asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution will be taken into account when the Government finalise their climate change programme in the autumn. We aim to make a full response to the report's 87 recommendations within a year. That is the normal time frame for responding to Royal Commission reports.

My Lords, what will the Government be doing, along with United Nations agencies, to monitor other countries' actions in respect of the convention?

My Lords, the UK is working closely with the commission and the International Energy Agency to monitor projections of emissions and how they compare with the Kyoto targets and the policies to deliver savings.

My Lords, can the Minister give us any indication when the House will be able to debate that very important Royal Commission report? In view of the great urgency of countering climate change, as set out in the report, will he prevail on his noble friend Lord Whitty to reconsider his comment in the House a week ago that, on CO₂ emissions, the total volume of traffic is not the issue? Even at this late stage, road and air traffic limitation targets could be introduced in the Transport Bill.

My Lords, it will be for the usual channels to consider when such a debate can take place. I think that I can speak authoritatively for my noble friend in saying that the answer to the question about the Transport Bill is "No".

My Lords, will the Government's forthcoming statement deal with the period beyond 2010? They have a demanding objective for 2010 that we may get somewhere near, but with the withdrawal of the nuclear-powered stations, the problems after that date will be much more serious. We ought to be planning for that now.

My Lords, the finalisation of the climate change programme, which will come in the autumn, will give more consideration to the long-term position. As the noble Lord says, the target for 2010 is very demanding, but the situation after that will be even more difficult, particularly on the assumption of a run-down of nuclear energy.

My Lords, has the Minister been made aware of the increase in pollution arising from Internet shopping? A study in the Netherlands has shown that Internet shopping has already added 17 per cent to the traffic involved in buying household goods. If that carries on, the Government will have a real problem with increasing road traffic pollution. What do they propose to do about that?

My Lords, although I know quite a bit about Internet shopping, I was not aware of that fact. There is another school of thought that equally confidently believes that Internet shopping will help by cutting the transport requirements of major supermarket chains, which is clearly a highly desirable goal.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, watercourses and pipelines already transfer water over long distances in several parts of the United Kingdom to provide water supplies. The development of further transfers will be subject to assessment of their environmental impact, future demand for water, and the availability of sustainable supplies. In a proposed joint venture with the private sector, British Waterways is examining further use of the canal network to supply water of all qualities, including potable, linking the North West and the Midlands to London and the South East.

My Lords, will the Minister give us more information about that interesting proposal? For years, we have been trying to devise a scheme for moving water from the North, where it is more plentiful, to the South, where it is lacking. It seems that there is now a real prospect of overcoming that problem. When could such a project come about? Might it seriously alleviate the problems in the South over the next few years, bearing in mind the Government's plans for building so many more houses in the South East?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the main pressure on water supplies is in the South East and the main supply of water is in the North. The canal system can deal with only part of that, because it is not a universal network. However, I assure the noble Lord that the proposed public/private partnership has passed its initial feasibility study. There is a prospect of the supply of water of different qualities to ultimate suppliers through the canal system. That may come into play within a few years. There has been definite progress.

My Lords, my noble friend has been asking this question since 1989. Have not the Government had long enough to think of a rather less preliminary answer?

My Lords, I cannot answer for the first eight years of that period. Since my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had responsibility for waterways, he has been extremely anxious that British Waterways should look at the way in which it can use its assets for wider purposes—both regeneration and, in this case, developing long-term ability to transfer water. We have gone ahead with the study. The technical side has been addressed and we are looking at the financing side. We believe that if we can provide different qualities of water for different consumers, there will be a strong commercial case for the proposal. Therefore, we are now well on the road.

My Lords, I recognise the desirability of transferring water from the wetter regions to the drier regions and I note the contribution which the canal system can make to regional transfers. But will the Minister take note also of the very considerable energy costs which would be involved in any large-scale and long-distance grid system transferring water over very considerable distances? That was certainly one of the factors which influenced the view of the National Rivers Authority during the time that I was its chairman.

My Lords, if we were looking to use the canal system and existing waterways for a total transfer and a total national grid, clearly there would be substantial energy implications. There will be some energy implications even for those areas which we are looking at, but we believe that those will be taken care of in terms of the investment that is required, the commercial return and the environmental benefit which could be achieved by using British Waterways' assets in that way.

My Lords, it seems that there is a proposal to transfer water from the North West to the South East. Surely, if energy is needed to pump water up hills, hydro-electric energy can be generated beside locks when the water comes down hills?

My Lords, I am sure that, in principle, my noble friend is absolutely correct on that. However, the water course does not operate quite as systematically as his question implies. There will be points at which a degree of help with the flow may be necessary; but in general we shall be working with gravity rather than against it.

My Lords, perhaps the Government may find it easier to make it rain when the water is required than to use some of those very complicated systems. What research is being carried out into rain-making in the areas where it might be required?

My Lords, judging by recent days, that requirement is perhaps less immediately necessary than the noble and gallant Lord suggests. However, there are longer-term climate change issues which must be addressed. It may well be that the South of England will become drier and the prognostications tend to suggest that the North of England will become wetter. In those circumstances, the proposed scheme would be even more desirable, without intervening directly with precipitation in the way in which the noble and gallant Lord was considering.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government are currently looking at whether a part-time or retained police officers scheme would be a viable and useful tool in the fight against crime, particularly, although not exclusively, in rural areas. Creating such a force would not be straightforward. We shall need to discuss the issues it raises with the police service and police authorities before reaching any firm conclusions on the merits of the proposal.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for that reply, from which I draw considerable comfort. Is the Minister aware of the very serious recruitment crisis in the police, particularly in London and the South East, where house prices are so high?

Although the Government have made money available for recruitment, is the Minister aware of the wastage rates? In my own police force of Thames Valley, in June we recruited 23 new officers, which is the number needed to meet the Government's targets. Twenty officers resigned in that time. So that is a net improvement of three.

Is it not time to face up to the potential crisis and that real urgency—perhaps something which is in rather short supply sometimes in the Home Office was directed towards how police numbers could be enhanced by the use of retained or auxiliary policemen?

My Lords, I dispute the noble Lord's comment that there is not real urgency in the Home Office in relation to this problem. There obviously is a real problem, both in the Metropolitan Police and the Thames Valley Police, which the noble Lord mentioned. Of course, he has a distinguished role with that force.

The figures for Thames Valley are that the force may recruit a maximum of approximately 240 new officers per year, dictated by training course capacity. A number of officers voluntarily resigned from the force during the course of last year. Twenty-six officers were transferred in from other forces during last year. But I am pleased to say that 151 probationer constables were appointed during this year. There is a problem of recruitment which the Government are determined to conquer.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, obviously, the police force operates in an employment marketplace? The real answer to the problem is proper establishments and a police force which is fully up to strength. In the light of that, does my noble friend agree that remuneration is a crucial element? The previous government took away the housing allowance. The sooner that is replaced throughout the country, the better it will be for recruitment.

My Lords, my noble friend is right. He has made the point on a number of occasions. In the opinion of the Government, it is one which cannot be made too often. Police pay is based on national pay scales. Starting pay for police officers compares favourably with other public service occupations. A police officer will now earn £16,635 on recruitment, whereas a fire-fighter will earn £15,381; a prison officer £15,842; an immigration officer £14,224 and a graduate teacher £15,537. Anyone who suggests the Government are not doing anything about that is obviously wrong.

My Lords, I hope this is not a stupid question. Could the Minister tell me the difference between a part-time police force and a special constabulary?

My Lords, that is certainly not a stupid question, but an extremely good one, if I may say so. It appears that I may! The essential difference is that of payment. Special constables are unpaid. Many special constables join up through altruism and obviously not for financial gain. However, the relationship of the special constabulary to a part-time force is one of the issues raised by the creation of such a force. The Government are considering that issue at present.

My Lords, it is necessary for the Government to continue to involve the normal citizen in helping the police authorities where needed. Does the Minister agree that it is the duty of the citizen to support the maintenance of law and order, and, therefore, that the Government should do everything they can to create the climate of opinion in which this naturally arises from the duty of citizenship?

My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is the duty of citizens both to assist the police and do their own bit as far as concerns maintaining law and order. Noble Lords will know that the neighbourhood warden scheme is up and running. That affects ordinary members of the public associated with it. However, it should be said that special constables are ordinary citizens who give up their free time in order to preserve law and order. They do their bit for the public, unpaid. I know that this House greatly respects what they do. I am delighted to say that the Ferrers Trophy—named after the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—for the special constable of the year, has been awarded to Daren Fitter of the Leicestershire Constabulary, a special constable in my home town of Lutterworth.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the targets set up following the Macpherson report on the murder of Stephen Lawrence about the recruitment of people from ethnic minorities, black and Asian police officers, have not been met and are very much below target? It is highly unlikely that the target set by the Home Office will be met. Does the Minister accept that one way to build the confidence of the minority is to establish a part-time police force within which at least they would have a first stepping stone towards a career in the police service?

My Lords, the ideas and views of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on this issue are always treated by the Government with the greatest respect. His idea concerns the very real problem of recruiting and retaining ethnic minority police officers. We shall consider this proposal with the same interest as we consider his other proposals.

My Lords, is not the problem as much in the deployment of existing policemen as in the recruitment of new ones? I ask the Minister to comment in particular—he probably cannot do so immediately—on the employment of an armed car in the Isle of Wight which has meant that the police force available to police the island, which is very small in any case, has been depleted by 14 men.

My Lords, deployment is important. The noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on the position in the Isle of Wight. However, I shall look into the matter and write to him.

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of one other possible source of recruitment for police forces in England and Wales; that is, Northern Ireland. What are the Government doing to make it possible for serving RUC officers to ask to be transferred to the Metropolitan Police or other police forces over here where there is a shortage of recruits?

My Lords, interesting and new ideas do not come only from the Liberal Democrat Benches. My noble friend's idea is new to me and one that I should like to consider. I shall write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, has the Minister noticed the reports in the newspapers of the law and order problem created by the growth of late night clubs operating in inner cities, generally in disused warehouses and similar premises, which turn out their occupants in the middle of the night, sometimes at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m? Would it not be difficult to get part-time police officers to serve at such inconvenient hours? Would not a better answer be for local authorities to refuse planning permission for these operations which cause such great difficulties for the police?

My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to comment on issues which are far beyond my brief. All I would say is that police officers, whether regular officers or special constables, have to put themselves at considerable risk in a way that many members of the public are not always aware of. They do so at night, not just in our big cities but in our small towns, at "chucking-out" time, whether it be in clubs or pubs. Their bravery, in the face of unwarranted aggression by those who are kicked out, has been praised in this House before and should be praised again.

My Lords, can the Minister say what encouragement the Government are giving to neighbourhood watch schemes?

My Lords, like the previous Government, this Government have supported neighbourhood watch schemes to a great extent. I am not in a position to give figures to the noble Baroness, but we support the schemes in precisely the same way as her Government did, and so that should be. This is a matter which should be beyond party.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the suggestion by his noble friend Lord Dubs is one which could have wide support, particularly when the situation in Northern Ireland permits? Can the Minister tell us about the present position of the exiting part-time police force in Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve? Are they being looked after properly?

My Lords, I shall be frank with the House. I have no information about the part-time police force in Northern Ireland. The best I can do is to write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us if there is any indication that there will be a Government Statement within this calendar year on the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw? Is he aware that the point made by his noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate is a powerful one? The recruitment crisis in London is caused by the acceptance of the then Government's Sheehy report, which has done so much damage to the police service in this country.

My Lords, I cannot give a definite answer to the first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as to whether or not that will be within this calendar year. The matter is under active consideration by the Home Office. The noble Lord will know better than I what that means. There must be every chance that a fairly early conclusion will be reached. However, I cannot go further than that. My noble friend was right; the Sheehy report and all that followed did, and continues to do, quite a lot of damage.

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that many police forces have been selling police homes and police stations in rural areas. Are the Government now satisfied with the policing of rural areas in general?

