cost to the taxpayer?
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I shall be happy to write to the noble Viscount. I think that his point relates to an article in the Sunday Times. I can furnish him with some additional details and perhaps it would be better if I dealt with that matter in correspondence.
Lord AveburyMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the information that he has given to the House but, as he will realise from my last intervention, the fundamental point I made still remains. I say that it is wrong to withdraw the £50 single additional payment (SAP) because the asylum seeker who has been on NASS support for six months, and who would otherwise have received that payment but for the order now before us, would have been worse off if he was on full NASS support, to the tune of 7 per cent; if he was on subsistence only he would be worse off to the tune of 30 per cent; and if he was one of the Section 55 cases to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred, he would be worse off to the tune of 100 per cent.
So someone who has been a victim of Section 55 of the 1999 Act who has been living on thin air for six months would then receive this small amount of £50 and the Minister proposes to remove that. He proposes to remove the £50 from people who, by definition, are worse off to the tune of 30 per cent because they were on subsistence only. As the Minister and everyone else has acknowledged, that amounts to 70 per cent of income support. The Minister has not produced any alternative figures to contest my basic calculation that someone on full NASS support, living in NASS provided accommodation and getting his utility bills and household expenses paid for is still

219
7 per cent worse off than a native or a person who has indefinite leave to remain and who is receiving normal income support.
The Government say that it is their objective to put the asylum seeker on broadly the same footing as if he was on income support. I have demonstrated from government figures that that is not being achieved. Irrespective of what is decided tonight—clearly, we shall pass the order and the £50 single additional payment will disappear—I beg the Government to look carefully at the figures that I have provided. If they think that there are alternative figures, either from the NASS accounts, which I have not been able to access or from any other source, which will show that the accommodation and the utility payments on behalf of the asylum seekers are worth 30 per cent and not 20 per cent as Mr Jack Straw said originally, then we should get together and discuss this.
There is a dispute between us. We have produced some figures. The Government have not produced their calculation and it is a rather unsatisfactory way to end this debate for me to have shown my arithmetic to the Government and for them not to have satisfied the House with any alternative. In the circumstances, there is no more I can do this evening than to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of BrightonMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 8.35 p.m.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.9 until 8.35 p.m.]

Traffic Management Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 53.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 27, line 27, after "of" insert ", or made a notification under paragraph 2(1)(d) of Schedule 3A in respect of,"
The noble said:My Lords, Clause 53 provides powers for a street authority to require an undertaker to resurface a street or part of a street in circumstances that will be prescribed in regulations. Such an undertaker would have to be carrying out works, have carried out works previously or have sent a notice under Sections 54 or 55 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 that it plans to carry out works on the stretch of road in question. This is listed in the Bill in subsection (2) of new Section 73A, inserted by Clause 53.
If an authority has issued a notice under Section 58A of the 1991 Act of its intention to carry out substantial road works, undertakers do not have to send the normal Section 54 and 55 notices. Amendment No. 80 clarifies that undertakers can still
220
be subject to the resurfacing requirements, if they propose to carry out works on the road that is subject to the resurfacing notice.
Amendment No. 83 clarifies that an undertaker cannot be required to resurface a particular road, or stretch of road, if the works which he carried out in the road took place before the date on which Clause 53, inserting the new Section 73A, is commenced.
Amendment No. 88 makes similar provision for limiting the liability of other undertakers to contribute to the cost of resurfacing under Clause 55, which inserts new Section 78A. The effect of these amendments is that the liability to resurface or to contribute to the cost of resurfacing will arise only in connection with works undertaken after commencement of the clauses, irrespective of whether regulations have been made under those clauses.
Amendment No. 84 simply makes explicit that it is the road surface, rather than any other works that the undertaker may be carrying out, that will be subject to any performance standards that may be prescribed under this new Section 73A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84:
Page 28, line 11, at end insert—
"(8) The reference in subsection (2)(c) to the execution of street works is a reference to the execution of such works after the commencement of this section (whether or not regulations under it have been made)."
Page 28, line 34, leave out "those works conform" and insert "the new surface conforms"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 54 [Re-surfacing: regulations and guidance]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 85:
Page 29, line 19, leave out "is entitled to pay a sum" and insert "may elect to make a payment"
The noble Lord said:My Lords, Clause 54 provides for regulations in relation to aspects of resurfacing by inserting new Section 73D into the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. New subsection (2)(d) allows regulations to set out circumstances in which an undertaker who has been asked to carry out resurfacing can choose to ask the highway authority to carry out the work in return for a contribution to the cost of the works. The subsection also allows for the calculation of such a contribution.
Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 tidy up the wording in this subsection. The intention is that whether the undertaker or the authority carry out the works, the basis for apportioning the costs between the parties should be the same.
Undertakers have duties under Section 70 of the 1991 Act to reinstate the road after their works. "Reinstatement" in this context covers both temporary and permanent reinstatement, and the road surface as well as the material beneath.

221
Amendment No. 87 provides for regulations to relieve undertakers contributing to the cost of resurfacing works of their duties under Section 70, wholly or partly. It mirrors the provisions in new Section 73A(4) for the undertaker to whom the resurfacing notice has been issued. The amendment will be most relevant where more than one undertaker was working at a similar time. It would be wasteful for one undertaker to be obliged to carry out a full reinstatement of the road surface over his works, if another undertaker or the authority was shortly to carry out resurfacing over a wider area. However, an interim reinstatement might still be needed. Amendment No. 87 will allow appropriate regulations to be developed for practical ways of dealing with this in discussion with utilities and authorities. I beg to move.
Lord RotherwickMy Lords, these amendments aim to clarify that an undertaker asked to resurface a road can choose to ask the highways authority to do the work in exchange for the undertaker contributing towards the cost of the works. They would also allow for regulations to determine how the amount of any such contribution will be calculated and to provide for authorities to send a notice to an undertaker relieving it of its legal duty to reinstate the road after carrying out works.
The utilities industry still fails to see how that clarifies that an undertaker can choose to ask the authority to undertake resurfacing in exchange for a payment. It argues that the wording has been changed but still has the same meaning. It also remains extremely concerned that the regulations do not provide undertakers with a choice but will prescribe circumstances where an undertaker is entitled to pay a sum. Can the Minister outline under what circumstances an undertaker can choose to pay rather than resurface the road itself? Will they have to meet set criteria? Will they have a choice or will it be decided for them? When will they be able to give the industry fuller information on the issue? I look forward to the Minister's response on the matter.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will recognise that we do not have the draft regulations yet and that we are involved in consultation on these very interesting issues. He has rightly identified some of the most significant and salient points. I thought that I had identified the position in speaking to the amendments in which we had met some of the anxieties represented by undertakers. I take on board the points that he has made and assure him that we intend to clarify these matters. We have gone as far as we can with the amendments at this stage. If the noble Lord is still dissatisfied I am sure that we will return to it at Third Reading. In the mean time, I assure him that the regulations will take account of these points. Of course they are subject to development.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 86 and 87:
Page 29, leave out line 22 and insert "calculation of the amount of such payments;"
Page 29, line 36, at end insert—
"( )The regulations may provide that where a re-surfacing notice has been served on an undertaker, the street authority may (in such circumstances and to such extent as may be prescribed) by notice relieve any other undertaker within section 73A(2) of his duty under section 70 to reinstate the surface of the street."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 55 [Contributions to costs of re-surfacing by undertaker]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 88:
Page 30, line 24, after "has," insert "after the commencement of this section (whether or not regulations under it have been made) and"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 89:
Page 30, line 34, after "provision" insert"—
(a) requiring a street authority, within such period of such event as may be prescribed, to give to an undertaker to whom subsection (2) applies a notice containing such information as may be prescribed;
(b) requiring a street authority to pay to an undertaker to whom it has given a re-surfacing notice such sum as he has been unable to recover under subsection (1)(b) on account of the insolvency of an undertaker;
(c)"
The noble Lord said:My Lords, Clause 55 inserts new Section 78A into the New Roads and Street Works Act. It provides that an undertaker who has carried out works in the past in a street that is to be resurfaced can be required to contribute towards the cost of resurfacing. Amendment No. 89 provides that regulations can be made to ensure that relevant undertakers are explicitly informed of their requirement to contribute, by requiring the highway authority to send a notice to them.
The amendment also makes clear that regulations will be able to ensure that where one of the undertakers who has previously carried out work is now insolvent, the highway authority will have to meet any share of the costs that cannot be recovered as a result. It would be unreasonable for those costs to fall on the other undertakers, who are already contributing to the costs of the resurfacing. Amendment No. 91 is consequential, and provides a definition of "insolvency".
I have previously mentioned our intention to provide a consistent approach to these resurfacing provisions, whether an undertaker or the authority carries out the actual resurfacing work. Amendment No. 90 does this by providing that subsections (1) to (5) of the new Section 78A inserted by Clause 55—which allows regulations to set out the arrangements for the making of payments—apply in both cases; that is, not only where the undertaker issued with a resurfacing notice carries out the work, but where it has chosen instead to ask the authority to do the work in exchange for a contribution.
Finally, on resurfacing, new subsection (6B) of Amendment No. 90 enables a link to be made between Section 78 of the 1991 Act and the resurfacing provisions

223
in the Bill. Section 78 provides for payments to an authority by an undertaker in respect of the long-term damage to the road structure that their street works caused. This section has never been commenced. If or when it is commenced in the future, this amendment will enable previous payments, or payments due under Section 78, to be taken into account when calculating contributions for resurfacing. Otherwise, undertakers could conceivably be liable to pay twice for the same consequences of their work, and that would be unreasonable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 90 and 91:
Page 30, line 42, at end insert—
"(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision (corresponding to subsections (1) to (5)) requiring undertakers to make payments to a street authority where—
(a) the authority has given a re-surfacing notice to an undertaker,
(b) that undertaker has exercised a right, conferred by regulations under section 73D, of the sort mentioned in subsection (2)(d) of that section, and
(c) the authority has carried out any of the works specified in the notice.
(6B) Regulations under this section may make different provision for cases where an undertaker mentioned in subsection (1) or (6A) has made, or is liable to make, a payment under section 78."
Page 31, line 2, at end insert—
"(8) In subsection (5)(b) "insolvency"—
(a) in relation to a company, has the meaning given by section 247(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986;
(b) in relation to an individual, includes the approval of a voluntary arrangement under Part 8 of that Act."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—
"INSPECTION FEES
(1) In section 72 of the 1991 Act (powers of street authority in relation to reinstatement) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(2A) The Secretary of State may prescribe a fee in respect of a prescribed description of inspection mentioned in subsection (2).
If he does so that subsection has effect, in relation to that description of inspection, as if for "he shall bear the cost of" there were substituted "he shall pay the prescribed fee in respect of".
(2B) The power to make different provision under subsection (2A) for different cases includes power—
(a) to make different provision for different descriptions of street authority or undertakers;
(b) to prescribe different fees by reference to the nature or extent of the inspection, the place where it is carried out and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant."
224
(2) For section 75 of that Act (inspection fees) there is substituted—
"75 INSPECTION FEES
(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an undertaker to pay to the street authority the prescribed fee in respect of—
(a) all inspections carried out by the authority of his street works; or
(b) such inspections of those works as may be prescribed.
(2) The regulations may—
(a) require undertakers to make payments in respect of inspections anticipated to take place within a prescribed period; and
(b) make provision for the striking of an account between an undertaker and a street authority and the making of any necessary payment or repayment.
(3) The power to make different provision under this section for different cases includes power—
(a) to make different provision for different descriptions of street authority or different descriptions of undertakers (including descriptions framed by reference to their previous performance);
(b) to prescribe different fees by reference to the nature or extent of the excavation or other works, the place where they are executed and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.
(4) The reference in subsection (3)(a) to the previous performance of an undertaker is to the performance of the undertaker, during such period as may be prescribed, as respects such description of his duties under this Part as may be prescribed.
(5) The regulations may require disputes of any prescribed description to be determined by arbitration.
(6) Nothing in this section applies to inspections in respect of which the undertaker is obliged to bear the cost, or pay the prescribed fee, under section 72(2) (inspections consequent on failure to comply with duties as to reinstatement).""
The noble Lord said:My Lords, Section 75 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 provides that statutory undertakers shall pay a fee to the street authority for each inspection of their works that the street authority carries out. These inspections are to make sure that the works are carried out to the required standard. The Secretary of State prescribes the inspection regime in regulations. These currently allow a street authority to inspect up to 30 per cent of each undertaker's works in its area at the undertaker's expense, at a fee of £21 per inspection.
While the existing regime works as a general monitoring tool, it is not effective in improving the quality of work and reducing the amount of remedial work that causes unnecessary disruption. Amendment No. 92 replaces the existing Section 75, widening the remit of the regulations that the Secretary of State can make. In addition to the factors presently covered, the replacement Section 75 would allow the regulations to differentiate between different descriptions of street authority and undertaker. The latter case will include making stricter or less strict provisions depending upon an individual undertaker's performance in the past. This would allow increased inspections for the poorest performers, with the aim of driving up the standard of works. It is not expected that good performers should have more inspections than at present. Regulations can prescribe how and over what period an undertaker's performance would be