No, my Lords, we are not satisfied. That is the reason that extra money already has been given to ensure that policing, and particularly call-out times, in rural areas are improved. We are not satisfied. More needs to be done, and something is being done already.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act covers the carriage of guide dogs and hearing dogs in licensed taxis. There are no powers in that Act to cover private hire cars. We shall be starting consultation this week on our proposals for implementation of Section 37. A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Library.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, does he accept that in many parts of the country if one needs to hire a driven vehicle, one is restricted to using a private hire firm? If those hire firms decide to ban people who have with them a dog for sight or hearing support, that person is effectively restricted to their home or may be forced to pay higher sums of money for the service. Is not the Act therefore effectively condoning a form of discrimination?

My Lords, there is much in what the noble Lord says; but the fact is that the powers in the DDA do not at the moment cover private hire cars. There will shortly be consultation in relation to private hire cars in London, but the situation is as I described it in the rest of the country.

My Lords, I am astonished at my noble friend's reply. Does he agree that it is obvious that blind people need to be accompanied by their guide dogs and it is therefore amazing that Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act has not already been implemented, especially bearing in mind that the Act itself was enacted in 1995? Does my noble friend recall that the Government stated last year that action would be taken to implement Section 37 early in the new year? He now says that considered discussions will start this week. Can he assure us that those discussions will not be protracted and that there will be no further slippage? Blind people are suffering as a consequence of lack of proper regulation.

My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says in relation to the non-coverage of private hire vehicles. Nevertheless, it remains the fact that we have no powers to issue regulations covering private hire vehicles. My noble friend is right that we originally hoped to start this consultation earlier in the year. Indeed, I indicated to the House that we hoped to start it in March. It has taken slightly longer because of the need to address the issue of medical exemptions on this front. However, the consultation document requires the medical exemptions to be sorted by November this year and the full regulations to come into force in March next year. There will be no delay in that.

My Lords, the initial reply from the noble Lord indicates that the situation has not changed since his Written Answer to me on 25th May. Does he accept that a substantial and important part of the Disability Discrimination Act applies to transport? That was strongly advocated and supported in this House especially by our mobile Bench; in other words, by the "wheelchair squadron".

My Lords, that is why we prioritised the regulations covering buses, coaches and railway carriages. The regulations therefore cover much of the public transport system already. The next stage is for them to apply to taxis.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that among the few private hire firms that carry dogs, it is common practice to apply extra charges? In one case which recently came to my attention, the increase was 20 per cent. Will the Minister consider that for those who are on benefit that may be a severe imposition on an already limited income?

My Lords, one would have to look clearly at the individual circumstances and the charging regimes that apply within those private hire companies. But, on the face of it, I agree with the noble Earl.

My Lords, can the Minister explain why the consultations have to be so complicated? They seem quite simple to me.

My Lords, one of the lessons one learns from sitting on these Benches is that consultation is never simple. It always appears simple at the beginning, but ends up being extremely complicated. We are talking of a consultation period of approximately three months, which is normal in such circumstances. That will cover all those who are interested in these regulations.

My Lords, can the Minister say why it has taken this Government three years to move towards consultation which, if it is going to take only three months, could have been done long ago?

My Lords, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, we prioritised applying regulations to buses, coaches and other areas of the transport system. We have to do this sequentially, and we are now addressing the taxi problem.

My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that in future when the Government consider transport policy they will consider whole journeys which cover more than one type of transport? We are talking here of a broken link in the transport chain. Can the Minister assure us that in future all the various links in a journey will be brought together as a whole?

My Lords, when the noble Lord considers the Transport Bill later today and the transport plan later this week, he will find that we are addressing transport problems in a holistic way and in a way that is of benefit to the disabled members of our community.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on teachers' performance pay: the High Court judgment.

rose to move, That the 2nd and 3rd Reports from the Select Committee (HL Papers 62 and 81) be agreed to.

My Lords, perhaps I can briefly detain the House. Although I am interested in the appointments, the setting up of the economic committee, which is an extremely important development, does not have the advantage of having included with it terms of reference, as there are with the proposed constitutional committee. I am sure that these will be agreed. But I hope that the noble Lord can give us an assurance that, in drawing up those terms of reference, he will ensure that there is proper complementarity between the role of the proposed economic committee and the current role of Sub-Committee A of the European Union Committee. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me that assurance this afternoon. Clearly, it is important that each committee should be able to continue with its role without there being a turf war between them.

My Lords, I welcome these proposals. I believe that Select Committees reflect this House at its best. I am very keen on expansion of such committees, as envisaged in these reports, but I have two questions for the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. First, I welcome the fact that a committee is to be established to study animal experimentation, but is there any reason why this is to be an ad hoc committee rather than part of the Science and Technology Committee?

Secondly, the last sentence of paragraph 9 of the Third Report says that the recommendations are made,

"on the assumption that the House will be prepared to provide these resources".

Can the noble Lord tell us whether this is a matter for the House or for the Treasury?

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Dubs, I believe we all recognise the great value of these committees of the House, which are acknowledged almost throughout the world for their impartiality and fairness. I have one question to raise on the third report as regards the proposed constitutional committee, which has terms of reference:

"To examine the constitutional implications of all public bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution".

The following paragraph says that the,

"staff needs of the Committee beyond a clerk will depend on how it chooses to work. We recommend that initially the Committee should seek any specialist support which it needs from specialist advisers".

My point to the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees is as follows. As regards these specialist advisers, can the noble Lord say whether we will have the same stage army of pressure group people coming in under this guise and purporting to give impartial advice to a House of Lords committee?

My question may sound far fetched, but on 5th July this year, when speaking during the Committee stage of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, I drew attention to the recent publication by Charter 88 under the pretentious title of Unlocking Democracy and said (at col. 1486 of Hansard) that I feared the monarchy would be a target of these zealots in the not too-distant future. I also drew attention to the All-Party Constitution and Citizenship Group of Parliament which, as noble Lords will know, represents all shades of opinion in both Houses. I looked into the background of this group and found out, as I then informed the Committee, that, under the heading "Benefits from outside sources", it also says:

"Administrative support is provided by Charter 88".

That information then goes on to give the contact name of,

"Michelle Mitchell, Parliamentary Officer Charter 88".

Despite its success, this is only a pressure group. However, if that is right at the heart of an all-party group, can the noble Lord give me an assurance that it will not be right at the heart of the proposed constitutional committee?

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees a question on a different point. Can he tell us what progress, if any, has been made on the committee on treaties? Such treaties are now expanding in large numbers and there is very little accountability to either House on these issues.

My Lords, I should like to raise the issue of animal experimentation, as I understand that one of the proposed groups is to look into the matter. This also reflects the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. We know that pressure groups come to this House and visit the committees, as well as giving advice. However, there are companies that carry out legitimate business during the process of which they save many people's lives in this country—that applies especially to our children. I speak with some knowledge on the subject because I had a son who, before he died, was diabetic. His treatment came quite precisely from animal experimentation.

Such companies have to survive and they are very much affected at present by lobbying groups that engage in almost terrorist activities to disrupt their work. While this review takes place, I believe that it is beholden on the Government to support those companies. They are governed by very rigorous rules and regulations to which they are adhering. As long as they do so, the Government should quite overtly protect their legitimate activity and their role in the fight against disease in this country.

My Lords, I have a question for the noble Lord about the proposed constitutional committee. Can he tell the House into what degree of detail it is intended that the committee will go when it considers public Bills? From time to time, UK Bills on matters reserved to Westminster have implications for the Scots Parliament, of which the latter turns out not to be aware—or, alternatively, such Bills should have implications for the Scots Parliament but do not because the Government have tried to avoid getting into a matter that has in fact been devolved but which would be necessary for the implementation of the UK Bill.

Can the noble Lord say whether that kind of issue will arise? Indeed, it has just happened on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. I can provide the noble Lord with information in that respect, if he wishes. However, I just wonder whether that kind of issue will be considered or whether the proposed committee will be thinking at a higher level.

My Lords, I strongly support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. It is absolutely essential that we should not delay any longer than necessary the setting up of a committee for the scrutiny of international treaties. In that context, can the noble Lord tell us when the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons is expected to report—for example, are we talking in terms of weeks, months or years?

My Lords, as chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, perhaps I may address an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Dubs. I believe that it was widely felt both on that commit tee and, to some extent, on the Liaison Committee that an issue as far reaching as animal experimentation, which was not merely a scientific issue, could quite properly form part of the considerations of an ad hoc committee. Concern was also expressed that, as scientists, a number of the members of the Science and Technology Committee might be regarded parti pris as having certain interests and a particular view about animal experimentation.

It was also widely felt that this is a hugely important subject and one that affects our science base. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, it affects some very key social and ethical issues. There are also important legal and regulatory issues involved that would be well worth considering at this stage. That seemed to us to be a very timely subject for an important ad hoc committee.

My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his contribution. I believe that his remarks have answered the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and probably gone some way towards answering the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Clearly, the matters raised by the noble Baroness fall within the scope of this committee. However, it will be for that committee to decide how far it will look into such matters. The composition of such a committee is also important. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, we must ensure that it is not simply scientists who take part: the committee will also need to take into account and consider ethical, moral and, indeed, legal issues. I am quite sure that the type of issues raised by the noble Baroness could be swept up within the considerations of this committee. If she wished to give evidence to the committee, I dare say that its members would welcome such a move.

The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, raised the question of the overlap between Sub-Committee A and the proposed economic committee. Putting on my European Select Committee hat, I have to say that that prospect gave me some concern. It is a matter that we shall have to discuss to ensure that there is no turf war, as sometimes happens in the other place between committees; for example, there is occasionally an overlap of interests between the European Scrutiny Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, I am sure that we can sort out such matters between us. The opportunity for disputes could arise in that respect. We must be aware of them and ensure that we resolve such issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, mentioned specialist advisers. I remind him that he should not confuse membership of all-party groups and the discussions on Select Committees of your Lordships' House. In my experience, specialist advisers are very carefully chosen. They are people who have knowledge but who are not too parti pris. Occasionally you cannot avoid that. The thing to do then, of course, is to have two specialist advisers, one from each side of the argument. We hope to avoid that wherever possible. The noble Lord mentioned Charter 88 being used by the all-party groups. However, that is a different matter from that of specialist advisers. Bodies such as Charter 88 may be asked to give evidence to a Select Committee, but I think that they are unlikely to be asked to be specialist advisers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the scrutiny of treaties. As she will note from paragraph 6, it has been decided to await the report of the House of Commons Procedure Committee before we make a recommendation. That is right and proper as we do not want to tread on each other's toes. I am not sure that I can say when that is likely to be completed. I suppose that the normal answer from the Dispatch Box in that regard is "soon".

The Scottish implications of the constitutional committee need to be considered. I should have thought that that would fall within the scope of the constitutional committee, but that will depend on the way in which it interprets its terms of reference. A submission to that committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, or others might help it considerably in drawing up its agenda. I believe that I have answered the questions.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Peyton of Yeovil.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 199:

Page 98, line 39, leave out from ("vehicle") to end of line 41 and insert ("unless incurred in respect of the use or keeping of that motor vehicle on a road by a person in possession or control of that motor vehicle without the consent of the registered owner (in which event that person shall pay the charges in question)").

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the amendments in this group. I am pleased to be able to start our deliberation on Part III by entirely agreeing with the spirit of the noble Lord's amendments. However, I hope that I can assure him that his concern will be dealt with through regulations.

Clause 162 provides that the registered keeper of a vehicle will be responsible for paying road user charges unless regulations under subsection (2)(b) of that clause provide otherwise. We intend that these regulations will provide that where a vehicle is reported to the police as stolen or taken without the consent of the registered keeper, any charges incurred will be the responsibility of whoever took the vehicle. We also propose a similar approach for penalty charges, using regulations under Clause 172, and that the same approach will apply in London. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.