225
assessed. The amendment also allows for regulations to prescribe how disputes relating to the charging of fees are to be settled by arbitration.
Section 72 of the 1991 Act covers circumstances where a street authority's inspection uncovers a failure to meet the prescribed performance standards. Where this occurs, the undertaker has to meet the cost of three inspections: a joint inspection with the authority, to see what action is needed to remedy the fault; an inspection during the "remedial" works; and another after their completion. Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 92 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations that the undertaker in question shall pay a fee to the authority for each of the three types of inspections and also what that fee should be. It allows for the fee to vary according to what type of inspection is needed, how extensive it is, where it is carried out, or any other factor that the regulations might provide for. For instance, a badly failed reinstatement might need a more extensive and therefore more costly inspection. In all of this, the intention of the Government is to target poor performance and improve the quality of street works, so that doing reinstatements properly first time becomes the norm. To monitor performance and changes in performance effectively, there would still be a minimum proportion of all utilities' work inspected.
The Government intend to ask a working group of utilities and authorities to consider what changes should be made to the inspection regulations in light of the changes introduced by the Bill. We will consult publicly before new regulations are made.
Amendment No. 93 is a simple drafting change to ensure the consistency of new Section 73F of the 1991 Act, inserted by Clause 56, with the existing provisions in the Act. I beg to move.
Lord RotherwickMy Lords, the utilities industry welcomes the move towards the principle of rewarding good practice. However, it argues that this clause leaves matters too vague. The accompanying explanatory text in the letter the Minister was kind enough to send us before this stage of the Bill makes it clear that the Government are at least contemplating a regime where effort and resource are concentrated on those who have not demonstrated good records in street works. That much is to be welcomed.
The letter also makes it clear that while the Government envisage using a stick to punish those who do not improve, the industry questions why the department is not contemplating a corresponding carrot for those who make improvements, in the sense that those who improve will continue to pay for inspections at the current level. Those who do not will face increases. Can the Minister comment on whether he believes that there ought to be some incentive to make further improvements, such as better performance leading to a reduction in inspections and therefore fees? This would encourage better performance and would free up resources to deal with those who continue to perform below par.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for welcoming certain aspects of the
226
provisions, and I appreciate the fact that my letter has helped to clarify some of these matters. I am not entirely surprised to learn that he is content with our clear determination to improve performance by applying the stick to undertakers who do not improve their performance.
The noble Lord has asked the additional question of whether we can think of ways of providing a carrot for those who do well. Of course there is one obvious carrot; namely that the number of inspections could be reduced for undertakers with a track record of satisfactory performance. I am sure that the noble Lord will share with me the broad intent behind the provisions, which is to improve the quality of road works so that we do not have the most irritating of all circumstances, those where work has to be attended to time and again, causing the same section of road to be subject to disruption.
I hear what the noble Lord has said. We shall look at his point, but I think he will recognise that there is an incentive for good performance. Undertakers in the category of good performers could find themselves subject to reduced inspections. Surely that ought to provide some incentive.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Inspections]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 93:
Page 31, line 12, leave out "(including inspections following their completion)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Orders of the Greater London Authority changing what are strategic roads]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 94:
Page 32, line 23, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Viscountsaid: My Lords, I stress at the start that this probing amendment has come about because it has been brought to my attention that, in the working groups set up by the department to consider these issues, considerable differences have been expressed. Moreover, concerns have been raised by several London boroughs on the issue.
As it stands, the Bill will reduce the responsibilities of the boroughs over their own highways network and add central control and what they feel is central bureaucracy to a much-increased strategic road network. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the Transport for London plan, which is vastly to increase that network of strategic roads.
I have to say straightaway that I am not against the increase in principle, but we must ensure that it is measured. It will give Transport for London a much larger role in co-ordinating traffic management over borough roads.
I would be the first to say that, in some instances, Transport for London has done a very good job, but we have all seen instances where we occasionally have to raise questions. I do not know whether the Minister or any other noble Lord has been to Oxford Street recently. If so, they would have found that the whole street was clogged up by buses. There is no point in getting on a bus because you can walk faster than the

227
bus. There are often 30 buses in a line clogging up the street. It is an example of where the interface is not working.
It is important that we give Transport for London some oversight of strategic roads but, at the same time, it has to work with the boroughs as opposed to against them. I am sure the Minister will agree with that. They all have slightly different views and it is important to introduce a system that works, rather than one which increases bureaucracy and brings stagnation.
The amendment seeks to elucidate from the Minister how he thinks the system is working and what he believes both sides of the House can do to improve the working relationship between Transport for London and the boroughs. I am sure the Minister has the same ambition as I have; we want the relationship to work.
I am not sure that the Bill has the balance right at the moment. I am not sure that my amendment is exactly right either because it is rather severe. I am looking to the Minister for an explanation so that we can help move the process forward in a constructive way. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for the way in which he has introduced this probing amendment. In my experience, a probing amendment is no less difficult to handle than any other amendment. All it indicates is that it will be withdrawn irrespective of the quality of my reply. Nevertheless, there is a certain amount of pride involved in my reply because I hope to give him good measure for the questions he has asked.
I shall respond to the "probing" as best I can in a moment, but the problem with the amendment is that it would take the referee out of the game. Without mentioning name or nationality, I can think of one recent game where I would have cheered if the referee had been removed. However, as a general rule, when there is a dispute between conflicting elements, someone has to produce a resolution to it. The amendment would take out, if not the referee, the arbiter.
The Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority can direct by order that a road or proposed road should become strategic, but it happens only where the consent of the borough through which the road runs is obtained. What if they disagree? Quite clearly, the solution is that the Secretary of State must act in such circumstances. What the amendment would do—probing or not—is take the Secretary of State out of the picture and leave the parties in a state of stalemate.
I do not think a great deal of the amendment but I recognise the point that the noble Earl is making; that we must be concerned about the process by which we develop the concept of the strategic network. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the Secretary of State has the responsibility for the strategic network, but in London the mayor plays a crucial role.
I heard what the noble Lord said about buses. I confess that I have been on a bus in Oxford Street whose performance has been a little less than my
228
walking speed, although it was marginally more comfortable. I understand what the noble Lord said, but I would sooner see Oxford Street crowded with buses than bereft of them, which was perhaps the danger in the past when public transport was not identified as the priority that it is now. However, we have always said that the only way in which we can solve the problem of congestion in our major cities, and ab extenso as far as the capital is concerned, is by using public transport more intensively and intelligently. Buses clearly have a role to play in that.
I enjoyed the "probe" of the noble Lord's amendment and his illustration of where we need to tidy things up, but we obviously cannot accept the amendment. Some final authority must rest with the Secretary of State in circumstances where we would need to advance the cause of the strategic network and no-one else but he would be in a position to do so.
9 p.m.
Viscount AstorMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am particularly grateful for the fact that he has understood the issue and sought to address it. It is really an issue between Transport for London and the boroughs. My plea in moving the amendment was to encourage the Minister's department to be the arbiter and to be helpful in the process, as I am sure that it wants to be. It seemed to be an issue that needed to be raised, so that both sides of the House might express their concerns and a satisfactory conclusion could be reached. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Clause 61 [Fixed penalty offences under the Highways Act 1980]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 96 and 97:
Page 34, line 42, leave out "penalty charge".
Page 35, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) In the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c. 22), in section 97 (service of notices etc.) after subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(3) References in this section to notices authorised to be given or served for the purposes of this Part include a reference to notices under Schedule 22B to the Highways Act 1980 (fixed penalties for certain offences under that Act).""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 63 [Builders' skips: charge for occupation of highway for unreasonable period]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 98:
Page 37, line 43, at end insert—
"(17A) The regulations may make provision about their application to a series of deposits of skips.
(17B) And they may, in particular, provide that a series of deposits of skips is to be treated as a single deposit of a skip—
(a) beginning at the time the first in the series was deposited, and
(b) ending at the time the last in the series was removed."
The noble Lord said:My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 99, 100 and 101. Clauses 63 to 67 concern the

229
possible establishment of charging schemes to encourage those who place skips, scaffolding and building materials on the highway and carry out temporary excavations to keep to a minimum the period for which they disrupt road users.
The four amendments are intended to deal with a possible ambiguity. The scheme could be frustrated where, for instance, the owner of a skip replaced it continually with further skips as it became full and, each time he replaced the skip, that was treated as if the time he was occupying the road and causing disruption had started all over again. That would provide no incentive for the owner of the skip to limit the disruption that it causes. The same principle applies to scaffolding and other materials which might occupy the highway.
The amendments have the combined effect of providing that regulations can make clear that a series of skips or scaffolding et cetera can be treated as a single one for the purpose of calculating how long they have occupied the highway. I beg to move.
Lord RotherwickMy Lords, we welcome the amendment as a means of cracking down on those who regularly flout their agreed duration period. It is vital, however, that these changes and all others that are made in the Bill are communicated in an easy-to-understand way to all interested parties. Will the Minister explain to the House how his department plans to ensure that everybody knows about the changes?
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, certainly it is not conceivable that penalties could be visited on our fellow citizens without them being aware of the nature of the offence and the difficulty that they might be causing. I find it difficult to think that people who occupy the public road with building materials as wide as a skip or as extensive as scaffolding would not be aware that an authority would take an interest in keeping such a road free from disruption. Consequently, we will not have a great deal of difficulty in publicising the obvious fact that activity of that kind is liable to produce unwelcome attention from the authority and a possible penalty.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Builders' skips: charge determined by reference to duration of occupation of highway]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 99:
Page 38, line :20, after first "to" insert "(17) and (17A) to"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Scaffolding, building materials and excavations: charge for occupation of highway for unreasonable period]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 100:
Page 40, line 32, at end insert—
"(18A) The regulations may make provision about their application to a series of deposits of things.
(18B) And they may, in particular, provide that a series of deposits of things is to be treated as a single deposit of things—
230
(a) beginning at the time the first in the series was deposited, and
(b) ending at the time the last in the series was removed.
(18C) The regulations may make provision corresponding to that mentioned in subsections (18A) and (18B) in relation to the erection of relevant structures and the making of excavations."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Scaffolding, building materials and excavations: charge determined by reference to duration of occupation of highway]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 101:
Page 41, line 21, after first "to" insert "(18) and (18A) to"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Contraventions subject to civil enforcement]:
Viscount Simonmoved Amendment No. 102:
Page 43, line 7, leave out "that are" and insert "which may be"
The noble Viscount said:My Lords, I shall speak briefly to both the amendments standing in my name. I am concerned that much of the civilian enforcement includes traffic signs that are designed to be used not only to control the movement of traffic but also for road safety. For this reason, and for the purpose of road safety, contravention of the signs must also be subject to criminal prosecution. The assumption that a civil violation of a no-right-turn sign, for example, that results in a collision causing injury will always result in a prosecution for driving without due care is naïve in the extreme and does nothing to enhance the misused provision of Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act.
In order to ensure that enforcement can be carried out at each level, I have tabled these two amendments, which together widen the Bill in such a way that eases the lot of the enforcer. I beg to move.
Viscount AstorMy Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, clarify the boundaries between police and civil enforcement officers, and are rather helpful.
I have one concern about the clause, on which the Minister may be able to help me. The noble Viscount's amendment would offer protection to the motorist, who might otherwise have to pay double for one offence. I hope that the Minister will be able to disabuse me of that view and explain with clarity that I have got it wrong. The noble Viscount raises an important point, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, far be it from me to accuse the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, of having got things wrong. He may have interpreted matters in a different way from the intent and the reality of the Bill, but not got anything wrong. That is also the case with my noble friend Lord Simon, who has helpfully tabled the amendments, giving me the chance to clarify the issues. We do not believe that the two amendments are necessary, but I shall try to establish the case for that—and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

231
Clause 69 enables the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations for the imposition of penalty charges for or in connection with the imposition of penalty charges in respect of road traffic contraventions that are subject to civil enforcement. The contraventions that are subject to civil enforcement are specified in Clause 70 and are set out in detail in Schedule 7. To be subject to civil enforcement, the contraventions must be committed in an area that is a civil enforcement area for those contraventions by virtue of Clause 71 and Schedule 8.
By virtue of subsection (3) of Clause 69, regulations enabling civil enforcement of contraventions by means of penalty charges must include provision either prohibiting criminal proceedings in respect of those contraventions or securing that a penalty charge is not required to be paid, or is refunded where the conduct concerned is the subject of criminal proceedings or a fixed penalty notice issued by the police.
I assure my noble friend Lord Simon and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that there is no question of someone incurring both a civil penalty charge and a criminal fine for the same act. On that understanding I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendments.
Viscount SimonMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for his contribution. I listened carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said in response to my amendments. I am not sure that I understood fully what he said, so I shall read his remarks carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 104:
Page 43, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
The noble Viscount said:My Lords, we come to what might be called the traffic warden section of the Bill. Your Lordships will realise, having listened to the Committee stage, that this is an area that concerns me. I will accept the criticism that I have a bee in my bonnet but that is because I have been bombarded by many people who have concerns. I am concerned about the powers of civil enforcement officers. In the past, I have been concerned about the way in which they have carried out their work. They seem to have been given incentives that make them behave in a way that is not in the best interests of the service, parking or the local authority. I have been heartened by the area that I know best, which is Westminster, where I live. Westminster Council has taken very much into account the concerns raised over this matter and has announced its intention to alter its guidelines.
232
I understand that various pilots on these new powers are going on in London and that regulations to extend them beyond London are not expected for some time. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline exactly which moving traffic contraventions can or cannot be included. I understand that speeding will not be included. I think that I am correct in saying that contraventions of box junctions will be included, but that the Minster considers that these will largely be dealt with by camera evidence.
My amendment makes these regulations affirmative because I think that Parliament should have the ability to discuss any extension. Appeals are an other matter that I shall come on to later. This is an area where there is general public concern and it would be helpful if the Minister could briefly outline how he sees the powers being used and how they might roll out over the country. It would be extremely helpful to those who have concerns. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I shall begin with the general question. The regulation-making powers in the Bill have been scrutinised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee made a number of recommendations in its report to your Lordships. All the committee's recommendations were accepted by the Government and appropriate amendments were made to the Bill in Grand Committee to give them effect.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not consider it necessary that regulations to be made under Clause 70 should be subject to the affirmative procedure and nor do we. We do not propose to do that. The regulation-making power in Clause 70(4) enables consequential amendments to be made to Schedule 7 if subordinate legislation referred to in it is amended, replaced or revoked. For example, the House will recognise that traffic signs regulations are periodically updated. So, when new regulations are made in the future, a reference to the new regulations will have to be included at paragraph 9(2)(a) which presently refers to the 2002 regulations. We see no need for regulations under Clause 70(4), which will be concerned with technical changes to Schedule 7 consequent upon the passing of other subordinate legislation, to be subject to parliamentary approval. I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I imagine that the noble Viscount, in tabling his amendment, is less concerned about the particular question of parliamentary scrutiny and is more concerned about the extent to which we are able to allay his various anxieties. The noble Viscount was particularly concerned about regulations allowing the imposition of penalty charges for moving traffic contraventions. He will know that London authorities already have those powers by virtue of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Use of those powers is now being piloted in

233
London. I assure the House and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that we will have regard to the experience gained in London in framing regulations enabling civil enforcement of moving traffic contraventions by authorities outside London. There will of course be the normal public consultation on such regulations.
We could add to the regulations the moving traffic contraventions specified in paragraph 9 of Schedule 7, but that might not include endorsable offences such as speeding. We are seeking to keep clear of the offences that may lead to endorsement for anyone who has infringed. As the noble Viscount will recognise, and as he indicated in his own contribution, we regard the issue of moving traffic offences as an issue mainly for cameras, not officers, to identify. Given that officers are on foot and the offence is committed by a moving vehicle, it is not possible for them to take immediate action anyway. They may record the offence, but their recording of it is not likely to occur as frequently or readily as that done by cameras judiciously placed at box junctions and other places where such offences occur.
We are piloting the scheme in London and we will learn from that experience as to what can be introduced in regulations for the country as a whole. We bear in mind the noble Viscount's real anxieties, which he has expressed both in Committee and again today. I assure him that we have a ready-made pilot working at present, against the principle that I have adumbrated. On the whole, the issue of moving contraventions is for cameras rather than these officers.
Viscount AstorMy Lords, the Minister's answer was helpful, particularly in outlining that these offences will not be covered by endorsement. We all know that one can quite reasonably enter a box junction when there is a space on the other side, but, half way through, someone nicks that space. That happens. It is unfortunate and irritating because one gets stuck in the middle and it is rather embarrassing. But through no fault of one's own, it occasionally happens.
I am reassured that the Government are piloting the scheme. It is an important issue. With this extension of powers, we go back to saying that we are trying to produce effective traffic management—or "effective traffic movement", as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, might refer to it. At the same time, however, we have to have rules that are not only fair and respected by the motorist but are seen to be fair; otherwise they are not going to work.
I am grateful for the Minister's answer. He has gone quite a long way in giving me the assurance that I require, but obviously I will have to consider the matter carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
234
Schedule 7 [Road traffic contraventions subject to civil enforcement]:
Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 105:
Page 74, line 22, at end insert—

PART 2A

  CYCLE LANE AND CYCLE TRACK CONTRAVENTIONS
  Cycle lane and cycle track contraventions

  A cycle lane contravention is a contravention of any provision of a traffic order relating to the use of an area of carriageway that is or forms part of a cycle lane.

  An area of carriageway is or forms part of a cycle lane if the order provides that it may be used only by pedal cycles.

  There is a cycle track contravention in relation to a vehicle if it is driven in circumstances in which an offence is committed under section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (offences relating to cycle tracks) of driving a vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track.

  In this paragraph "traffic order" means an order under section 1, 6, 9 or 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27)."

  The noble Lord said:My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 105 I should like to speak also to the other amendments in this group, including those of my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. Before I go into detail, however, I should like to thank my noble friend very sincerely for the constructive way in which his officials have been meeting the cycling groups. That has resulted not only in the government amendments in this group but also the amendments in the group starting with Amendment No. 122. Those are very welcome. They do not provide everything that was asked for, but you do not get everything that you want. It is good to see the Government taking such a proactive role in promoting and encouraging cycling and making cyclists feel not only wanted but also safe. I trust that my noble friend will send a copy of today's Hansard to the Royal Parks Agency, but I shall not mention that body again tonight.
  Amendment No. 108 standing in my name contains a mistake for which I apologise. Amendment No. 107 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham is the correct version. I shall not move Amendment No. 108. I congratulate my noble friend on the drafting of Amendment No. 107.
  Amendment No. 106 refers to buses and Amendment No. 107 concerns cycling. It seems to me that, having got this lovely list of cycling signs, there needs to be a preamble about cycle lane and cycle track contraventions in Schedule 7 to match the descriptions of parking contraventions (Part 1 of the schedule), bus lane contraventions (Part 2 of the schedule) and lorry ban contraventions (Part 3 of the schedule). As we have five signs with regard to cycling, it would be useful to have a section dealing with what they mean. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 105. If my noble friend accepts the principle of that, I should welcome his producing an appropriate amendment—I am sure that he will draft a better one than I can—at Third Reading. It is clear that, if the relevant amendment is accepted, there would need to be a cross-reference in Clause 70 on page 43 to add another section to Schedule 7. In principle, I am very grateful

  235
  to my noble friend for all the amendments on cycling. I offer my Amendment No. 105 as a contribution to clarity. I beg to move.
  Lord RotherwickMy Lords, we welcome the fact that the Government listen to the concerns highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. However, at the same time we have concerns regarding this issue that we spoke of in Committee. I may be considered biased when I say that cyclists are very important—the Minister and I are both cyclists—but I can say with authority that considerable good will is shown towards cyclists on the part of other road users. However, I feel the need to raise the flag of caution once again. By accepting these amendments we would set up another barrier between cyclists and car owners, which may not make the latter so amicable on the whole towards cyclists.
  There is also the issue of privilege and responsibility. While these amendments would help to protect the privileges of cyclists on the road, there should also be a balance of responsibility; otherwise, we shall lose the good will of car drivers.
  Cyclists can often be seen jumping red lights and cycling on pavements, although I have to say that I have not seen the latter activity recently. They can also be seen ignoring other road regulations that all other traffic has to comply with. Are these offences also subject to civil enforcement? What steps is the department taking to ensure that offenders are penalised just as those car owners who stray into cycle boxes or lanes will be penalised under these changes? Can the Minister give comfort to cyclists that in awarding privileges he will highlight the responsibilities that go hand-in-hand with them? What is the estimate of the costs of enforcing the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley? Who would be responsible for enforcement?
  Viscount SimonMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, referred to cyclists going through red lights. If one did a survey of traffic lights, one would find that probably nine out of 10 cyclists go through red lights. I assume that the tenth one is a Member of your Lordships' House. Bearing in mind the fact that—
  Lord RotherwickMy Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount is not referring to the Minister or me.
  Viscount SimonNot at all, my Lords—completely the opposite. If one bears in mind the infringements, is not combining a carriageway for pedestrians and cyclists together a possible recipe for disaster? Is there any intention to separate those routes so that collisions will not occur?
  Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for the way in which he spoke to Amendment No. 105 and his other amendment, and I appreciate this short debate. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that I understood my noble friend Lord Simon to be
  236
  identifying that there might be nine offending cyclists out of 10, but that the 10th would be a Member of this House—so either the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, or myself. I am sure that my noble friend has carried out that statistical survey with great accuracy. The only way in which I succeed in protecting myself against traffic-light infringements is by making sure that I spend most of my time on the towpath, where there are not too many traffic lights. I understand what the noble Lord said, however.
  A side issue—a balancing issue, I suppose—has emerged about what we will do about cyclists who do not behave themselves. Such cyclists are a menace, first, to themselves. It is risky under any circumstances to jump a red light, and it is certainly risky when one has the limited protection of a cycle. They are of course a danger to other people. When they carry out the other offence to which the noble Lord referred—cycling on the pavement—there are people even more vulnerable to injury than the cyclists, and it is right that we pay due regard to making sure that all road users comply with the law. In circumstances in which we are making increasing provision of cycle lanes and proper provision for cyclists, we ought to be intolerant of those who use the pavement.
  Viscount AstorMy Lords, under the Government's proposals, would civil enforcement officers have the power to stop cyclists cycling on the pavement, or is that something with which only the police can deal?
  Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, we are extremely wary of the officers being involved in any moving traffic, for obvious reasons. They are merely pedestrians, and although a cyclist is a jolly sight easier to arrest than a car driver I can think of some circumstances where that might not necessarily be so. The issue is certainly not straightforward. I stand by my earlier point—we do not regard the officers as being engaged as police officers in summary charge against people who misbehave. Frankly, such matters are for the police; they are the enforcing agency, as the noble Viscount will acknowledge. It is right that that be so, as everyone recognises the particular and exceptional powers of the police in respect of such offences.
  I shall turn to the main amendment, as I seem to have been sidetracked by the other elements that cropped up in the debate. There is no need to add to Schedule 7 a definition of a contravention of a cycle lane or cycle track, as proposed by my noble friend in Amendment No. 105. That is because government Amendment No. 107 will enable enforcement of driving in a mandatory cycle lane or on a cycle track as moving contraventions under part 4 of Schedule 7. The provisions of part 1 of Schedule 7 already cover civil enforcement of parking in cycle lanes or on cycle tracks. So my noble friend was generous enough to recognise that the Government's Amendment No. 107 covers such issues.
  Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 add six additional signs to the table at paragraph 9 of Schedule 7. This will enable a moving contravention of these signs to be