The Minister's response is satisfactory to a large degree in that he has addressed the intention of the amendment. I suspect that on a number of occasions as we progress through this part of the Bill Divisions will occur over what should or should not be on the face of the Bill. As I say, I question whether it is appropriate to introduce taxation through regulation. I shall need to reconsider the matter. Whether my patience on the matter runs out before the end of the day's proceedings remains to be seen. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 162 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 200:

Page 99, line 26, at end insert ("provided those policies lead to an overall reduction in local traffic").

I have some sympathy with the amendments—although they are somewhat prescriptive in the sense that if the money can be used only for the purpose of reducing road traffic and not, for example, for improving safety on the roads, we shall get into a difficult situation. However, can the Minister tell the Committee the relationship between this Bill and the Road Traffic Reduction Act, which places an obligation on local authorities to reduce traffic in their areas?

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for explaining the thinking behind these amendments. Although I am unable to accept them for reasons that will become clear, I am sympathetic to his concerns.

As drafted, the Bill contains the safeguard that local authority charging schemes must help to achieve the policies in a local authority's local transport plan. We have already said that the Secretary of State's approval for schemes introduced in England will depend on the local authority demonstrating that its scheme will have a direct impact on tackling local congestion problems. In particular, we have said that we do not envisage approving schemes that are designed only to raise revenue. We will want each scheme to state clearly its objectives and to set out how its performance will be monitored against those objectives. Consequently, I contend that the noble Lord's amendments are unnecessary.

Further, I fear that the noble Lord's amendments would create unintended difficulties because of the way they have been worded. As drafted, the amendments would mean that a scheme could not be introduced if it resulted in a reduction in the growth of local traffic levels rather than in an absolute reduction in local traffic levels; nor would a scheme be able to proceed if it resulted in a reduction in peak-hour congestion by encouraging the redistribution of road use over the remainder of the day rather than in an absolute reduction in total traffic. Reducing traffic growth or encouraging better use of road space could bring significant benefits to areas where charges are introduced. I do not believe that it would be right to rule out those possibilities.

For the record, I should like to assure the Committee that we shall be working with charging authorities and funding research to monitor the impact of road user charging schemes to make sure that we learn lessons and pass on best practice to others.

I hope that my comments and assurances have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I do not feel that anything in the Bill will be at odds with attempts to reduce congestion elsewhere. On the issues of congestion and pollution, we have said that we are looking to local authorities to begin to benchmark at local level what is required across the country. We are very grateful to the Commission for Integrated Transport—on which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, sits—for its advice on how best that may be introduced by local authorities.

I thank the Minister for his explanation and reassurances. I shall read what he said. I think it unlikely that I shall come back to this matter at a later stage as I believe that I have received enough reassurances in regard to the Government's intentions and their proposed ways of putting them into practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 201:

Page 99, line 26, at end insert—

("(3) In a case where the charging authority is a county council, it shall not make a charge in relation to a particular town in its area without the agreement of the district council within which the town is placed.").

Again I find myself in sympathy with the concerns of the noble Lord. I certainly expect district councils in two-tier areas to be fully consulted about any proposals to introduce a charging or licensing scheme in their area and their views to be taken carefully into account. I should say that we are talking here only about England and not about Wales. However, we do not consider that it is appropriate to give district councils a veto over the introduction of schemes. The statutory responsibility for the charging and licensing powers rests firmly with the local traffic authority. Allowing district councils to veto plans would blur that responsibility.

However, I assure Members of the Committee that we will ensure that district councils are properly consulted over any proposals, using our scheme approval powers, or regulations on the procedures for making scheme orders. If there is a disagreement between a local traffic authority and a district council I envisage that that is something the Secretary of State would consider as part of his approval of schemes. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore agree not to press the amendment.

We are on more or less the same ground as we were previously. Will the noble Lord consider bringing forward amendments to the Bill to give effect to what he has said rather than simply do it by ministerial fiat or by regulation? We really do need to see this case decided clearly.

I am not able to offer that assurance. However, in the context of all the other assurances that I have offered—not just on the use of regulations on procedures but on scheme approval powers—I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the point.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, decides what to do about his amendment, can the Minister tell the Committee how he sees the situation when congestion charging or a reduction in congestion is being sought not in major towns such as Nottingham or Derby, which are recognised centres for their areas, but in one of our smaller towns, where total cessation of movement of any kind is most likely to occur? If a scheme was introduced in small town A but no scheme was introduced in small town B, all the traffic would move to small town B in order to try to get into the town for free. How does the Minister think the Secretary of State would deal with that kind of observation were it to be brought to him during the course of his approval activities?

We would respond to that situation by ensuring that there had been full consultation and that the Secretary of State was well informed of the concerns expressed by the smaller towns. If there was going to be any disproportionate effect on any specific area, that would be taken into account by the Secretary of State as part of his approval of the schemes.

In his reply the Minister makes it remarkably difficult to disagree with him. The problem is that an outcome which is satisfactory as to conclusion but is not satisfactory as to method is not one which I find to be wholly satisfactory. Although it is early in the afternoon and we are not used to walking and exercising at such an early hour, I nonetheless want to test the view of the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 202:

Page 99, line 26, at end insert—

("( ) Where a local charging scheme is introduced in order to fund improvements to facilitate the achievement of policies in the charging authority's local transport plan, the charging scheme shall cease when the relevant improvements have been paid for.").

The noble Lord has rightly said that the amendment raises an important philosophical point. It goes to the heart of the purpose for which road charges are to be levied. If the amendment were accepted, it would reduce road charging to an entirely pragmatic and practical device for dealing with local problems: for example, easing some physical phenomenon causing congestion or introducing some scheme to even out traffic flow through the day so as to lessen congestion.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the Bill had been conceived in the context of wanting to deal not only with practical issues but with environmental ones. In the broad environmental context, the secondary purpose of road charging is to deal with physical problems in local areas. Its primary purpose, however, is to deter people from using their cars as much as they presently do. If that is the primary purpose and it is the Government's intention that it should remain so, I very much hope that the amendment will be resisted. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would reassure the Committee that one of the reasons for charging, whether on trunk roads or in local areas, is to deter traffic and to encourage people to find other means of going from A to B, or indeed to encourage them to travel less.

If that remains the primary purpose of road charging, it could reasonably be said that it will never be achieved. It may work slowly and gradually, but the prospect of lifting the charges simply does not arise, because the necessity to restrict traffic growth will continue, and indeed increase. If we take seriously the recommendation of the Royal Commission that we must cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 50 years, there will have to be an enormous reduction in road traffic use. Charging schemes can play a part—not the only part—in achieving that reduction. The amendment goes to the heart of the philosophy behind the Transport Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond on that point.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising an important issue. It goes to the centre of the objectives of the charging scheme.

The Committee should be assured that we do not envisage approving charging schemes that are designed simply to raise revenue. The right reverend Prelate went straight to the heart of the matter. We can confirm that we expect the charges to have a direct bearing on local congestion problems. We believe that, to be effective, the introduction of charges must be matched by increased spending on local transport to provide people with real alternatives to the car. Our ground-breaking hypothecation guarantee will ensure that that can happen.

However, it is clear that the introduction of transport improvements alone may, in many cases, not be sufficient to reduce congestion. It is likely that the restraint effect of a charge to enter a town or city will be an essential part of the package that manages traffic demand and delivers lower congestion. One can envisage a situation some years hence where significant transport infrastructure improvements have been paid for through a charging regime, congestion has been reduced, and an authority may decide at that point to discontinue charges. But there is the other important consideration: sustaining the reduction in congestion. That may require that road user charges are kept in order to restrain traffic. It would therefore be wrong to rule out the possibility of local authorities deciding that charges should continue.

Amendment No. 202 ignores the important traffic demand management effect that the charges will have. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will agree not to press his amendment.

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his contribution on the problems created by congestion, particularly carbon dioxide and other noxious emissions produced by the internal combustion engine. Those problems will be solved not as a result of provisions in the Bill but as a result of developments taking place in the motor industry, as we still call it, because what will happen over the next 25, 30 or 40 years is that the internal combustion engine will become out of date.

I should declare not so much an interest as a fascination. I chaired the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee which examined the future of the internal combustion engine specifically in regard to exhaust emissions. There is the obvious progress that is being made with the internal combustion engine, but that is not an answer in itself. The committee arrived at a conclusion that surprised me; namely, that we shall see fuel-cell-powered cars on the roads. Initially, they will still produce carbon dioxide, but not all the other noxious emissions. Ultimately, they will be hydrogen powered and will produce nothing except water. At that point we shall face an ethical dilemma. We shall have completely non-polluting vehicles that are absolutely silent. I can see the time coming when we put bells on them, rather like bicycle bells, so as to warn pedestrians that they are coming—but that is a slight red herring. That is the way in which the industry is moving. The provisions in the Bill to deal with pollution will not provide a solution before the motor industry itself provides the technical answer.

Congestion could be argued to be a voluntary tax paid by society for the benefit of enjoying a reasonably high degree of mobility. I would always rather pay a voluntary tax than a compulsory one. It is a simple principle. The Minister seems to be saying that he would prefer the situation to be the other way round, and that we should reduce the need to travel. That need could have been reduced voluntarily, apart from the fact that we have spent 30 or 35 years developing a society in which we do need to travel. Anyone who thinks that the hundreds of thousands of housewives whom I see shopping every week, coming out of the supermarket with a trolley laden with goods that must often weigh more than a hundredweight, are going to carry that home on a bus has another think coming. They will pay a road congestion charge if they have to, because, sadly, there is now no alternative—unless we return to having large numbers of small shops and, more importantly, unless housewives are prepared to spend the time to go shopping every other day, as my mother used to do. I do not think that that kind of reverse revolution in society will take place. The issues are important. I do not believe that the situation will necessarily be better if these moneys are continued on a national basis rather than being decided locally.

There are two possible outcomes. One is that local authorities levy the charges and they are called in aid of other local expenditure, which may or may not be reasonable. If we are simply creating another form of local revenue, so be it. But that is not what we are told the Bill is about. If the money is to be part of the national revenue, we are in an even worse situation. The initiative for introducing the charges will have been taken locally. There is no certainty, apart from the small piece of blackmail in the guidance to which I have referred, that local transport authorities will necessarily introduce these charges all over the country. There is no compulsion to do so. I can envisage that they may not be introduced by a number of authorities in less well advantaged parts of the country than the South East. Not the least of the problems that any government in this country face is that after a time they are seen as representing the South East. Many parts of the country may be reluctant to introduce charges, where there is high unemployment and too many socially disadvantaged people. Welcome though an additional source of revenue may be, the disincentive to industry and other employers would be such that not introducing charging would be a positive incentive.

We should not blithely assume that everybody will leap into road charging with any speed. There will be considerable caution. In any event, Ministers in the other place have touched on traffic flow improvement in an area being seen before charges can be introduced—post facto. We need to consider little parts of the proposal as well as its totality.

The Minister answered in favour of the right reverend Prelate, who I think is wrong. Nevertheless, I will study the noble Lord's response. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 163 agreed to.

This clause concerns the creation of trunk road charging schemes and I thought we should debate whether or not it is appropriate or useful. What will happen when a trunk road passes, as many do, through a town centre? A specific example is the A3 through Portsmouth, which is virtually the only means of accessing the Isle of Wight—which gives Portsmouth the power of ransom over the island. It would have to be a Secretary of State scheme because the A3 is a trunk road, so he should exercise extreme caution. He may find that doing what one community wants would have untold consequences for another down the road.

Regrettably, there are many towns without bypasses. We may hear something to improve that situation within a few days. One never knows what the future holds. In this rather leaky age, there have been occasional minor hints that even I can understand. One has to be careful when talking about England and Wales (where the appropriate national authority is the Welsh Assembly), but where a trunk road passes through a number of urban centres, another problem is how to congestion charge private travellers or commercial users—who might pass through 10 town centres in a day. There are technical problems to solve before charging schemes can work in the way that the Minister wishes.

I hope that more noble Lords will involve themselves in this aspect because side issues are fundamental to the way in which present society lives and works.