  237
  subject to civil enforcement. The addition of the "buses prohibited" sign 952 is being made in response to a request from Westminster City Council. They have a particular problem with enforcing coach bans on residential roads around Victoria Coach Station. The inclusion of this sign will also be helpful for the enforcement of coach bans elsewhere, but that is the problem that Amendment No. 106 addresses.
  The five signs added by Amendment No. 107 will enable the civil enforcement of the prohibition against driving in mandatory cycle lanes or on cycle tracks. We undertook in Committee to consider adding signs to Schedule 7 that would enable civil enforcement of driving in a mandatory cycle lane. Since then we have also had discussions with representatives of the London Cycling Campaign and the National Cycling Strategy Board—my noble friend Lord Berkeley indicated that he was aware of those discussions. This led us to conclude that we should add the five cycling related signs included in Amendment No. 107. We do not need to add to Schedule 7 the sign 960 for a contra-flow bus lane as bus lane contraventions are already covered in part 2 of the schedule.
  I acknowledge the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, in Committee that he would be worried if car drivers were persecuted in a draconian way that set them against cyclists. He has reflected on that again this evening. We are aware of the fact that a crucial aspect of road safety is mutual respect between different forms of traffic and anything that causes significant irritation and leads to bad relationships between different forms of traffic affect road safety adversely. This is a matter that we can address in guidance, but it is important to ensure that there are appropriate powers to increase the safety of cyclists using dedicated cycle lanes and routes. Regarding driving on cycle tracks the main culprits are, I understand, not motor cars but motor scooters. That is another dimension to the difficulty with the segregation of traffic.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked me for some estimates of the cost of cycle lane measures and who would be responsible for their enforcement. That would rest with local authorities. In terms of other contraventions in Schedule 7, we have not made any estimates of costs at this stage.
  Noble Lords would recognise that cycling on a footway and cycling through a red light are offences which should be deplored. I know the self-justification that cyclists use from time to time is—I am not referring to any noble Lords first, that the pavement is the only safe place because the roadway is so frighteningly dangerous and, secondly, that jumping the red light gives cyclists a head start on the rest of the traffic which avoids that traffic doing dangerous things, particularly if it is turning left and the cyclist is seeking to go straight ahead. All that I can say is that seeking to re-interpret the law in those terms when everyone else is obeying the law and following the red light practice is extremely dangerous. Cyclists would be putting themselves in jeopardy and would not improve matters.
  238
  On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will think that the Government have responded, both to today's debate and in Committee, and he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord BerkeleyMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, not only for his explanation, but, as I have said before, for the work that he has undertaken with the cycling groups. In Grand Committee I tried to include another sign, the advanced stop line for cyclists, but I received a long and interesting explanation about why that was not possible. I accept that.
  Noble Lords opposite commented on cyclists going through red lights. During the past week, I witnessed two cases—one in Oxford and one in London—of police stopping cyclists doing that. It is to be welcomed, and let us hope that they do more of that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 106 and 107:
  Page 76, line 8, at end insert—

  Buses prohibited

  952"

  Page 76, line 10, at end insert—

  "Route for use by pedal cycles only

  955

  Route for use by pedal cycles and pedestrians only

  956

  Route comprising two ways, for use by pedal cycles only and by pedestrians only

  957

  With-flow cycle lane

  959.1

  Contra-flow cycle lane

  960/"

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
  Schedule 8 [Civil enforcement areas and enforcement authorities]:
  [Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 not moved.]
  Clause 76 [Immobilisation of vehicle where penalty charge payable]:
  [Amendments Nos. 111 to 113 not moved]:
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 114:
  Page 46, line 43, at end insert—
  "(iv) not more than 15 minutes have elapsed since the issue of a parking ticket or notification of a penalty charge; and"
  The noble Viscount said:My Lords, the Minister has caught me by surprise. I assumed that he would move his Amendment No. 111 concerning clamping and the 15-minute interval we discussed in Committee. Indeed, the Minister and I discussed it when he kindly arranged a meeting with his officials. I am not sure why he did not move the amendment, but perhaps I may speak briefly to mine.
  The difference between us is that the Minister is seeking to resolve an anomaly that has been drawn to his attention by the chief parking adjudicator for London. When someone does not display a ticket and is clamped, he is able to write to the adjudicator and

  239
  say, "Actually, I bought one and here is the evidence. It fell down the dashboard and was not displayed". I understand the logic behind that.
  However, we differ in that increasingly in London the pay-and-display machines do not work. Occasionally they gobble up your money and give you a ticket and occasionally they gobble up your money and do not give you a ticket. You are then forced to walk around and find another one. If this happens to you while you are parked in a London square and are seeking to obey the law and to pay, a parking warden can come along and give you a ticket. You can then write to the local authority and say, "I was attempting to buy a ticket and I want to appeal". In 99 per cent of such cases, it is successful.
  However, under the Bill, after the traffic warden has issued the ticket he can use his radio or mobile phone to inform those in the clamping van, who are driving around the square desperately seeking to earn their money by clamping more and more offenders, "Quick, get over here and clamp this car". In those circumstances, the driver is the innocent party.
  If the driver merely gets a ticket, he can write in and appeal against that and he will not have to pay. However, if he is on the other side of the square trying to find a machine that works, he will return and find that his car is clamped. That is a severe inconvenience—it happens to mothers collecting children from school—and the drivers appear to be guilty until proven innocent. They must first pay and then go through the difficult and somewhat tedious process of trying to get their money back.
  I stress that in tabling the amendment we want to produce a policy that is fair and does not allow people to park illegally. We therefore propose a 15-minute interval. Therefore, a car cannot be clamped for 15 minutes after a traffic warden has issued a ticket. That seems to be reasonable. Wardens and dampers communicate with each other, and a warden can say, "I have just issued a ticket and if the vehicle is still here in 15 minutes you can come and clamp it".
  I admit to your Lordships that this situation is made more difficult because of the appeal system, which does not work. We shall come to that when we reach a later amendment. It is of concern to those who appeal, as it is to the adjudicators. That is the issue. I stress again that I am not seeking to allow those who break the law an excuse to get away with it. I am seeking to protect those who, through no fault of their own, have not been able to buy a ticket and who are then seriously inconvenienced and put in a difficult situation. That is the difference between the Government's proposal and mine.
  We have had some discussions on this matter. I am very grateful to the Minister for listening to the concerns at the meetings that we have had and for listening with an open mind. I am sure that we shall be able to continue debating the issue to see whether we can find a solution.
  240
  I apologise to your Lordships for going on at length, but it is important to set the amendment in context so that noble Lords understand the process. This may be an opportunity for the Minister to say what considerations he has given to the matter and whether he is able to give me some comfort with regard to how the Government intend to deal with this issue. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the way in which he moved his amendment. I am sorry if I wrong-footed him by not moving the government amendments immediately preceding this one. It is my first effort at retaliation: Ministers are frequently put in that position when the Opposition do not move their amendments. Therefore, I sympathise entirely with the noble Viscount in finding that the progress of business has suddenly accelerated.
  However, I must say to him that we have not reached a definitive position on this issue. That is why the government amendments were not moved and why I shall give him both a positive and, as he would expect, a guarded reply—that is, I cannot give very clear undertakings about the eventual position. But, as I am sure he will have recognised, I am certainly seeking to reflect the fact that the discussions that we have had on this issue have caused us to reconsider the position. We are looking at the matter carefully and, I hope, constructively.
  I believe that the noble Viscount and I both recognise that offenders should not get away with offences, and clamping is an effective deterrent. It is an important weapon in the armoury of central London boroughs, in particular, as part of their decriminalised parking enforcement operations.
  Charges and time limits on parking are designed to ensure a turnover of spaces. It is important to ensure that these controls are enforced in order to give drivers a reasonable chance of finding a space. Immobilisation is an additional measure, over and above a penalty charge, to deter overstaying. The question is: after what period of overstaying should immobilisation be permissible? That is the issue that we have been seeking to resolve in our discussions and, as I indicated, we are not entirely definitive about it yet.
  As drafted, Clause 76 enables a penalty charge notice to be issued immediately the period of parking that has been paid for has expired. However, the vehicle may not be immobilised until 15 minutes have elapsed following the period of parking paid for. That means that there is a grace period of 15 minutes, and that reflects the current position in Section 70 of the Road Traffic Act.
  The noble Viscount's amendment proposes that at least 15 minutes should elapse between the issue of the penalty charge and a vehicle being clamped. The effect is variable rather than a fixed 15-minute grace period. If the penalty charge notice is issued exactly at the end of the period of parking paid for, the vehicle could be clamped after 15 minutes of overstay. But if the notice is not issued until two hours after the period of parking

  241
  paid for has expired, clamping is postponed in that case for two and a quarter hours. In other words, people would be subject to an arbitrary variable possibility.
  9.45 p.m.
  A more serious drawback is that the proposed amendment would apply not just to overstaying in a paying parking bay, which is the area about which we are concerned in order to maximise the use of certain bays; it would prevent immobilisation for 15 minutes following the issue of a charge notice for other parking contraventions such as parking on yellow lines. The Government take the view that people who knowingly park unlawfully in the first place should not be given a period of grace against having their vehicle immobilised, particularly as in some circumstances the vehicle could present a very real danger and prompt action would be necessary. Enforcement against unlawful parking needs to be effective.
  I very much appreciate the discussion that the noble Viscount and I had the other day. I have been able to listen carefully to the concerns he expressed then and on which he has reflected again this evening about the use of clamping. We are, therefore, prepared to consider amending Clause 76 so that a vehicle cannot be immobilised for contravening the conditions of use of a paid for parking bay until a period of 15 minutes has elapsed from the time that a penalty charge notice for the contravention was issued.
  That requirement would replace the existing provision in Clause 76 that prevents the immobilisation of a vehicle until 15 minutes has elapsed since the end of the period of parking paid. While that approach may give rise to variable and longer grace periods for overstaying, that can be counteracted by more frequent patrolling by parking attendants.
  However, I want to make clear that the amendment would relate only to paid for parking bays. It would not cover other parking contraventions such as parking on yellow lines. In those cases it would still be possible to immobilise a vehicle immediately after a penalty charge notice is issued. On that understanding I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that I have gone as far as I can at this stage to meet his reasonable concerns. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Viscount AstorMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Indeed, I believe he has gone as far as he can and as far as I would ask him to go in dealing with this issue. I shall study carefully what he said and if I have any questions I hope that he will allow me to discuss them with his department between now and the next stage. I fully accept that as regards his amendment and mine we have a no score draw. My amendment did not entirely do what I wanted it to and I think that by not moving his we achieved the same effect. I hope that we have come to an understanding on what we both agree is a sensible way forward. I am extremely grateful to the Minister and, indeed, his officials, for
  242
  the helpful and constructive way in which they have dealt with this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]
  Clause 77 [Representations and appeals]:
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 117
  Page 47, line 33, at end insert—
  "( ) enabling an adjudicator to make any decision made on, or in the course of an appeal taking into account mitigating circumstances."
  The noble Viscount saidMy Lords, this amendment concerns adjudication. The Minister will recognise that this has been brought to his and my attention not only by those who have had difficulty achieving what they regard as the desired result from the adjudicators but, indeed, by the adjudicators themselves, who have felt restricted by the circumstances in which they find themselves operating and the rules. It is a concern which has been expressed on both sides. For the system to work it must be fair, reasonable and respected by both sides, as we have always tried to emphasise.
  The difficulty is simple to explain. I start with an example that we used in Grand Committee and which took place in the spring of this year. Traffic wardens placed notices on cars that were abandoned because of snow. The police said the road was blocked. The local authority had not cleared the road. The next morning, before people had a chance to move their cars, the traffic wardens ticketed the whole lot. Clearly, that was not terribly fair and no doubt the traffic wardens received a huge bonus from being able to issue so many tickets in such a short period of time. Having done so in extremely cold circumstances, it enabled them to go off for the rest of the day and have a nice cup of coffee, thinking that they had reached their quota.
  One would have thought that those poor unfortunates to whom this happened would be able to appeal to the adjudicator. They did. The adjudicator was extremely sympathetic but he had a problem. Because of technical points he was not able to say that the behaviour was unreasonable as he was not allowed to take into account those circumstances. That is the issue.
  I say to the noble Lord that I am not sure whether my amendment is right. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who is nearly in his place, quite rightly gave me a frightful ticking off in Grand Committee for putting the amendment in the wrong place, which I fully accept. I apologise to your Lordships' House for doing so. I hope that I have got it in a slightly better place now. However, I hope that the Minister will take my point and set out the Government's view and how they consider they can deal with the issue. It is an important issue because a system has to work for it to have respect.
  As I said at the beginning, this issue has been drawn to my attention both by those who adjudicate and those who have been adjudicated on. It is not one side against the other; it is both. So it would be extremely

  243
  helpful—I have to say that the Minister has been enormously constructive throughout the passage of the Bill—to your Lordships' House if he could say what the Government can do to take into account the genuine concerns which have been raised. There are many examples. I just happen to have given one. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I fear that I shall clash with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, over this issue because I think that there is a significant difference of principle and interpretation between us on this point. Therefore, I shall not be able to move very far down the road in following his argument.
  I hear what the noble Viscount says about mitigating circumstances. We all know that the quality of mercy is not strained and that it helps therefore if people can take into account circumstances affecting offending behaviour. I am afraid that that is for a law court and a judge or a magistrate; it is not for an adjudicator. The adjudicator is not in that position. He is in the position of being a tribunal of fact and law. His or her role in considering an appeal is to determine the facts of the case and to resolve any questions of law should they arise. It is not to make judgment on the nature of the offence and whether there are any mitigating circumstances.
  The noble Viscount has quite rightly identified a hard luck case. I cannot think of a harder luck case than the one he illustrated where one gets blocked on the road and gets ticketed the next day before one can remove one's car. I certainly think a local authority might look somewhat sympathetically on that situation. It is for the local authority to make up its mind whether it prosecutes at that stage; it is not for an adjudicator. To enable adjudicators to take into account mitigating circumstances and to make policy decisions about enforcement would alter the whole nature of the process. They would be asked to make decisions about reasons, motives and circumstances that fall short of a defence as currently understood. Taking into account mitigating circumstances is the role of the local authority undertaking civil enforcement of any traffic contraventions. There is no compulsion on an authority to enforce penalty charges. It has the discretion to cancel a penalty charge if it believes that there were mitigating circumstances.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, cited an occasion where a local authority's sympathetic interpretation of a car-owner's problems might have been entirely appropriate, but I am not in full possession of the facts, as the noble Viscount will appreciate. It is for local authorities to take such a decision. After all, the situation is analogous on a more significant scale to the Crown Prosecution Service's deciding whether it is in the public interest to pursue a prosecution even if an offence was clearly committed. It is for the authority to decide that. The real need is to get enforcing authorities properly to consider mitigating circumstances in the first place. Existing guidance on decriminalised parking
  244
  enforcement contained in local authority circular 1/95 suggests circumstances in which local authorities may feel it appropriate to cancel penalty charges.
  In publishing guidance under Clause 84, we will certainly look to reinforce the message that authorities should consider mitigating circumstances in dealing with representations from recipients of penalty charge notices. There will be a new statutory duty on authorities to have regard to that guidance, including when they decide whether to pursue penalty charges when mitigating circumstances are put forward.
  As it stands, Clause 77 is a wide-ranging power to make regulations in connection with representations and appeals. I assure the noble Viscount that in drafting those regulations we will consult the chief adjudicators of the National Parking Adjudication Service and the London Parking and Traffic Appeals Service to see how we can address what are perceived to be constraints on their roles in deciding appeals. But regulations made under Clause 77 will in any case be subject to the affirmative procedure as recommended by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform.
  I hope that that fact, coupled with the assurance that I have given on strengthening guidance to the authorities, which take the prime responsibility for prosecution and the enforcement of a parking penalty, will be taken into consideration. It is the authorities that must consider mitigating issues; it is not the responsibility of adjudicators, who have a different role. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Viscount AstorMy Lords, I am disappointed by that reply for a number of reasons. First, it is not only respondents who are complaining; adjudicators, including the chief adjudicator, have said that the system is not working satisfactorily. It will become even more important, because under the powers in the Bill we will extend the role of civil enforcement officers. As a result, there will be more situations, they will be more complex and the issues will be more difficult. It will become even more important that adjudicators can look at all the circumstances.
  The Minister rests his case on the argument that it is for local authorities to look at mitigating circumstances and that there will be guidance and perhaps regulations made under the affirmative procedure. I accept that point, but my point is that the Bill should contain a clause that says that the adjudicator may take into account mitigating circumstances. Guidance could then dictate what those circumstances may be, but there must be provision in the Bill.
  I cannot accept the Minister's reply. I think that he is wrong. This is an important issue that will become more difficult and more prevalent. Bigger issues will arise in the future. I am disappointed by the Government. I do not intend to divide the House on this issue this evening; but I will come back to it at the next stage. In the mean time, I hope the Minister will consider the representations that have been made to

  245
  him on all sides and that we might see whether there is some way forward. If there is not, I assure the Minister that we will take this issue very seriously at Third Reading. It is particularly important because of the extension of powers of civil enforcement officers that are in the rest of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  10 p.m.
  Clause 82 [Prohibition of double parking etc.]:
  [Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
  Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 119:
  Page 51, line 7, leave out "road" and insert "carriageway"
  The noble Lord saidMy Lords, Amendment No. 119 is a technical amendment to substitute "carriageway" for "road" in Clause 82(2). The carriageway is that part of a road over which there is a right of way for passage of vehicles. Together the carriageway and the footway form a highway. The amendment ensures consistent terminology as between subsections (1) and (2) of the clause. I beg to move.
  Lord RotherwickMy Lords, will the Minister clarify, for those noble Lords who do not have a copy of the Highways Act 1980 to hand, the definition of "carriageway", and how it differs from the use of "road" for the purpose of these Acts?
  Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, as I thought I made clear, the pedestrian part of the footway added to the carriageway make the highway. The carriageway is that part of the road over which there is a right of passage of vehicles. In technical terms, the road is for vehicles—this is a reflection of the vernacular—but we are with precision here identifying the combination of footway and carriageway—the one for pedestrians, the other for vehicles, which together form the highway.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
  Clause 83 [Prohibition of parking at dropped footways]:
  Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 122:
  Page 52, line 2, leave out "in Greater London"
  The noble Lord saidIn moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. Clause 83 would re-enact Section 14 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 prohibiting parking at dropped footways in London. My noble friend Lord Berkeley proposed in Grand Committee that this clause should apply nationwide. He also suggested how it could be improved in other ways. After further consideration of the matter, we have decided that the prohibition in Clause 83 should apply to special enforcement areas outside London. Before we commence the provision of the clause in areas outside London, we would first want to have
  246
  some experience of the effect in London of the corresponding provision found in the 2003 Act. In particular, we would want to be assured that use of the powers had positive benefits and has proved workable in practice.
  Subject to the proviso about its commencement outside London, the amendment will apply Clause 83 to special enforcement areas in England and Wales generally. Amendments Nos. 128, 132 and 133 are consequential on the application of Clause 83 being extended to England and Wales generally. We have also had discussions with representatives of the London Cycling Campaign, and the National Cycling Strategy Board to try to improve Clause 83. We are persuaded that there is merit in extending Clause 83 to prohibit parking where the kerb has been lowered to assist cyclists using a cycle track to enter or leave the carriageway, or to assist cyclists as well as pedestrians to cross the carriageway. This is the motivation and thinking behind Amendments Nos. 123 and 125.
  We also agree that parking should equally be prohibited at locations where the carriageway has been raised to meet the level of the footway to assist pedestrians and cyclists to cross. This is the purpose of Amendment No. 127.
  Amendment No. 124 is a minor technical amendment substituting "carriageway" for "road" in subsection (1), while Amendment No. 131 serves to define "cycle track".
  With these amendments we are making improvements to Clause 83, as we undertook to do in Grand Committee, as well as extending its application to special enforcement areas outside London. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 123 to 128:
  Page 52,1ine 3, leave out "part of the footway or verge that" and insert "footway, cycle track or verge where—
  (a) the footway, cycle track or verge"
  Page 52, line 5, leave out "road" and insert "carriageway"
  Page 52, line 5, at end insert—
  "( ) assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway,"
  Page 52, line 6, leave out from "vehicles" to end and insert "entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge;"
  Page 52, line 6, at end insert "or
  (b) the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge."
  Page 52, line 8, leave out from "parked" to end of line 14 and insert "wholly within a designated parking place or any other part of the carriageway where parking is specifically authorised. A "designated parking place" means a parking place designated by order under section 6, 9, 32(1)(b) or 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27)."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.