There are many different ways of reaching the Isle of Wight and they do not all involve travelling through Portsmouth. It is clear from Clause 166 that a trunk road charging scheme can be used only if the local traffic authority agrees. If Hampshire County Council is the charging authority, presumably a scheme need not cover the whole county but could apply to only one or two towns. I considered tabling an amendment to delete subsection (2) because I am enthusiastic about trunk road charging but Clause 166 is good as it stands and I oppose its removal.

Paragraph 148 of the helpful Explanatory Notes states:

"Clause 166 also provides that the occupier of a premises will be responsible for paying charges, but allows the Secretary of State or NAW powers to specify other persons in certain circumstances through regulations."

Unless I have got it wrong, that explanation does nothing but add to the confusion.

Perhaps I have totally misunderstood it.

I am obliged to my noble friend for speaking to the Question whether Clause 166 stand part. My forlorn hope is that someone somewhere will remember that originally roads were designed for movement. When I wallowed in the Department of Transport and vaguely suggested that from time to time, it was regarded as an old-fashioned and wholly reactionary idea that I should cast out of my mind without delay. It is still my belief—I hope that it is not entirely misconceived—that roads exist to help people to move around and are not intended primarily as parking lots.

Highway authorities and the organisation known as the Highways Agency are apt to forget the principle that, on the whole, roads are intended to facilitate movement, and they find every possible means to obstruct movement. Almost every week I travel the road to London from the M3. I salute the inventiveness of the Highways Agency in finding new means to obstruct the traffic. It never leaves that stretch of road alone. All of the authority's most energetic and inventive minds—I do not suggest for a moment that the number at its disposal is in any way limited—are devoted to finding, with minimum effort to themselves, yet further means to create bottlenecks. When those bottlenecks have been created, they remain totally unmanned and nobody cares for them. The bottlenecks, being very obliging, stay where they are and nobody does anything about them.

Without trying to be facetious, I ask the noble Lord to remind these bodies, in particular the Highways Agency, that they exist to help people to move around. I hope that what is sought to be done under this clause will not be used to add to the number of people whose talents and inventiveness are wholly devoted to obstructing and hindering people who wish legitimately to use the roads for movement.

I have come to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has at some point, and possibly repeatedly, been deeply scarred by the activities of the Highways Agency. I can only convey the authority's apologies to him and assure him that its practices and techniques are now directed at exactly what the noble Lord seeks; namely, to speed up maintenance and complete it as rapidly as possible and to ensure, as far as possible, the free flow of traffic. That is also the objective of this clause. We want to make sure that appropriate traffic, both economic and passenger, which has no other means of moving from A to B is able to get through.

As to the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the Explanatory Notes were based on the original clause numbers prior to the Grand Committee stage. I believe that the clause to which he refers is now Clause 177. No doubt the noble Lord will return to the point.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggests that we should remove this clause. This is a very important but limited clause. It is not a provision of the kind to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred. The clause provides for two very limited circumstances in which congestion charging can be raised on the trunk road network: one relates to bridges and tunnels and the other, on which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, concentrated, relates to those cases where part of a trunk road affects any local charging scheme. The power can be used only at the request of the local authority in order to complement its own charging scheme. That scheme will itself have been subject to a substantial period of consultation. In the case of Portsmouth—to correct my noble friend, Portsmouth is a unitary authority and therefore has highway responsibilities—the authority would be required to consult the Isle of Wight and other surrounding authorities, businesses and others within its own area. Therefore, that consultation would already have taken place.

The power does not permit the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly, to introduce widespread charges along the whole length of the road; nor does the Secretary of State have to agree with the local authority to impose charges, if requested, to complement the scheme. Therefore, in circumstances where it seems to the Secretary of State that the scheme is detrimental to the general flow of traffic or to neighbouring authorities, he will have the right not to accede to the request.

In general terms, however, it is important that as to those stretches of trunk road which impinge on the local authority area where major diversion would otherwise occur or the scheme would be undermined, the Secretary of State should have ability to raise charges. Therefore, this clause is necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will not continue to oppose it.

I welcome the Minister's assurance. The noble Lord has a very pleasant manner when he is communicating good news. When he tells me that the Highways Agency is there to help movement, that is very good news. I very much hope that evidence of that fact will reach me.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that it would be remarkable if in debating a Bill of this kind, there was universal agreement on the amendments. I should be wholly surprised if somebody, perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did not oppose the Question that the clause stand part.

The Minister has spared me the necessity of explaining the difference in status between a city as important as Portsmouth and a county council as significant as Hampshire. The fact is that Portsmouth will be a local transport authority, which was implicit in the response of the Minister.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. If he achieves nothing else, he always makes us think. His statement that roads are to facilitate movement is fundamental. That is very nearly a point on which there is a fundamental division within the Committee. One may argue about what facilitates movement; occasionally, even limited restrictions do so. Therefore, in this matter there are deep shades of grey.

I was delighted to hear the Minister say that in considering its particular problems Portsmouth would be obliged to undertake a very wide degree of consultation. Therefore, the Minister is supportive of a group of amendments in my name which are to be debated later. The Bill provides that the local transport authority may do something. We believe that the word should be "shall", not "may". I should be satisfied that Portsmouth would consult the Isle of Wight if the Bill said that it should do so. However, the Bill does not say "shall" but "may". We shall turn to that point later, and I am delighted to have the support of the Minister for those amendments.

We have had a very good debate. As is very often the case with clause stand part debates, the purpose of debating the Question that Clause 166 shall stand part is to be clear exactly what will be the consequences of what we seek to do here. Often, Bills are obscure in that regard.

I do not believe that I have wasted the time of the Committee in initiating the debate and I withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 166 shall stand part of the Bill.

Clause 166 agreed to.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement a Private Notice Question on teachers' pay, which has been taken today in another place.

"Teachers' pay and conditions are set on a statutory basis by order after report by an independent review body, the School Teachers' Review Body, and consultation. In January of this year, the STRB recommended a new pay structure, including a performance threshold giving a £2,000 pay rise on 1st September 2000 and access to a higher pay scale. This will be put in place.

"As the House will know, the Government's plan to reform the teaching profession to make sure that good teachers are paid more was first published in a Green Paper in December 1998. The standards which teachers should meet for the threshold pay increase were first published in draft in February 1999 as part of consultation on the Green Paper, Teachers—meeting the challenge of change. Wide-ranging informal consultation over the following year led to formal consultation with the STRB's statutory consultees in February this year. The STRB itself was provided with early drafts of the standards as background to its review.

"As a result of action by the NUT, the High Court ruled on Friday 14th July that these standards were invalid because they should have been formally referred to the review body and set out in an order. The court also ruled that duties on school managers to carry out threshold assessment were unlawful because the consultation on the draft duties had been too short.

"My right honourable friend believed that it was not necessary to refer the standards to the review body because they were about standards of teaching, not pay structures and scales.

"The written judgment of the court is not available, but as soon as it is I will decide whether or not to appeal. But the judgment did not comment on the standards themselves and did not give rise to any fundamental need to review government policy on rewarding good teachers.

"The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has today written to head teachers advising them that the deadlines for threshold applications will be changed. We have already spoken to the STRB chair and will write to him formally today.

"The Government's pay reforms are the best opportunity teachers have had for a generation for a radical pay improvement. All the Government have asked is that teachers do a good job in return. We intend to press on with paying good teachers more money within the correct legal framework with as little delay as possible".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, the Statement which the noble Baroness has repeated, and which has been made in another place in response to a Private Notice Question, is deeply regrettable. First, the Secretary of State blames the National Union of Teachers for daring to challenge his handling of the PRP scheme. In a press release, the Secretary of State stated:

"The NUT need to ask their leadership why they have taken legal action".

It did so because the Secretary of State had not heeded advice from so many about the process adopted for the introduction of PRP and because of the corners which were cut by the Secretary of State in order to implement a scheme, which is, as the noble Baroness and Secretary of State know, controversial.

Secondly, I turn to the role of civil servants and their advice to Ministers. To blame the civil servants, as Mr Blunkett has done, is disgraceful behaviour; civil servants are unable to defend themselves and must therefore be deemed guilty by the Secretary of State.

Speaking on a radio programme, the Secretary of State said that he cannot rely on his civil servants to advise him and therefore he was going to read the judgment himself and decide himself the next steps. Does he intend to take no advice at all? If he does intend to take advice, from where will he obtain it?

While PRP in principle is to be welcomed, the particular scheme, rushed through and now thwarted by the courts because of the Secretary of State, has not been thought through. It is excessively bureaucratic; it requires an army of external assessors; and it is supported by brain-numbing training which is an insult to professional teachers and governors. For example, many of those compelled to undertake training knew more than the trainers. They came away from the training very dissatisfied indeed.

Much of the work has been carried out in our schools, but will it now be aborted? Do the Government intend to appeal the judgment? The Minister said that they are waiting to read the judgment, but it would be helpful to know what is in the mind of the Secretary of State. Will schools be reimbursed for the time already spent on the bureaucratic process? Only today, I was in the presence of a head teacher who told me that when 68 teachers applied to go through the threshold at least two hours were spent on each application by that head teacher. Having undertaken all that work, what price is time now?

What is the delay likely to be for those teachers whose expectations have been raised by the Secretary of State only to be dashed by his arrogant disregard for the proper processes? Schools and teachers should not be made to pay the price for this fiasco.

The Statement indicates:

"My right honourable friend believes that it was not necessary to refer the standards to the review body because they are about standards of teaching, not pay structures and scales".

They are about pay. Indeed, the DfEE's press release states:

"The Government's pay reforms are the best opportunity teachers have had for a generation to radically improve their pay".

The whole PRP issue related to the standards necessary to trigger pay awards. The suggestion that the standards are not about pay, and to give that as an excuse for failing to follow the proper process, is unacceptable.

There is no doubt that the present situation is very frustrating for schools, teachers and governors. However, make no mistake about it, the blame lies with the Secretary of State.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I believe that the Secretary of State must be naive if he thought that the proposals were about standards of teaching and not about pay structures and scales. After all that has been said in this House about performance-related pay, it was clear that they were about pay as well as about standards of teaching.

In many senses, this is a victory for parliamentary democracy as well as for the courts. As Mr Justice Jackson made clear, the Secretary of State, in imposing threshold standards for performance-related pay, bypassed the School Teachers' Review Body, Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. As the judge said, Parliament required that any significant contractual powers are subject to the scrutiny of an independent body; namely, the School Teachers' Review Body. The Secretary of State evaded that scrutiny. Furthermore, at the start the Welsh Assembly wanted to remove pupils' performance as a criterion for the teachers' assessment. It will now have its way unless the Secretary of State amends the existing legislation and introduces new statutes.

The real question is: why did not the DfEE and the Secretary of State scrutinise the court's decision in March, when it was decided that there were sufficient grounds for a judicial review with a view to withdrawing the flawed order relating to school teachers' pay, and undertake proper consultation rather than allow the review to drag on until July?

My second question returns to an issue raised many times by the Liberal Democrats. As the Minister knows well, we opposed the proposals for performance related pay because we did not believe that a school environment was appropriate for such a system. Essentially, teachers work as a team. The proposals would have introduced considerable extra administrative burdens on head teachers, who are already overloaded with bureaucracy, and would have required teacher to inform upon teacher with the risk of setting one member of staff against another within the team. We also opposed them because we felt, and said at the time, that four days of formal consultation was too short for so important a measure.

Therefore, my second question is: why did the Secretary of State not heed the voices not only of the Liberal Democrats but of over 70 Members of Parliament of all the main parties who signed an Early Day Motion in the other place calling on the Secretary of State to carry out proper consultation with teachers and to allow Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to debate such significant changes?

Lastly, I bring to your Lordships' attention the chaos that has now been caused. With less than a week to go before the end of term, teachers do not know where they are. I have many teacher friends who spent a whole weekend filling out the threshold forms. They do not know where they will stand when they return to school in September. Similarly, heads and governors have also had to spend a great deal of time deciding how to respond to them. I gather from the Statement that the matter is now on hold and that the Secretary of State is writing to the School Teachers' Review Body. However, how long will it be before teachers know whether they will receive their threshold payments?

Finally, I echo the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Why has the Secretary of State blamed officials when, in his summing up, the judge made it clear that, given the pace and pressure of changes imposed by the Secretary of State at the moment, mistakes were bound to occur?

My Lords, I begin by clearing up the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—a point raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State takes full responsibility for what happens. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked from whom the Secretary of State takes advice. He takes advice from many different quarters: from officials, legal advisers, special advisers and representatives of the teaching profession.

I am dismayed that the Liberal Democrats, and, I believe, the Conservative Party, too, do not accept the desirability of moving towards a pay system in which good teachers are rewarded fully for what they do by passing over a threshold and receiving an increase of £2,000. The noble Baroness wants to intervene, but perhaps I may say that the Opposition have attempted to block many of the proposals, have opposed them and have got into bed with the NUT over them.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will read what I said. I said that PRP is welcome. We criticised the particular system and the bureaucratic nature of it. However, we have always said that PRP is welcome as a system of rewarding good work in classrooms.

My Lords, if the noble Baroness was so in favour of it, I wonder why she did not introduce it when she was in government. I suggest that that points to a small failure on her part and that of her party when in government.

Perhaps I may turn to some of the other questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was critical of the training provided for head teachers in support of their work in carrying out assessments of teachers for the purpose of performance-related pay. At the May training events, 94 per cent of participants were satisfied or more than satisfied with the quality of the training they received, and an average of 91 per cent similarly were satisfied with the follow-up events. On the basis not of anecdote but of a proper sampling of the teachers concerned, that shows that they welcomed the training, were appreciative of it and considered it to be good.

The noble Baroness also asked whether the Government will appeal. As I implied in my response to the PNQ, the Government have not yet seen the written judgment and cannot make a decision until they have had the opportunity to do so.

The noble Baroness asked about the likely delay so far as concerns teachers. The Government regret the delay just as much as the noble Baroness. Until the issues raised by the court case have been resolved, it is impossible to say exactly how long the delay will be. However, I can say—and I believe that it will be reassuring to the many teachers who have applied to go over the threshold—that when decisions eventually are made about those who are successful, their pay will be backdated to 1st September.

The noble Baroness also asked whether the time spent on the applications and on their consideration by head teachers would be wasted. The Government very much hope that that will not be the case. If the threshold standards are not changed, we can proceed on the same basis. If the standards are changed, the Secretary of State will of course have to reconsider the whole position.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned the National Assembly for Wales. Perhaps I may make it clear that this is not a devolved matter. Therefore, the National Assembly for Wales does not have a remit in this particular area, although the Welsh Ministers responsible are consulted. The Government do not consider that it should be a devolved matter. They believe that the threshold standards should be the same because there is a considerable amount of movement by teachers across the border between Wales and England. It would be undesirable for that movement to be in any way constrained.

My Lords, am I right in saying that if the Secretary of State were to use the 1986 Act, this would be a matter for devolution to Wales? It is a question of whether he uses the 1986 Act or the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 for appraisal. If he uses the latter, I gather that it would not be a matter for devolution. However, if he used the former, I believe that it would be.

My Lords, when Welsh devolution was debated and agreed in both Houses of Parliament, it was made absolutely clear that this would not be a devolved matter.

Perhaps I may return to the noble Baroness's point regarding the grounds for judicial review in March. When the NUT originally applied for judicial review, it was not in relation to the matter of threshold standards. That subject did not come into play until the last week of June. Therefore, the issue was introduced into the court case by the NUT only recently.

I believe that I have now answered the specific questions raised by both noble Baronesses. However, I make absolutely clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will write to head teachers this week to set out exactly what they now need to do. Clearly the date by which they must complete the assessments will be put back. We have also made it clear that we shall provide them with further information and updates on the DfEE's website.

My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of a private school and, therefore, as an employer of teachers. Is it not unsatisfactory that, as was made clear by the Minister, everyone is now left in a state of limbo because no one knows what will happen next?

The Minister has said that the Secretary of State will write to head teachers this week. Does that mean that he will receive the written judgment before the end of the week? Will it be made widely available? If it is available in time for the Secretary of State to issue guidelines to the teaching profession and to head teachers, might it not have been possible to have got hold of it sooner and made it available to Parliament now?

The Minister has also said that the application deadline will be changed. Will she at least tell us the new date for applications?

My Lords, it is for the courts to make the written judgment available. I understand that it is likely to be available in the very near future. The Government will make a decision on whether to appeal by Thursday, which is the deadline. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wishes to ensure that all head teachers receive a letter before the end of term, so it will have to go out tonight or tomorrow, which means that it will be impossible for him to give any details in that letter about his decision on an appeal. As I have said, head teachers will be updated through the department's website.

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's assurance about backdating the pay award when matters are settled. Over the weekend I met two teachers who intend to retire during the coming year. Their pension entitlement will be affected by whether they get the money. It would be helpful if it was made clear that their pensions will not be threatened.

My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that teachers who go through the appraisal successfully will have their pay addition backdated to 1st September. Any teacher who is likely to retire will not suffer in any way in terms of their pension.

My Lords, under what rules does the Secretary of State continue in office? Surely he has disqualified himself by all normal standards, having publicly declared the advice that he received in confidence from his civil servants.

My Lords, I utterly refute that suggestion. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been one of the most successful holders of that office for many years. He has pushed through a remarkable range of reforms to improve standards in our schools and to ensure that lifelong learning becomes a reality. As I said earlier, he accepts full responsibility for what has happened.

My Lords, the Minister has said that the pay will be backdated to 1st September. Can she assure us that the Secretary of State has sound advice that that will be legal, whatever the outcome? Teachers would like to know.

My Lords, yes, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance.

My Lords, will the Minister answer the question asked by my noble friend Lady Blatch about whether schools will be repaid for all the work that they have done on the process?

My Lords, the work is part of the responsibility of head teachers. There is no need to repay them for what that they have done, because they have accepted that appraisal is part of their job and have been doing it for some years. In no sense would it be appropriate to repay schools. Moreover, we hope that most of the work that they have done will not be affected, because we hope that the standards will be accepted. There was a great deal of consultation about them and they have largely been accepted in the teaching profession.

I was told that I was expected to be on at 3.30 p.m. and had to wait here for a whole hour. Given that my noble friends dealing with the Bill think that they are due to be out of the Chamber for 40 minutes, I wonder whether the House agrees that it would be appropriate to adjourn for a few minutes until they arrive.

Here he is.

moved Amendment No. 206:

Page 100, line 23, leave out ("any of").

I am always grateful to the noble Lord when he is helpful. I understand what he is driving at. The problem is that the amendment would lead to the opposite situation, because it would require all local authorities involved to agree before a joint scheme could be revoked. That would make it impossible for a single authority to decide that it was no longer in its own interests to participate.

Our general approach has been to avoid having too many barriers for authorities that decide to revoke a charging scheme. Therefore, the consequence of that approach is that a single authority would have the right to revoke its part of that scheme.

The noble Lord is concerned that the right of a single authority in a joint scheme may be used precipitately as a result of this clause. There will be plenty of other safeguards to ensure that that will not happen. In practice, a scheme would not be agreed or approved unless there was a clear period of notice before any of the participating authorities could withdraw from a joint scheme. No doubt there would be also a number of other contractual arrangements in relation to the operation of the scheme which all participating authorities would have to consider.

Therefore, although the noble Lord's amendment appears to be aimed at stability, in fact the nature of the schemes will provide a fair degree of stability. The requirement that all authorities participating would jointly have to agree the revocation is too onerous and would reduce the flexibility and accountability of the individual local authorities concerned. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment despite the fact that I recognise his good motives in that regard and he points to a problem. However, this amendment creates another problem.

We are dealing with a question of what I can only describe as relative problems. But what the Minister has not said in his reply is that the individual local authority which is participating in a scheme may withdraw from the scheme in relation to its own territory. The Bill says that it can revoke a scheme.

I accept that there will be a great number of safeguards. Obviously, any joint scheme will have fairly tight contractual arrangements, such as periods of notice and so on. I accept that there will be a degree of stability. But we need to be extremely careful about the words on the face of the Bill. I can understand an authority in a joint scheme being able to revoke a scheme in relation to its own area so that what was formerly a joint scheme would no longer apply in that area. The Minister says that if a transport authority which is part of a joint scheme wishes to withdraw, the whole scheme will go. That is beginning to fly in the face of the earlier remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, about the intended disincentive effect of the existence of those charges. These are supposed to be matters of national significance, with the purpose being to provide a major disincentive to all traffic permanently and for ever. But here, a local transport authority may revoke a scheme because it does not like it. Therefore, that impact will immediately be lost.

It seems to me that that is an inconsistency in the Government's position as between one amendment and another, although it is not relevant to this amendment. I shall study what the Minister said and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 167 agreed to.

Clause 168 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 207:

Page 101, line 23, leave out ("may at any time") and insert ("shall").

My noble friend makes an extremely good point. It is far from my intention to suggest that the whole of officialdom is high-handed, arrogant and rude. I really do not make that suggestion. However, undoubtedly parts of it suffer from certain defects. That being the case, I think it unwise to use the words "may at any time". In the unlikely event that the charging authority is not naturally good mannered or considerate of the rights of others, it should be obliged to consult. My noble friend is right. He has done a good service to the Committee in making the point by moving the amendment. I hope that the Government will at least give it serious thought, if they do not decide to accept it. I can see no reason why they should not do the latter.

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 263A in this grouping. The measures in Part III will need all the support they can get when they come to fruition. Much still has to be done to integrate transport policy with the workplace. Both limbs of the measures in Part III have much to do with the workplace, which is the main cause of peak period congestion, and we now have the proposal for a parking charge.

I would go only some of the way with noble Lords opposite in predicting revolution as a result of the Bill coming on to the statute book, either for national government or local government. There will certainly be much debate in the workplace when the Bill comes to fruition. Amendment No. 263A is connected to Amendment No. 263B, which has been moved to a different part of the grouping and to which I shall speak later. It is important that we have reassurance on the face of the Bill that employers will be consulted. That, in turn, will act as a stimulus to employers to draft their own green transport plans, which I shall come to later.

I rise briefly to support the comments of my noble friend Lord Lea on Amendment No. 263A. I support everything he said. Perhaps I may add that I am pleased to have received a briefing from the Confederation of British Industry which states that, in principle, it supports the scheme. That is significant.

The CBI has attached to its support a number of conditions. The main one in connection with this amendment is that it would prefer to see the need for consultation to be a statutory requirement. If it is not, it would like to see the Bill accompanied by statutory guidance as to how consultation can be achieved. We spend a great deal of time on this and other Bills talking about consultation, and the discussion can sometimes become ethereal. However, all noble Lords who have spoken so far in Committee have stated that it is a practical necessity to get ownership of this scheme for those who will be affected by it. I am not so frightened. I believe that if it is explained properly, many people will support it and see the benefits which will come to them. However, I believe that, at the very least, statutory guidance should be issued so that there is consistency of consultation where such schemes are proposed.

Perhaps I may say, at the outset, that we believe that effective consultation will be central to the charging or levy scheme at local level. The Government attach considerable importance to that. Indeed, as we said in our response to Breaking the Logjam, consultation with local people and businesses will be one of the core elements of any local scheme before it is approved by the Secretary of State. It is clear that consultation is a major part of that process.

Moreover, we have emphasised that charging schemes should support the objectives of a local authority's local transport plan, which is subject to extensive consultation. Every road user or workplace parking scheme will contain much detail and have a direct impact on the interests of many sections of the community. It must, therefore, be subject to a separate and detailed process of public scrutiny and consultation.

Furthermore, Clause 169 provides a power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to direct a charging or licensing authority to undertake further consultation if the appropriate national authority deems that the original consultation was insufficient.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, anticipated, in providing for such consultation we have used the normal terminology "may". I see no good reason to change that. To ensure that that is turned into full and effective consultation we shall issue guidance. In due course, regulations will be issued using the powers in Clause 167(3). We shall list a number of consultees, the core of which will be similar to those for traffic orders. It will include additions, such as chief police officers, district councils in two-tier authorities, RDAs, national parks authorities and so forth, where appropriate.