  247
  [Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.]
  Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 131 to 133:
  Page 52, line 43, leave out "has the meaning" and insert ", "cycle track" and "footway" have the meanings"
  Page 53, line 5, after "imposed" insert "—
  (a) in Greater London,"
  Page 53, line 6, at end insert—
  "(b) elsewhere in England and Wales, by an order under section 1 of that Act."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
  Schedule 11 [Repeals]:
  [Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 not moved.]
  Lord Rotherwickmoved Amendment No. 137:
  Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
  "MOTORWAYS: MAXIMUM SPEED
  The maximum speed on a motorway shall be 80 mph and in bad weather determined by highway controllers with access to the motorway warning signs system."
  The noble Lord saidMy Lords, the intention is simple. We seek a clear, straightforward and safe system of speed limits that retain the confidence of the motorist. This amendment would introduce the concept of variable speed limits due to weather conditions on motorways. Raising the maximum speed limit to 80 miles per hour would ensure the most expeditious, effective and efficient use of our motorway network.
  We all believe that low speed limits need to be imposed where pedestrians are concentrated, such as around schools, in densely residential areas and near the homes of the elderly. These are important speed limits that should be stringently enforced—and quite right too.
  Speed limits are not enforced on our motorways. It is quite usual to witness drivers overtaking one in the far lane at 85 miles per hour. Drivers do not consider themselves to be criminals for doing so, and the police use their discretion by choosing not to prosecute thousands of motorists. This, as my noble friend Lord Goschen pointed out in Grand Committee, demonstrates a seeming de facto agreement between the police and motorists that in good weather the speed limit is actually around 85 miles per hour.
  This is deeply unsatisfactory. Most motorists and the public at large need to know what the law is, have confidence in it and believe that it will be enforced. Edmund King, the executive director of the RAC Foundation, has argued that there should be a review of speed limits. Driving at 80 miles per hour in a modern car on a good road surface at the correct distance from the car in front is perfectly safe. The safety features, braking, steering and suspension systems in modern cars are radically different from those that prevailed in the days when the 70 miles per hour limit was introduced. At that time, 70 miles per hour represented the peak of a car's performance.
  248
  Indeed, I believe that it was introduced as a temporary measure due to the oil crisis of the time. This is no longer the case and we need to recognise that.
  It is also the case that in a number of European countries the motorway speed limit is considerably higher. Has the Minister been lucky enough to have driven along a French or even an Italian motorway? He will have noticed that while driving at 112 kilometres per hour, which is 85 miles per hour, cars speed past him quite safely in the outer lane. Surely when the Government are keen to import so much else from Europe, it is odd to refuse to look at established practices in countries that have operated motorway systems effectively for far longer than us.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out in Grand Committee, the last government review of motorway speed limits concluded that increasing the speed of cars on motorways would lead to higher levels of air pollution. We need to bear in mind that traffic contributes to only one quarter of airborne pollution, the majority of which is produced by the large diesel engines of buses and heavy goods vehicles. We are told that the pollution from buses is 120 to 150 times worse than that from cars.
  Lord BradshawMy Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, will acknowledge that modern buses, with proper injection systems and the addition of urea, contribute very little pollution indeed. In fact, there is no nitrogen oxide pollution at all. Most pollution comes from diesel-powered lorries and it is quite wrong to associate the bus industry with pollution.
  Lord RotherwickMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I wish it were so but, as a bicyclist, I can tell him absolutely that it is not. Being stuck behind a bus with an exhaust pipe blowing into your face is a most unpleasant state of affairs. Indeed, I wonder why most diesel buses do not have diesel particulate filters fitted. It would be a positive advance if they were to be fitted, but that does not seem to be happening at the moment.
  Cars are at their most polluting when they are jammed bumper-to-bumper in city centres. Getting cars moving expeditiously on the motorways would improve matters. Indeed, the Association of British Drivers has shown that an increase in the motorway speed limit to 80 miles an hour would save approximately 11 million vehicle hours per year for cars and 1.5 million vehicle hours for light goods vehicles.
  There was much debate in Grand Committee over the issue of speed and safety. I am grateful to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents for providing me with some of its briefing material. We need to be wary about any straightforward causal link between speed change and accidents. Indeed, the Government's three-year review, Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone, found that there was a broad reduction of casualties from the baseline of the 1994–98 averages, while motorways remain some of our safest roads.

  249
  When presented with studies that seem to claim a direct relationship between an increase in speed and an increase in accidents, one finds that different studies often relate to very different measurements. For example, some refer to fatalities and others to injury numbers. Highly specific studies often contradict the general trend observed by the whole motoring population. Injury accident rates fell by 30 per cent in the UK during the 1980s while road speeds increased.
  Average speeds are unhelpful when measuring accident rates; injury accidents happen only once for every 1.8 million kilometres driven in the UK. An accident arises usually from an exceptional combination of circumstances. Certain demographic groups, locations and conditions dramatically affect accident rates.
  As noble Lords are well aware, a vast number of motorway users already travel above 70 miles per hour in good weather. We heard a variety of testimonials to that effect in Grand Committee, most notably from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, who observed that he himself travelled at a fairly sedate 71 or 72 miles an hour on the M40 and was still passed by vehicles.
  Under these circumstances, why should we expect an increase in accidents after we sanction responsible motorists for already travelling safely at this speed? As my noble friend Lord Goschen pointed out in Grand Committee, effectively enforcing a higher speed limit is preferable to the authorities "looking the other way" when thousands of motorists daily break the law because they have no confidence in it, do not believe that it will make them safer and know that it will not be enforced.
  The question must be one of achieving balance. The law must be enforceable and it must enjoy public support. The amendment will allow us to stop criminalising drivers who travel on our motorways at safe speeds. I beg to move.
  10.15 p.m.
  Baroness Scott of Needham MarketMy Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, is expecting a debate on speed management this evening, I suspect that he will be disappointed, although I imagine that other Members of your Lordships' House will be rather pleased. That is partly because of the lateness of the hour, but also because I do not believe that this Bill is the right place for it. However, I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord's motives in bringing the amendment forward, because we clearly need a systematic review of speed limit policy in this country. That can partly be seen in the kind of headlines that we see in the tabloid newspapers, but the issue goes back much further than that. Certainly, when I arrived in your Lordships' House in 2000, I successfully moved an amendment to the Transport Act which called for a review of speeds on rural roads. All this time later, we are still waiting for the review to take place. Therefore, I hope that Minister will at least go away and consider how the Government might bring forward a more
  250
  coherent debate and possible legislation on the wider question of speed limits, rather than addressing the issue of motorway speed limits in isolation.
  Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, but I took solace from the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, indicated that she does not think that this is the appropriate Bill to which an amendment should be tabled in these terms. I largely agree with that and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, having given the issue an airing even at this late hour, will be content with having done so and will not press his amendment.
  As the noble Lord will have surmised, the Government are not persuaded of the need for such a change to maximum speeds. I acknowledge what the noble Lord said about the safety of cars travelling at 80 mph and the behaviour of road traffic at present. He should ask himself if the limit were raised to 80 mph, would not people expect a level of tolerance beyond that? Would they not be absolutely astounded if they were pulled in for doing 81 or 82 mph and would it not be just a matter of months before we saw a regular pattern of speeds that were 10 mph in excess of that limit, on the grounds that the technological development of cars is such that all that is safe?
  We also know that speed has a dramatic effect on fatalities. Recent evidence from the United States has shown an increase of up to 38 per cent in the fatal accident rate following an increase in speed limits on its motorways, so we should approach the issue with some care.
  The Government believe that raising speed limits could jeopardise a good record in this country and could cost lives. In 2002, there were 224 fatalities on our motorways, which represented 6.5 per cent of the total number of deaths on our roads. We would of course prefer no deaths, but that figure is low in comparison with roads in built-up areas and rural roads. That is why the Government are committed in their road safety strategy to improving rural road safety through better speed management and driver information on rural roads, where by far the worst accident rate occurs. We have also provided guidance to local highway authorities on introducing vehicle-activated warning signs and 30 mph speed limits in villages.
  The motorway speed limit has been the subject of frequent reviews, most recently in 2001. That review concluded that to raise the motorway speed limit would run too great a risk of increasing accidents and casualties. In addition —it is not a negligible factor—a higher speed limit would also result in higher emissions of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. It would also lead to more noise pollution.
  The Secretary of State already has a power to bring regulations before Parliament to change the speed limits on our roads. This power is contained in Section 86 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Should any future review recommend that the speed limit were raised, primary legislation would not be necessary.

  251
  However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that it would not be in the framework of the Bill to make such changes.
  Sections 17 and 84 of that Act also provide for orders to be made so that speed limit changes can be made and indicated in circumstances detailed in such orders. To date, the power to introduce variable speed limits has been used on only one road—the M25—although we intend to use the power in connection with a new active traffic management scheme on the M42.
  The issue was raised of a reduction in speed limit during bad weather. That has some attractions. However, there are a number of issues that would need to be resolved before serious consideration could be given to taking that forward. Defining bad weather and determining the appropriate speed limit needs more serious consideration, and there may not be a simple solution. For example, what lower limit would be appropriate for which conditions?
  The noble Lord probably thought that I would not be enormously sympathetic to his amendment at this late stage in the proceedings. However, I reassure him that we are keeping the matter under review. As I said, the last review was in 2001, and it expressed negative approaches to the issue. However, we do not consider the amendment appropriate at this time. Having given this significant debate a further airing, I hope that he feels free to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord RotherwickMy Lords, will the Minister confirm that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, suggested, there will be a review of speed limits in the future? That will save me dividing the House.
  Lord Davies of OldhamCertainly, my Lords. As I said, we have provision for regular reviews. The last one was only in 2001. We are aware of the fact, as the noble Lord is, that traffic moves at a speed in excess of the speed limit quite frequently on our major motorways. It does not do so, in my experience, on the M25 during about eight living hours of the day, because it cannot. But I am aware of the noble Lord's point about the motorway when it is relatively free of heavy traffic.
  The issue is not settled for all time. Far from it—we are mindful of the fact that we need to consider the situation from time to time. I give him that assurance.
  Lord RotherwickMy Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the issue a little further. I shall think of his words as I drive back to Oxfordshire tonight—naturally, keeping to 70 miles per hour on the motorway, like all noble Lords who have long distances to travel tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  252
  Clause 92 [Application of surplus income from parking places]:
  [Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 139:
  After Clause 92, insert the following new clause—
  "PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE LONDON CONGESTION CHARGE
  (1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) After section 295(1) there is inserted—

  (1A) After the coming into force of section (Public consultation on the London Congestion Charge) of the Traffic Management Act 2004, the Mayor of London and Transport for London may not establish, extend or operate a scheme under subsection (1) above unless the scheme has been approved by a majority of the residents of any London borough proposed to be included, wholly or in part, in the charging area.

  (1B) The approval of a scheme mentioned in subsection (1A) shall be determined by—

  (a) a local referendum conducted by the borough concerned under section 116 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26) (local polls); and

  (b) where at least 50 per cent of the residents of the borough concerned have voted in that referendum.

  (1C) Subsection (1A) shall not apply in the case of a scheme already in operation, but Transport for London shall take into account the result of any referendum that may be conducted by a borough in which such a scheme is in operation in determining—

  (a) whether it is reasonable to continue to operate an existing scheme concerned; or

  (b) whether the existing scheme shall be modified.

  (3) In Schedule 23 to that Act (road user charging) after paragraph 3 insert—

  3A A charging scheme may only be made by the Mayor if it is also approved by the council of the borough or boroughs, included wholly or partly within the boundaries of the scheme, following a referendum conducted by the borough or boroughs concerned under Section 116 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26).