For workplace parking schemes, which do not affect such a wide group of people, a simpler list of statutory consultees will be more appropriate. It will include, for example, neighbouring authorities likely to be affected and a requirement to consult and actively involve local people, local employers, local trade unions, transport operators, transport users, representative groups—for example those for the disabled—and such organisations as are appropriate in the locality. In some cases that would require consultation with other public bodies. The guidance will clearly spell out the need to consult widely and meet the objectives set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others.

Amendment No. 263A was spoken to by my noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Berkeley. The amendment would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to draw up model guidelines on consultation with employers, along the lines the CBI would want. I assure my noble friends that we fully intend to issue such guidance. At present, through our Charging Development Partnership, we are working closely with those local authorities which have it in mind to introduce such schemes. We shall need to learn from that partnership and build on the experience it has encountered in issuing and developing guidance.

In the mean time, every charging scheme will need the approval of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly and will therefore be subject to careful scrutiny before it starts. I assure the Committee that we do not intend to approve schemes unless there has been appropriate consultation with people and businesses.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also drew attention to Amendments Nos. 210 and 242 on cost-benefit analysis. Again, we shall issue guidance to authorities on the way in which they should assess the likely impact of the scheme. That will be slightly wider than traditional cost-benefit analysis. They will need to look at the benefits to the community as a whole and the impact on the environment. However, it must be a robust assessment of the impact of that scheme.

On that front and on the consultation front I hope that my assurances have convinced Members of the Committee that the Bill as it stands and the regulations which will follow meet all their objectives in this regard. I hope, therefore, that they do not see the need to move their amendments.

I do not wish to detain the Committee. However, it seems odd to give an authority permission to consult. Surely authorities do not need permission to consult. They should be put under a duty to consult. In replying to the amendment, the Minister voiced unexceptionable sentiments. I agree with almost every word he said. I would have thought that almost the whole tenor of his argument would have led to an acceptance of this sensible and modest amendment, which is not even lengthy; it is short and inserts one single word: "shall" consult instead of "may" consult. It is perfectly sensible.

I hope that the Minister will not think that we, on this side of the Committee, are being obstinate. I hope that he will concede that there may be a point here. Merely to permit an authority to consult is meaningless. I do not understand its value. The Minister said that consultation is a major part of the process. So why not make it obligatory? I fail to understand that. I do not know how many times the noble Lord used the word "guidance", but he must understand—he is a modest and reasonable man—that government guidance is not always what the Opposition look for or are content with.

I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again and not simply accept the advice of his officials that the Bill is immaculate and does not need any change.

My noble friend Lord Peyton kindly argued in support of what I too felt was a perfectly reasonable proposition. Paradoxically, the Minister agreed with us. But he said that he would not do anything about it; he would deal with it in other ways. The Minister says that "may" means "must", that authorities will have to consult, and that there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill. I find that difficult to understand.

My noble friend Lord Peyton also raised the question of the status of guidance. We have already debated in the course of this Bill the status of statutory guidance, particularly guidance which others are obliged to take note of. The fact is that statutory guidance is about 10 steps away from regulation. At least regulation receives the merest margin of parliamentary supervision; statutory guidance receives none.

There is always consultation as to the content of guidance. That consultation takes into account lots of views. But the guidance then produces what the Minister first thought of. It may occasionally be adjusted, but only because the Government originally intended to adjust it.

A constitutional issue arises here. I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for his support in an amendment which runs parallel to mine, and to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There is wide agreement as to the principles of these amendments. The Minister says that he agrees with the principles but does not intend to do anything. I shall study with care exactly how he managed to justify that paradox. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 208 to 210 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 211:

Page 101, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

Amendments Nos. 214 and 254 are included in this group. In both cases the amendments substitute a requirement on appropriate national authorities to give directions to local authorities to re-examine, vary or revoke a scheme rather than themselves carrying out an inquiry.

Although I do not always take seriously this quibbling about words, nevertheless when the Minister says "may" means "must" it gives greater weight to my remarks. Apparently, the provision now means that the appropriate national authority "must" cause an inquiry to be held in relation to a charging scheme; and that must be nonsense. After all, the way in which these schemes are set up is extremely detailed in terms of their prescription. Regulations for both kinds of levy to cover exemptions and enforcements are enabled by the Bill; the content of each scheme is described in some detail on the face of the Bill; and the appropriate national authority can, by regulation, prescribe the nature and content of the orders under which the schemes can be produced.

Altogether it is a pretty prescriptive control for a locally determined scheme. My question therefore is: why might the appropriate national authority feel that it should step in and hold an inquiry at a time when a scheme is being brought into effect? Why cannot the local authority simply be instructed to think again about its scheme?

Within this group it will be generally recognised that the authors of Amendments Nos. 211, 212, 251 and 252 on the one hand and 214 and 254 on the other cannot both be right; they both argue strongly in opposite directions.

There is no question here that "may" equals "shall". It is intended that the requirement to hold a public inquiry should be only in appropriate cases. Holding a public inquiry before a charging or licensing scheme is introduced may well be appropriate. It may also be appropriate to hold an inquiry if there is a significant variation to a scheme. It may even be appropriate to hold an inquiry into the revocation of a scheme. But it cannot be sensible to make public inquiries compulsory in all circumstances for all schemes and for any change to each and every scheme, which is what the Conservative amendments seek.

In addition, the amendments would remove the ability of charging and licensing authorities to fine tune schemes—in other words, to make minor changes —or to revoke schemes quickly. So although I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tabled his amendments, they would not be helpful or beneficial.

However, I would not want the Committee to feel that we do not attach considerable importance to proper and effective scrutiny of the details of individual schemes. We have just debated our commitment to full and effective consultation. That is why we have parallel provisions in the Bill dealing with inquiries. Clause 169(2)(a) gives charging authorities the power to hold an inquiry when they deem it necessary, and we will issue guidance on that matter. Clause 169(4)(a) provides the appropriate national authority with the power to direct a charging authority to hold a public inquiry if it feels that this is appropriate. There are identical provisions in Chapter II dealing with the workplace parking levy.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be pleased to hear that we are in agreement about Amendments Nos. 213 and 253. But while we agree with what he is seeking to achieve, I advise the noble Lord not to smile too soon. We do not believe that it is necessary to write such a provision on the face of the Bill because the consequence of any inquiry that failed to meet this criterion would be vulnerable to a successful challenge in the courts. Nevertheless, I reiterate our belief and intention that inquiries should be run by suitably qualified people who are independent.

I turn now to Amendments Nos. 214 and 254 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want to see unnecessary delays in the introduction of schemes. But the power to require an inquiry to be held into the establishment or variation of a scheme is an important reserve power that may be needed if local consultations have not been adequate to safeguard the interests of the local community. The power proposed by the amendments to require the re-examination of specific aspects of a charging scheme is already available to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales through the process of scheme approval.

If we made the amendments, they would also have the unintended effect of giving the appropriate national authority the power to prevent a local authority revoking its charging scheme. As drafted, the power to direct that an inquiry should be held applies only to the introduction and variation of a scheme, not to its revocation. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that authorities should not be tied into schemes without the option to revoke them immediately if they wish to do so. We should not want to see a national authority preventing a local authority terminating a scheme by continuously questioning the revocation order. On that basis, I hope that Members of the Committee, coming at us from both sides, will feel that it is unnecessary to press these amendments.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but I should like gently to point out that I am not under any obligation whatever to agree with my colleagues who sit further along on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, we speak for ourselves and not for anyone else.

I have learnt something today; namely, that the word "may" means "shall" in Clause 169(2), but that "may" means "may" in Clause 169(4). So we have at least got further down the road as regards the drafting of Bills. I shall not chop logic any more with the Minister because he is probably rather better at it than I am. I await with interest to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says about his amendments.

I cannot recall the appropriate quote from the Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but I have the feeling that there is one there somewhere, if only I could remember it! However, I wish to focus on a point made by the Minister. He said that, if an inquiry were established without an independent chairman, it might be open to successful challenge in court. The noble Lord is perfectly right. If we do not stipulate that the chairman should be independent and a local authority makes such a mistake, that would be the inevitable result. It is precisely because I thought that we should avoid the waste of time and money that would be involved in such a case that it seemed to me desirable to put such a provision on the face of the Bill.

Anyone who stops and thinks for only a short while will realise that there have been a number of occasions when local authorities have managed to get themselves into a procedural muddle. They have been taken to court and it has caused a great deal of vexation. Part of the purpose of legislation is undoubtedly to try to avoid such situations arising. If we achieve that aim by the simple addition of a few words that actually cost nothing—except, perhaps, a minor deflation of the Government's ego—I really do not see why we should not do so.

We find ourselves in a rather strange situation. I shall study the Minister's response because we are dealing here with quite a few amendments. However, it seems to me that this may well be a issue to which we shall return at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 212 to 219 not moved.]

Clause 169 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 220:

Page 102, line 25, at end insert ("and for the purpose of this section the class of vehicle should be defined as a powered vehicle with three or more wheels").

As a practising motorcyclist, and one of long standing, perhaps I may amplify what my noble friend has just said. From my personal experience of riding my motorcycle in various countries, there is no charging system that does not distinguish between four-wheeled vehicles and those with two or three wheels. Anyone who travels on a tolling autoroute in France, along an autobahn or on to an autostrada will find that there are reduced charges for motorcycles. That indicates the difference in terms of the wear and tear, pollution or anything else that is taken into account in order to assess the kind of charges that should be levied. It is an indication that the differences between the four-wheeled vehicle—whether it be a van, a lorry or a car—and two or three-wheeled vehicles are recognised.

This country has a long history of motorcycle manufacture and use. After all, the motorcycle was almost, but not quite, pioneered in this country. We made a significant industrial contribution to the design and manufacture of motorcycles to the extent that, pre-1960, we were probably the major manufacturer of machines for pleasure, for commuting and for motor sport. With that background, it is rather curious that there is now an equivocal attitude at local authority level to motorcycles. The way in which motorcycles are treated for the purpose of parking, which was discussed under another part of the Bill, is extremely uneven. That applies not only within the London area but generally throughout the United Kingdom.

In the transport plans of various local authorities no distinction is made between motorcycles and other forms of vehicle in terms of the pollution that they are alleged to produce or, indeed, as regards the wear and tear, the costs to taxpayers and the causes of congestion. Motorcycles cause far less pollution and congestion than other vehicles. The Bill as drafted will not encourage local authorities to take a more rational view of that problem.

I am sure noble Lords will remember that the Budget of March 1999 provided tax relief for motorcycles used for commuting as they were regarded as a green form of commuting. Therefore, there is a clear recognition that motorcycles and scooters comprise a different class of vehicle in terms of assessing charging schemes.

As my noble friend said, this is a probing amendment on which it would be useful to hear the Government's views. Thus far the Government have made some encouraging comments about motorcycles. The number of motorcycles and scooters on our roads has grown immeasurably over the past three years. My noble friend talked of a man on a motorcycle. However, current registrations show that more women are applying for motorcycle licences.

Noble Lords may not have used the facility themselves, but there are good motorcycle taxi facilities available. I am told by fellow motorcyclists with whom I chat when waiting at a red light that it is largely women who use those taxi services. They recognise that they are the best way to get to airports or to meetings. Women now form an important part of the motorcycling community. They complain most vociferously about the uneven and unreasonable—as it is perceived—view of some local authorities which bracket together the larger, more polluting vehicles and motorcycles.