  The noble Viscount saidMy Lords, this is a simple little amendment on which I hope that the Government will look favourably. As we know, the Government believe in local accountability, referendums, local people being consulted, regional assemblies and all such things. The amendment refers to the congestion charge which, as the Minister will know, has been the subject of some controversy in London and during the mayoral election.
  Whatever one feels about the current congestion charge, the issue is—now that Ken Livingstone has returned to the fold or the bosom of the Labour Party—whether the congestion charge zone should be extended. I have no particular view on that, as I believe that it should be a subject for those who will suffer the consequences if it is extended. My modest amendment would allow those who might find themselves in a new extended zone a right to say in a democratic way whether they approve of the extension. I should have thought that the Government would think that that is a very commendable way for any government to behave and, indeed, for the Mayor to behave.
  It seems to me that, before this controversial proposal goes ahead, the very least that the Mayor could do is to ensure that those who are affected have

  253
  some say about whether they want to be in the congestion charge zone. This is a matter of allowing local people to have a local say. It is a London issue but if the amendment is accepted by your Lordships' House, it is something that could be used for other towns and cities that may have plans to introduce congestion charges of their own. We believe in giving people the right to chose whether they want it. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on my modest amendment because I am sure that he believes in local accountability. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, if the Opposition had any courage at all they would be proposing a referendum on the abolition of the congestion charge. But they would be up against the small matter that the election was won by the present Mayor with that issue very much up-front. It was not only up-front but was also canvassed very strongly by the candidate who represented the noble Viscount's party, who was intent on its abolition. We all know the result of that election.
  Of course, the noble Viscount is right. We are in favour of consultation. The Greater London Authority Act makes absolutely clear how that consultation should be carried out and who is responsible for ensuring that it is carried out; namely, the Mayor of London. It is quite clear that we have in place under that Act the checks and powers that are necessary to govern the way in which he arrives at such a decision. He is charged with taking account of the impact of the congestion charge on residents,
  254
  businesses, visitors and tourists and he is uniquely placed to do so. As everyone will recognise, he has a duty to provide and implement a transport strategy for London. The congestion charge is a part of that.
  I also note that the noble Viscount introduced into his amendment a uniquely high hurdle that would have to be leapt in order for any extension to be considered. I recognise the fact that it is a misfortune for the Opposition that this part of the Bill was not before the House immediately prior to the recent election so that they could have articulated their arguments with the force and charm of the noble Viscount this evening. But I predict that the result would have been exactly the same.
  Viscount AstorMy Lords, the Minister seems to have put the case that Ken Livingstone won the election for Mayor of London solely on the basis of the congestion charge. Looking at some of his other policies on the Tube and similar matters, that may be the case. Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour and that some of us will have to walk home, some will bicycle and some will be able to get into the ministerial limo—I am not mentioning names, of course—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 12 [Repeals]:
  [Amendment No. 140 not moved.]
  House adjourned at half past ten o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Office: Telephone System
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether operator response times for the Northern Ireland Office telephone system are monitored; and, if so, what is the average response time for each financial year from April 1999 to March 2004; and what operator response target times have been set to be achieved by March 2005. [HL2805]

  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
  The Northern Ireland Office's telephony service is provided as part of a wider service which includes all Northern Ireland Civil Service departments. Operator response times for the overall service are monitored, but because of the manner in which the service is provided it is not possible to provide response times solely for the NIO.

  Average response times for each financial year from 1999 for all inbound calls to the NIO/NICS switchboard are as follows:

  Financial year

  Average Response Time

  1999–2000

  15.01 sec

  2000–01

  14.58 sec

  2001–02

  12.68 sec

  2002–03

  13.31 sec

  2003–04

  27.00 sec

  The 2003–04 figures reflect some integration difficulties between a new switchboard service introduced in 2003 and the underlying telephony network, as well as from staff familiarising themselves with the new equipment and adjustments to the call handling process. Performance levels are now expected to improve over the next three months: the recent average response time figure of 20 seconds for May supports this expectation and, in the longer term, the switchboard service should be more efficient and effective than before. A target of 12 seconds is considered to be achievable if efficient call handling processes are established within departments' back-offices.

  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the total cost of installing the Northern Ireland Office's new telephone switchboard; when the switchboard became operational; whether there have been any unexpected difficulties with the new system; and whether operator response times have improved. [HL2804]
  WA12
  Baroness Amos:
  The Northern Ireland Office's switchboard is provided as part of a corporate service which is also used by the 11 departments of the Northern Ireland administration (covering 160 sites and 30,000 staff). It was initially installed in 1992 and replaced in 2003. The new system cost"£1.6 million. It addressed problems with maintenance support for the old equipment and provides additional functionality, and was phased in over a period of seven months from April 2003 to October 2003.

  The new switchboard introduced new technology which required significant work to integrate with the existing voice telephone network. Some integration difficulties were anticipated and mitigated through the phased implementation approach, although a number took slightly longer than anticipated to resolve.

  While there was an initial decrease in average operator response times resulting from these issues, as well as from staff familiarising themselves with the new equipment and adjustments to the call handling process, performance levels are now expected to improve over the next three months and, in the longer term, the switchboard service should be more efficient and effective than before.

  Waterways Ireland
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether Waterways Ireland has started any new project in the past 18 months. [HL2889]

  Baroness Amos:
  The projects started by Waterways Ireland since January 2003 are:

  Northern Region

  1. Lower Bann Navigation
  Four landing jetties were installed at Christie Park, Coleraine, The Cutts, Coleraine, Carnroe, and Portna.

  2. Shannon-Erne Waterway
  Access works at Mullanwary, Co Leitrim.

  Eastern Region

  1. Ringsend Basin Moorings, Dublin.

  2. Small landing jetty projects commenced along the Royal and Grand Canals and including the Barrow Line and the Barrow Navigation at 18 locations in 2003 and five in 2004. A number of small landing jetties were commenced along the Royal Canal and Grand.

  3. Restoration of a 1,500 metre stretch of Begnagh Bog Embankment on the Royal Canal between Ballydrum Bridge and Begnagh Bridge, Co Longford as part of the ongoing restoration of the Royal Canal.

  4. Restoration of Bagenalstown lifting bridge, Barrow Navigation, Co Carlow.

  Western Region—Shannon Navigation

  1. Landing jetties were installed at Coosan Point, Co Westmeath and below Roosky Lock, Co Leitrim.

  2. Construction of a land bridge and installation of fixed and floating breakwaters at Cleighranmore, Co Leitrim.

  3. Scarriff Harbour extension, Co Clare.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 26 May (WA 133) concerning disclosure of information and the 2004 budget of the Ulster-Scots Agency, what is meant by "internal discussion". [HL3089]

  Baroness Amos:
  Part II Paragraph 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information sets out the type of information that can be withheld under this exemption.

  Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the public money provided to the Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission for Irish culture has been allocated; if so, to whom; whether there was a business case for such allocations; who scrutinised any such case; and whether they will place copies of any business case in the Library of the House. [HL3130]

  Baroness Amos:
  No public money has been provided to the Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission for Irish culture.

  Northern Ireland Act 1998: Section 75
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What evidence they have of the benefits which have resulted from the implementation of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. [HL3236]

  Baroness Amos:
  The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) has a statutory duty to keep under review the effectiveness of the Section 75 duties. The commission has published two annual progress reports on Section 75. They contain a record of evidence of good practice and benefits arising from implementation of the duties. Copies of the reports are available on the ECNI website at www.equalityni.org.

  Northern Ireland Office: Equality Officers
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the annual cost of the equality officer posts in the Northern Ireland Office. [HL3265]

  Baroness Amos:
  The Northern Ireland Office has no nominated equality officer. Work on the statutory equality duty under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is mainstreamed into the day-to-day work of the department.
  WA14
  Equality forms only part of the work of the staff in that unit and it is not possible to accurately disaggregate it from their other duties. Only an approximate cost can therefore be provided, which we have calculated, per grade, at around:

  Senior Civil Service—£1,490

  Grade 7—£7,642

  Grade B2—£14,638

  Grade C—£10,976

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will state the gender, age, ethnic origins and community background of the equality officers employed in the Northern Ireland Office and the part of Northern Ireland (if any) with which they regard themselves as being most closely associated. [HL3266]

  Baroness Amos:
  In line with Part 11 Paragraph 12 (Privacy of an individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it would be inappropriate to disclose this information.

  Iraq: Human Rights
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Statement by the Lord Bach on 4 May (HL Deb, col. 1030) that United Kingdom personnel in Iraq "are subject to United Kingdom law, as they would be in the United Kingdom", whether United Kingdom personnel are accountable for breaches of human rights in Iraq as they would be in the United Kingdom; and, if not, what is the position. [HL2713]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach):
  United Kingdom Military personnel are subject to military discipline wherever they are in the world and can be tried in military courts for any criminal offences committed by them in Iraq. This would include murder, assault or false imprisonment and offences under Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which implements in domestic law the United Kingdom's obligations under the UN Convention against Torture. The question whether their actions are also subject to the European Convention on Human Rights is currently the subject of judicial review proceedings in which the Government will argue that the convention does not apply.

  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How they are ensuring that British Forces in Iraq fully understand current instructions to treat prisoners and detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and to use the minimum necessary force in dealing with insurgents and demonstrators. [HL2829]
  WA15
  Lord Bach:
  All British forces personnel in Iraq have the authority to detain persons who pose a threat to their safety or security and are, therefore, briefed in prisoner handling. This includes guidance that prisoners should be treated, at all times, fully in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

  All use of force is governed by United Kingdom forces' rules of engagement (ROE). The ROE take into account the UK's obligations under national and international law, of which necessity and proportionality are fundamental principles.

  Interrogation Techniques
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether there is photographic evidence obtained by video recordings of interrogation techniques used by the coalition forces in Afghanistan, Iraq or Guantanamo Bay. [HL2869]

  Lord Bach:
  The United Kingdom does not undertake interrogations in Afghanistan.
  WA16
  In the UK interrogation facility in Iraq, video cameras are present in some interrogation rooms. However, the cameras are used only for monitoring. Interrogations are not recorded and there is no video or other photographic material in existence.

  Guantanamo Bay is a US facility and we are not in a position to comment on whether interrogations are filmed.

  Germany: UK Military Deployment
  Lord Astor of Hever
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the current United Kingdom military deployment in Germany, in terms of numbers, units and of bases; what changes in this commitment and in these bases have taken place over the past two years; and whether they are contemplating any future changes in the commitment and bases. [HL3106]

  Lord Bach:
  The establishment levels for major British Army units in Germany, as at 31 May 2004, are shown in the tables below. Details of the changes in commitments since 2002 are also shown below:

  Unit

  Location

  Establishment

  HQ 1(UK) Armoured Division and Div Tps

  HQ 1 (UK) Armd Div &1

  Herford

  819

  Armd Div Sig Regt

  12 Regt RA

  Sennelager

  627

  28 Engr Regt

  Hameln

  857

  1CS Med Regt

  Munster

  517

  1 Regt RMP

  Herford

  380

  1GS Regt RLC

  Gutersloh

  812

  2 CS Regt RLC

  Gutersloh

  886

  1 Regt AAC

  Gutersloh

  372

  I MI Bn

  All Garrison in BFG

  142

  RLC Mil Trg Wing

  Bielefeld

  8

  4 Armoured Brigade

  4 Bde HQ &Sig Sqn

  Osnabruck

  177

  RDG

  Munster

  590

  QDG

  Osnabruck

  400

  4 Regt RA

  Osnabruck

  555

  21 Engr Regt

  Osnabruck

  650

  I SG

  Munster

  740

  1 DWR

  Osnabruck

  741

  1 Bn REME

  Osnabruck

  403

  115 Pro Coy RMP

  Osnabruck

  70

  RL Band

  Osnabruck

  35

  7 Armoured Brigade

  7 Bde HQ &Sig Sqn

  Hohne

  173

  SCOTS DG

  Fallingbostel

  591

  9/12 L

  Hohne

  454

  2 RTR

  Fallingbostel

  600

  3 RHA

  Hohne

  555

  32 Engr Regt

  Hohne

  657

  1 RRF

  Celle

  742

  1 HLDRS

  Fallingbostel

  741

  111 Pro Coy RMP

  Hohne

  70

  Cambrai Band

  Fallingbostel

  35

  2 Bn REME

  Fallingbostel

  403

  20 Armoured Brigade

  20 Bde HQ &Sig Sqn

  Sennelager

  173

  QRH

  Sennelager

  591

  26 Regt RA

  GuterslohM

  555

  35 Engr Regt

  Paderborn

  657

  110 Pro Coy RMP

  70

  1 RR W

  Paderborn

  741

  1 LI

  Paderborn

  741

  3 Bn REME

  Paderborn

  403

  WA17

  Unit

  Location

  Establishment

  HQ UK Support Command (Germany)