As I say, it would be helpful if the Minister would say whether the Government distinguish between motorcycles, scooters and other vehicles in this regard. That would enormously encourage those who have tabled the amendment and the expanding group of people of all ages who use motorcycles. I do not say that they use them for pleasure because in this Anglo-Saxon environment in which we live I notice that pleasure is not heavily featured in the Transport Bill when we talk about cars. I can well understand that, as there is not much pleasure in driving a car. However, motorcycles are also ridden for pleasure. That is recognised in most countries. However, in this country, people who do not enjoy driving cars and becoming caught up in congestion take a rather dim view of people who get through the traffic and enjoy themselves. However, that should not distract one from taking a reasonable and fair-minded view of the amendment.

I do not know which cruel person allocated this amendment to me for a response. On a previous occasion in Committee I made it clear that I am frightened of bikers. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned scooters. Forty years ago I used to ride a scooter. I was frightened as much of myself as of anyone else, particularly when I fell off, as I frequently did.

Motor vehicles, as defined in Clause 197(1), already exclude electrically assisted pedal cycles and other forms of unpowered modes of transport. This leaves us with the question of whether it is right, as the amendment suggests, that the Bill should automatically exclude all powered two wheelers—that is, motorbikes and scooters—from charges in all circumstances. I am not convinced that this would be the right way to proceed.

We addressed this matter in our consultation paper Breaking the Logjam. We sought people's views on the merits of a national exemption for motorcycles from road user charges. Over 60 per cent of respondents thought that there should not be a national exemption. Many suggested that the matter should be left to local discretion. We recognise the merits of an exemption from charges for motorcycles. It could overcome a number of practical problems that might be encountered if they were subject to road user charges.

However, I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that we are discussing congestion charging. There are issues of pollution and also of noise pollution. I do not think motorcycles would be regarded favourably in terms of noise pollution. However, we are principally discussing congestion. It is undoubtedly the case that a two-wheeled vehicle takes up less horizontal road space than a four-wheeled vehicle, or even a three-wheeled vehicle such as a Reliant Robin or a motorcycle with a sidecar. A charging authority might decide that it is appropriate to charge motorcycles if they contribute to local congestion problems.

The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to motorways in other countries. However, in the centre of Rome or Bologna the congestion is caused almost entirely by two-wheeled vehicles and pedestrians. The fact that it will be open to charging authorities to charge motorcycles at a reduced rate on the basis that two wheels cause less of a congestion problem than four wheels is a perfectly rational solution. If that is what the noble Viscount seeks, we seek the same thing.

We believe that it is right to leave local authorities with the discretion to include powered two wheelers within a charging scheme. However, we shall ensure that local authorities carefully consider the case for and against including motorcycles in any charging scheme.

I thank the Minister for that full and, I think, largely satisfactory reply. I shall read what the Minister has said but, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 221:

Page 102, line 27, at end insert ("for ten years or").

Perhaps I should first say a word about hypothecation, which is a little more complicated than the noble Lord implied. Each scheme starting in the 10 years following the commencement of these powers will be guaranteed at least 10 years of hypothecation. So, if a scheme started nine years from now, hypothecation would continue until 19 years from now. We would then have a general review after 10 years. The Secretary of State may, if he wishes, agree a longer period of hypothecation for an individual scheme at the outset. Every scheme will have established at the outset the exact period of hypothecation that it is guaranteed, and an authority could, of course, decide to link the length of the scheme to that.

As far as I can see, there is no risk whatever of what the noble Lord suggested—that is, that a scheme might run out of hypothecation and could not be brought to an end if the authority so wished. The Bill allows that orders of indefinite length may be revoked at any time if the charging authority so wishes.

Having got that out of the way, perhaps I may turn to the amendments themselves. The amendments seek to require that scheme orders must be either indefinite or of 10 years' duration. Schemes can be indefinite or of 10 years duration now; the amendments would stop them being for any finite period other than 10 years. That could be too restrictive. An authority may decide to introduce an order initially for a year, with the continuation of the scheme being subject to review and the remaking of the order; or it might decide that an order of five years would be right to tie it into the timetable of a local transport plan.

Having removed the fear of a scheme which may run out of hypothecation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will feel that the flexibility provided in the Bill is better than the position proposed in his amendments.

We are constantly dealing with what lies behind the Bill rather than what lies in the Bill. None the less, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response, which gives me considerable cause for hope. I shall study his words with care. It may be that there are particular aspects of what he said that I shall wish to explore further at a later stage but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 223:

Page 102, line 29, at end insert (", and

(f) state whether the charging scheme will cease in the event that the monies provided annually by government to local government for highways and transport purposes (as exemplified in the annual Revenue Support Grant negotiations) are reduced year on year for more than one year").

I should like to add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said. Undoubtedly there is a danger—we have seen it in local government, as the noble Lord said, and in art funding following the creation of the lottery fund—that when there is specific support for a particular item of expenditure governments, no matter what they say, sometimes fall down in maintaining their original programmes of support for that item of expenditure. There is a rather disagreeable reality behind the noble Lord's amendment. We should like whatever reassurance the Minister can give us that the Government will not go down that road. It would be dangerous for local government to depend on congestion charging for funding everything it wants to do in the field of transport.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that we all have a shared and understandable apprehension about this matter. In the circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, need not confess to more suspicion in these matters. I entirely agree that the revenues from new charges must be additional to existing funding and that this must be clear for all to see. We also have to recognise that that will be crucial to the success and public acceptability of any charging scheme. For the record, I repeat the Government's promise that the net proceeds from charging schemes will be additional moneys for improving local transport.

It was with the issue of additionality in mind that Schedule 12 was drafted to require charging and licensing authorities to establish a separate account for the income and expenditure from charging schemes. That account must be published annually. That will guarantee transparency by making it clear to local people and businesses how much money is being raised through charging and how that money is being spent. That will, we hope, help to demonstrate that the revenues raised through the new charges are indeed additional to a local authority's revenue support grant and other grants paid by central government to local government.

Returning to the noble Lord's amendment, I would emphasise that we have been careful to put as few obstacles as possible in the way of an authority that wishes to discontinue a scheme. If it wishes to halt a scheme, on whatever grounds seem appropriate and relevant, then that is a matter for the charging authority to decide. A statement on the lines required by the amendment would not make any difference to that.

We are committed to the principle of additionality but the amendment does not help in any way to fulfil our commitment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and particularly his assurance that the products of these revenue streams must be additional. I am bound to say, however, that, whatever Schedule 12 may say, it does nothing to reinforce the point of additionality, or, at least, it does infinitely less than his assurance does. His assurance is quite clear.

Schedule 12 requires the keeping of separate accounts and the annual publication of them. That will deal very neatly and properly with the issue of revenue raised and revenue spent. But it does not actually deal with the issue of what happens to the other revenue streams that local government has. Although that may help to make what is happening more obvious, it does nothing to guarantee the continuity of those other revenue streams. That is what I would call a "peccadillo" in what was a helpful reply, and one for which I am grateful. I will study with care what the Minister has said, as is my wont. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 223A:

Page 102, line 29, at end insert (", and

( ) specify an alternative route for through traffic that can be followed if a vehicle is unable or unequipped to pay the charges required").

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this group of amendments. I feel that I must almost apologise for finding myself yet again in general agreement with the intentions behind his amendments, if not the exact proposals.

The purpose of Amendment No. 223A is to require that a charging scheme must specify an alternative route for through traffic that can be followed by vehicles unable or unequipped to pay the charges. I am sympathetic to the practical point about giving people the option either to pay a charge or take an alternative route. We would expect that schemes will be designed to give information to motorists so they can choose whether or not to enter a charged area or structure. If they do decide to enter the area, they should be prepared to pay the charge. That is the same for currently tolled bridges.

However, while I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve, I think it is undesirable to have such a requirement for a number of reasons. It would prevent a charging scheme proceeding if an alternative route was not available, as is the case in the schemes being developed in the Peak District National Park and by Durham County Council in its attempts to protect the unique world heritage site of Durham city.

Furthermore, the alternative route would have to be suitable for the class of through traffic which the noble Lord is considering. However, one purpose of a charging scheme could be to encourage a shift between modes to protect the environment which would be rendered pointless if diversion of traffic was encouraged. I remind the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that he does not envisage approving schemes unless some public transport alternative is available. It is not clear exactly what the noble Lord means by "unable"— unable because the driver has forgotten his or her money? We could be moving into a legal minefield with this amendment. Therefore, I cannot support it for the reasons I have outlined.

Subsection (5) of Clause 170 provides examples of some of the factors under which charges may vary. Those include different charges on different days and different charges at different times of day. The list is not, however, exclusive or exhaustive. Other possibilities are not ruled out and to add,

"different classes of road-user",

as Amendment No. 224 seeks to do, is not necessary. Furthermore, Clause 171 specifically provides for exemptions and reduced rates of charges. Using these provisions, charging authorities could also, if they wished, charge lower rates for local residents or other classes of road user.

Amendment No. 225 would require that a charging authority must specify the reasons for charging different amounts in different cases. I agree with the principle, but my preference would be for local authorities to include a justification for different charges when they consult locally on their proposals. That could also be one of the factors we consider in scheme approvals. I would add that local authorities, if challenged on the issue by an application for judicial review in the High Court, would in any case have to be ready to justify different charges.

I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will agree that his amendments are unnecessary and will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 223A.

I shall certainly agree to study with great care what the Minister has said. As always, he argues his case persuasively and sympathises with my intentions. I find that quite charming and indeed—dare I say it?—disarming. But one needs to be certain that even with what he has said—again, he must forgive my scepticism—we have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Although I am infinitely more happy than I was before we had this short debate, I cannot be entirely satisfied. I shall have to give the Minister's reply more thought than is possible immediately on the Floor of the Committee. I shall study the noble Lord's remarks very carefully when they appear in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]

Clause 170 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 226:

Page 103, line 14, at end insert ("which shall include exemption for recognised emergency services, people undertaking repairs to public utilities, and doctors, nurses and mid-wives visiting patients").

Why did the noble Lord choose this specific case? Why did he not choose five, 10 or 15 other cases? Could not all such cases be mentioned in regulations which can be considered later? All the Government are doing is making room for the provision later on of certain circumstances. The noble Lord has chosen one circumstance. Why did he not choose another, or five others?

If one considers just Amendment No. 226, I agree that it mentions only emergency services. However, Amendment No. 243 deals with businesses in a rural area; Amendment No. 244 deals with a business providing fewer than 10 workplace parking spaces; and Amendment No. 245 deals with a business which has introduced a "green transport programme" in relation to its employees. Another amendment deals with a business for which it is necessary to work shifts and one is dealing with the absolute obligation on the employer to introduce double the number of parking places. All those are perfectly reasonable exceptions to argue for if one accepts that exceptions are valid in the first place; and the Government have accepted that.

I do not take exception to the idea put forward by the noble Lord. What I take exception to is the fact that he has taken the opportunity now rather than when the regulations come to be debated by the House.

Perhaps I may make two points about regulations which may arrive before the House in the future. First, at this stage we do not know what the regulations will contain. Secondly—I debated this point with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as recently as last Friday—with regulations one can only approve them or reject them. One cannot amend them.

Furthermore, we should bear in mind the principle I mentioned earlier this afternoon; namely, the question of when and whether it is appropriate to put detailed provisions on the face of the Bill or whether they would be better dealt with in regulations. The fact of the matter is—and as a matter of principle—I would argue that we would be wise to place as much as possible on the face of the Bill. I accept that complications can arise in so doing, because unless we are careful, the Bill may become more rigid than is intended. However, at least if a matter is placed on the face of the Bill, we can debate it thoroughly, consider the detail and possibly divide on it.

As regards regulations—I have forgotten the exact number of pages of regulations we debated on Friday last, but it was around 40 to 50—we are faced with Hobson's choice: take it or leave it. One can vote either for or against regulations. That is not a good way to proceed.

Does the noble Lord accept that the making of lists is always fraught with difficulty? It is extremely easy to leave out groups of people who should be on the list. For example, in the list provided by the noble Lord's amendment, while he has included,

"doctors, nurses and mid-wives visiting patients".

I should remind him that health visitors need to visit patients and clients. They are not included in the list.

As I have said, it is difficult to avoid the problem of leaving out those who have an equal claim.