  HQ UKSC(G)

  Rheindahlen

  102

  HQ RESG

  Rheindahlen

  179

  12 Flt AAC

  Elmpt

  7

  Det 921 EOD Sqn

  Elmpt

  10

  Rhine Area Wksp

  Elmpt

  9

  1 Signal Brigade and Rhine

  Rheindahlen &

  1,797

  Garrison

  Elmpt

  102 Logistic Brigade

  HQ 102 Log Bde &Sig Sqn

  Gutersloh

  300

  6 Sup Regt RLC

  Gutersloh

  709

  7 Tpt Regt RLC

  Bielefeld

  597

  921 EOD Sqn

  Bielefeld

  40

  101 Pro Coy, 5 Regt RMP

  Rheindahlen

  109

  24 Regt RLC

  Bielefeld

  256

  Changes during the past two years:

  1 Light Infantry replaced 1 Royal Green Jackets in Paderborn

  Queens Dragoon Guards replaced Queens Royal Lancers in Osnabruck

  1 Scots Guards replaced 1 Irish Guards in Munster

  1 Highlanders replaced 1 Black Watch in Fallingbostel.

  A reduction in the number of troops in Germany was announced as part of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in 1998. Of these, 1,500 troops have already returned to the UK and the future drawdown of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment and 64 Fuel Squadron is subject to the build of new barracks in the UK. It remains the Government's intention to complete this drawdown, although the exact timing has yet to be finalised.

  There are currently no plans to alter our force levels or bases in Germany. As outlined in the defence White Paper (DWP), Delivering Security in a Changing World, published on 11 December 2003, plans for future Army structures continue to evolve. As part of this work, the Army intends to adjust its structure to develop a more balanced force structure of light, medium and heavy forces; in doing so it will reduce the number of armoured brigades from three to two and create a new light brigade. The full implications of this work have yet to be finalised.

  Sports Colleges
  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will indicate which specialist sports colleges are accredited and the local education authorities in which they are situated. [HL3323]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland):
  There are 260 sports colleges in England in a total of 122 local education authorities. More sports colleges, approved following the latest round of applications, will be announced at the end of this month.
  WA18
  A full list of approved sports colleges, showing their locations, has been placed in the Library.

  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What percentage of pupils at specialist sports colleges and non-specialist schools obtained five or more A to C grade GCSEs in each of 2001, 2002 and 2003. [HL3324]

  Baroness Ashton of Upholland:
  Pupils in sports colleges have achieved the following performance in terms of percentages of 5 + A*-C GCSEs compared to pupils in non-specialist schools:

  2001 (100 schools)

  2002(160 schools)

  2003(228 schools)

  Sports Colleges

  47.3

  48.7

  48.7

  Non-specialist Schools

  47.3

  48.4

  49.1

  The numbers of sports colleges has doubled since 2001, with 2003 seeing the largest single increase— meaning that most sports colleges are quite new to the programme. This has an impact on average attainment because the benefits of specialism increase over time—as reflected in analysis by the Youth Sport Trust which shows that sports colleges designated in 1997 have increased their average attainment in every year since then.

  Furthermore, as set out in a previous answer (HL2053), sports colleges are raising attainment at a higher rate than the national average; and their average value added was higher in 2003 than in 2002 at both key stages 2–3 and 3–4 as set out in the table below:

  DFES value added Key Stage 2–3

  DFES value added Key Stage 3–4

  year

  SCs–%

  Gap against average in % points

  SCs–%

  Gap against average in % points

  2002

  98.3

  –1.6

  97.9

  –0.8

  2003

  99.7

  -0.2

  98.7

  –0.4

  Mentally Incapacitated Patients: Artificial Nutrition and Hydration
  Lord Alton of Liverpool
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Warner on 29 April (WA 92), in what circumstances the provision of nutrition and hydration by artificial means would not be in a patient's best interests. [HL3398]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner):
  Decisions about whether or not a treatment is in the best interests of a patient who is incapacitated will depend on the specific circumstances of that person. It is a matter of clinical judgment involving assessing the person's prospects of recovery, the pain they are suffering and any burdens associated with available treatments, and discussions with those close to the patient.

  Air Traffic: Emissions
  Lord Berkeley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will commission a range of forecasts on how air traffic and the associated
  WA20
  greenhouse gas emissions are likely to evolve over the next 30 years. [HL3376]

  Lord Davies of Oldham:
  An analysis of forecasts of future trends in aviation's contribution to global warming up to 2050, Aviation and Global Warming, was published by the Department for Transport in February 2004, in support of The Future of Air Transport White Paper.

  Lord Berkeley
  asked Her Majestys' Government:

  Whether the carbon emissions targets in the energy White Paper include the radioactive forcing from emissions from domestic and international aviation. [HL3377]

  Lord Davies of Oldham:
  The goal set in the energy White Paper Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy relates to CO2 emissions, and focuses on domestic emissions reductions. While emissions from domestic aviation are taken into account, emissions from international flights do not currently count in the national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions, there being no international agreement yet on ways of allocating such emissions. It is the Government's intention to address the radioactive forcing of aviation emissions in fulfilling their air transport White Paper commitment to ensure that the aviation industry takes account of, and where appropriate reduces, its contribution to global warming.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland: Report of Chief Constable 2003–04
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos):
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I have received the annual report for 2003–04 of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is being presented to Parliament today as a Command Paper.

  Copies of the report are available from the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

  Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures: Annual Report
  Baroness Amos:
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  I have today laid in Parliament the annual report for 2003 of Jim McDonald, the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures. The report of the independent assessor continues to provide valuable reassurance to both the public and the Government that the Army's complaints procedures stand scrutiny. I will consider Mr McDonald's report carefully and respond in due course.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Travel Advice
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean):
  In my Written Answer of 16 December 2003 to my noble friend Lord Berkeley (Official Report, cols. WA131–133), I announced an independent internal review to look at the balance between security and operational effectiveness in the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) overseas. The review has now been completed. A summary of the reviewer's report is appended.

  Introduction

  1. The review was set up following the attack on the British Consulate General in Istanbul in November 2003. The terms of reference were: "To review the basis for the FCO's security strategy. In particular to re-examine the balance between security and operational effectiveness". The review looked at the range of security threats facing the FCO's posts over the next five to 10 years but focused mainly on terrorism. The aim is to ensure that the FCO's security strategy is on a consistently sound long-term basis that minimises the risks, while enabling posts to function effectively in line with government policies.
  WS6
  Methodology

  2. The reviewer, Stuart Jack, consulted widely in the FCO and Whitehall, including withh the trade union side; visited several overseas posts; met with a number of companies; and looked at the practice of some other governments, in particular the United States.

  Background

  3. The FCO's security measures are designed to protect most importantly its staff and their families, and also information, the integrity of IT systems, buildings, operations, and reputation. The FCO owes a legal duty of care to all its staff, UK-based and locally-engaged.

  4. The policy framework and therefore the operating context within which the FCO must seek to secure its security overseas is set out in the FCO strategy (UK International Priorities. A Strategy for the FCO, published on 2 December 2003). British foreign policy is to be "active and engaged around the world", with eight strategic policy priorities, including efforts against terrorism. Importance is attached to providing high-quality public services, including consular and visa.

  5. For the foreseeable future the greatest threat will be from terrorism, particularly but not exclusively from Al'Qaeda and like-minded groups. The threat is global and dynamic. The vehicle-borne bomb will continue to be a weapon of choice for many terrorists. But the FCO must be prepared for other methods of attack, other locations and sources. There is a serious risk of threat displacement to British targets if they appear much softer targets than the Americans in particular.

  6. There also remains a serious espionage threat. Particular care is needed over IT security. Crime is the most immediate threat for most staff overseas.

  Findings and recommendations

  7. The review's main conclusion is that, while the FCO's existing security strategy does not need a fundamental overhaul, there is more that could be done to enhance security worldwide. The security strategy needs to be forward-looking, flexible, professional; with clear criteria and consistent standards, robust decision-making, audit trails, and good communication with staff; and adequately resourced.

  8. The safety of staff and families comes first. Security should continue to be a factor when deciding what posts are tasked to do, and how and where.

  9. Total risk avoidance—absolute security—is unrealistic. Overseas posts have an important job to do in protecting and furthering British interests, including in insecure countries. Risk management is fundamental to striking a balance between security and operational effectiveness and to the prioritisation of security resources. Better methods are needed to assess the vulnerabilities and threats facing each post. The FCO's Security Strategy Unit (SSU) has been developing a risk management matrix to inform security decisions along the lines suggested in the review.
  WS7
  10. The security awareness of FCO staff is generally good. The culture and resources dedicated to security understandably adapted to the lessening of some threats since the end of the Cold War and the easing of the IRA threat. There is strong commitment from FCO senior management to security, and since Istanbul security efforts have been accelerated. But, in the light of the new and ever-changing threats, the FCO needs to devote more resources to security.

  11. Final responsibility for security lies with the centre: the FCO board and Ministers must remain regularly apprised of security issues. Heads of post and geographical directors in the FCO are responsible for individual posts, working closely with the Security Strategy Unit (SSU). All staff share responsibility for their own and others' security.

  12. All posts already have post security committees and designated post security officers. Lines of responsibility at each post, including heads of post, must be clear and well understood. There should be more formal mechanisms for resolving any conflicts between professional security advice and operational or other requirements.

  13. Security needs to be factored into decisions on the estate in an effective and consistent way. The review does not recommend a wholesale shift to "fortresses" or "bunkers", which would involve operational drawbacks, considerable resources and many years. Physical defences need to be considered within a more robust and objective framework, and all posts should undergo a "vulnerability audit". In some cases, this might result in a decision to relocate a post. Standards (for stand-off,
  WS8
  glazing, etc) for new builds and acquisitions of offices and other accommodation should be readily understood. Enhanced standards should be applied to the highest risk posts. Decisions should be based on risk management.

  14. The human dimension is as important as physical measures. The FCO needs more overseas security managers or locally engaged equivalents, in some cases possibly more armed guards. There should also be a small increase in the numbers of overseas security advisers and SSU staff and more done to plug into outside expertise.

  15. The FCO has already increased its capacity to deliver security training and awareness to its staff. Formal security training should be mandatory. New staff at post should always be given a local security briefing on arrival in the job. Some staff with security responsibilities, such as management officers, need more comprehensive training before taking up their jobs and more time to carry out their security responsibilities when overseas.

  16. The review makes almost 50 recommendations covering the areas mentioned above, many of them procedural or organisational and some related to resources, including buildings, security staff and training.

  Conclusion

  17. As the UK remains engaged across an uncertain world we must be prepared for considerable security challenges. On terrorism we are in for the long haul. To meet these challenges the FCO will need to continue to put a strong emphasis on security and ensure that the current efforts to enhance security can be fully implemented.