I absolutely agree with that comment, but that is part of the purpose for which we debate these matters in detail. We can then ensure that such lists are absolutely right.

I do not claim for one moment any degree of infallibility in this area. However, the same argument applies in the case of regulations. It can apply even—heaven help us—in the case of statutory guidance. We can only do our best.

I do not wish to argue that the list provided in my amendment is by any means the last word on the subject. However, I believe that it is worth arguing on behalf of these particular cases. For example, businesses in rural areas generally should be exempted from workplace parking levies. Such businesses do not cause congestion. Almost invariably, the only way of reaching the business is by car. Occasionally, an employee will live close enough to use a bicycle, but generally speaking, the car is the only realistic means of transport. I believe that we all wish to encourage the establishment of small businesses. Many schemes have been set up so to do. It seems to me that workplace parking levies could well provide a disincentive. They may discourage some people from doing something which otherwise they would do.

As regards businesses that introduce a green transport policy, I should remind noble Lords that some businesses have already done so. Indeed, we debated this a little while ago because one business found that its employees were being taxed because a taxable benefit had been provided for them. However, what that company had done was in fact in everyone's best interests. I find that to be an interesting point.

I have already mentioned the case on behalf of those who work in shifts and, of course, those who work in the recognised emergency services. Their case goes without saying.

I believe that the main point to stress is that, once it is admitted that the principle of universality is not appropriate here, all the other issues will become open to debate. Furthermore, as I have said already, as a matter of principle, I prefer to see all that can possibly be put on the face of the Bill being put on the face of the Bill—inconvenient, difficult and awkward though that may be. The issues can then be debated fully to decide whether to include or reject them. However, in regulations the opportunity for detailed supervision does not arise. All that can be done is to accept what has been put before one in toto or reject it in toto. Very often, for other reasons, rejection is not practicable. In that case, one is forced to accept matters which otherwise would not be acceptable.

I believe that these amendments are entirely reasonable. No doubt I shall receive the usual helpful, sympathetic and spirited negative response from the Minister. I beg to move.

Before the Minister replies, I should say that I am almost moved to sing to him the hymn,

"Courage, brother, do not stumble",

after having looked at the list of possible exceptions. We on these Benches broadly support the intentions of the Government here. Exceptions are a great trial.

When we began to put in the traffic management scheme in Oxford, we received pleas for exceptions from almost every conceivable quarter. Had we given in to those requests, we would not have achieved clear streets. Almost everyone can make a case for exception. It was notable that when the London red routes were set up and parking was restricted on those routes, huge protests were lodged by small businesses. However, it turned out that most of the parking spaces were being occupied by cars and vans that belonged to the proprietors of the small businesses themselves. The vehicles were parked on those main roads all day, thus preventing shoppers and others from using the premises. Objective and independent research into the effects of the red routes has revealed that the number of visits to such premises has in fact increased enormously now that the proprietors' own vehicles are no longer parked in front of their shops.

As regards concessions, I was disappointed when the Deputy Prime Minister conferred an almost blanket exemption to the employees of National Health Service trusts. As regards hospital sites, with which I am familiar, I would estimate that perhaps 20 to 30 per cent of those using the parking spaces are those engaged in shift work, who could not reasonably use public transport. However, the usual collection of administrators and people in the finance department (they seem to outnumber everyone else) work from nine to five. They, too, are to be covered by that exemption, but there is no reason whatever why those people should be exempted from the rules.

I ask the Government, in considering their response to the amendments, to trust in the judgment of local authorities. Local government is best placed to draw a reasonable balance as regards requests for exemptions. Indeed, we pay an immediate penalty—usually the following May by being turned out of office—if the job is not done properly.

Perhaps I may make a specific comment as regards the exemption requested for those,

"undertaking repairs to public utilities".

The phrase "public utilities" used to embrace a small well-defined group of undertakers. It is regrettable that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, is not in his place. He would confirm that those undertakers comprised the gas board, the electricity board, water and telephones. Nowadays, I believe that 80 or 90 different groups appear to have the right to set up roadworks, use skips, dig holes and generally obstruct the flow of traffic. Indeed, we have also seen the rise of the phenomenon of "white van man". He usually parks on the pavement and proceeds to use his van as a mobile workshop, leaving the van in place all day. In all honesty, such people have got to be brought under control, otherwise our streets and pavements will no longer be available to those who have legitimate business.

My plea to the Government is this: be robust on this matter and put some trust in local authorities. Do not try, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has suggested, to put everything on the face of the Bill. It is not possible to cover all the detail. The Bill will simply become longer and the process of consultation will be even more tortuous than it is now.

Amendment No. 227 in this group, standing in my name, is very simple. It is well recognised that registered disabled people are limited by their individual and specific form of disability and therefore need to have special arrangements in respect of use of their vehicles. It is hoped that they will have the new blue disabled persons parking badge, which has replaced the old orange badge. It will enable them to avoid certain parking fines and to park in places not available to other motorists.

Some years ago, I was told the definition of a disabled person. It is very short: it is someone who is unable to travel by public transport. There are numerous people who have chronic illness which prevents them from using public transport. I am one, and I understand that my difficulty is not unusual. I have a nasty problem with my immune system whereby if I inhale certain chemicals which are now worn by men and women, or tobacco smoke, I can have what my GP describes as akin to an anaphylactic attack in that it is almost instantaneous and vicious. So, in order to avoid the problem, I am allowed to travel only by car. This restricts my life considerably. But to all intents and purposes I am fit and healthy. I can drive without any problem, park normally and comply with every rule, regulation and Act of Parliament. This will illustrate the problem faced not only by me but by other motorists who have chronic diseases that restrict their travelling to only one mode—their own private vehicle.

If it is accepted that disabled people should be exempted from road user charging because of their disability, it follows that those who have chronic illness should also be exempted from such charges. My noble friend will doubtless ask how this can be managed so as to avoid any abuse of the system. That is easy. It does not form part of this amendment, but it could be covered by regulation. I should be happy to discuss the mechanics further with my noble friend should he so wish.

I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 227A standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall, which is in this group of amendments concerned with exemptions, although it could apply equally well to workplace parking.

I support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that there should be minimal exemptions. I am sure that that is the right answer. Shiftworkers could be considered; and my noble friend Lord Simon has made a powerful case for another group.

My concern is that, human nature being what it is, those who create parking schemes will face a terrible temptation to make sure that they are all right first. That could apply to a local authority; it could apply equally to this House and another place; it could apply to workplace parking and to traffic charging schemes. As I have said previously in Committee, setting an example and getting ownership of all those who will be involved is vital. If the charging authority does not set an example by making its own employees, consultants, advisers and members pay the same amount as everyone else, under the same conditions, the scheme will have failed. That applies to Members, officials and everyone else in this House and in another place.

This is a probing amendment to see what my noble friend the Minister thinks about the matter and whether he can give some robust suggestion that everyone must be treated equally.

I do not usually oppose my noble friend, because he served me well when I held the transport portfolio when my party was in opposition. However, I believe that the right thing for my noble friend to do is to make representations at the proper time to my noble friend the Minister. What I have said about the noble Lord applies equally to him. Both have made out good cases individually. But it is wrong at this stage of the Bill, which is lengthy enough in any event, to make representations on behalf of individuals or organisations—unless my noble friend has reasons that are not apparent to me. My experience indicates that he has an open mind on the matter, that he has representations in mind concerning individuals and organisations, and that he does not need the help that either my noble friend or the noble Lord opposite is prepared to give.

On the question of road user charging and workplace levies, I have great sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. But as regards road user charging, it is likely that automated schemes will be introduced to check moving traffic. People will either have to buy in advance the right to take their vehicles into certain areas, or be billed afterwards. Therefore, are the Government proposing increased allowances for people who are registered disabled so as to take account of road user charging and to reimburse them for it? In the long term, that is probably the most practical method of dealing with the matter in order that there will not be delays at checkpoints while the validity of a driver, or indeed the passenger if that person is so disabled that he or she is unable to drive, is checked to verify that the vehicle is exempt. In relation to disabled people who must use a private vehicle, there should be a proper exemption from the workplace parking levy.

It would be helpful if at this stage the Government would indicate what they have in mind in the way of exemptions, or compensation for lack of exemptions, in regard to both road user charging schemes and the workplace levy. That could help us at later stages in the Bill and might well mean that we need not table quite so many amendments in future. I am sure that the Government have given themselves plenty of time to think about this matter.

I should like to thank noble Lords for raising the important matter of exemption from road user charges and workplace parking levies. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for lending me his considerable weight in matters of procedure. Some of the suggestions by Members of the Committee for possible exemptions or concessions make good sense, but again we differ on the approach.

The Government's response to the consultation paper, Breaking the Logjam, sought views on possible exemptions or concessions. We invited views on what exemptions from charges or other concessions should be specified nationally, and what exemptions or concessions would be best left to local discretion. A copy of the response was placed in the Library in February.

In England, we are proposing that there will be a national exemption from both road user charges and workplace parking charges for emergency vehicles. We are proposing that there will also be some form of exemption from both charges for disabled persons. In addition, we are proposing some form of exemption or concession from the workplace parking levy for National Health Service hospitals.

However, we are firmly of the view that these national exemptions from charges should be specified in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. This regulation-making power is provided by virtue of Clause 171 for road user charging and Clause 186 for workplace parking levy. This will ensure that we can work with appropriate interest groups, such as organisations that represent disabled people, to ensure that our proposed exemptions or concessions are workable and equitable. That could not be guaranteed if we sought to specify exemptions now on the face of the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Simon proposes an exemption for registered disabled people and those with chronic illnesses that prevent them from using public transport. I was sorry to hear of my noble friend's inhibiting disability, which does not allow him to travel by public transport. The work done by the Commission for Integrated Transport shows that of all European countries, the UK is foremost in provision for travel by disabled people on public transport.

I am grateful for the opportunity to restate our commitment, in our response to Breaking the Logjam, to some form of exemption in England for disabled motorists from road user charges and the workplace parking levy. We are undertaking further work, so it is too early to say what the best approach to an exemption will be. We are working with experts and representative groups to develop our proposals, on which we will consult in due course. Key issues will be who should be included in the scope of an exemption and how an exemption can be enforced fairly and effectively. We are firmly of the view that the best way is to use the power in Clause 171 to make regulations—rather than put something prescriptive in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will therefore agree not to press his amendment.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for raising the important question of how public sector organisations and charging authorities themselves should be treated. His amendment would prevent regulations made by the Secretary of State from exempting charging authorities or other public sector bodies from road user charges—but it would not prevent a charging authority from exempting itself from road user charges or from offering local exemptions to other public sector bodies.

We said in response to Breaking the Logjam that we do not envisage approving a workplace parking levy scheme if exemptions are proposed simply on the basis that buildings are council owned. The same logic applies to a charging authority's liability for road charges. Nor do we propose widespread exemptions from road user charges for public sector organisations. The public sector bears part of the responsibility for causing congestion and would reap the benefits of reduced congestion. It must therefore bear its part of the responsibility for tackling congestion. Widespread public sector exemptions would be impossible to justify to other sectors of the economy and would undermine the effectiveness of schemes to tackle congestion.

We propose, however, national exemption from road charges for emergency vehicles—which have no discretion over the time, destination or means by which they travel, and whose work is often a matter of life or death. We propose that regulations under Clause 171 should provide for national exemption. As the police, fire and ambulance services are public-sector bodies, Amendment No. 227A would prevent that happening. I hope that my noble friend will accept my reassurance on the treatment of charging authorities and that they will not duck their liability for charges, and that my noble friend will understand that a national exemption for emergency services is essential.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, proposes a number of exemptions additional to those we intend to specify in regulations. I have made it clear that we are committed to giving local authorities responsibility for devising charging and licensing schemes that reflect local circumstances, priorities and needs. On that basis, we have kept national exemptions to a minimum. Local authorities may want to add other locally decided exemptions but we are firmly of the view that decisions about others and concessions—other than the small number that will apply nationally—should be taken locally in the design of an individual charging or licensing scheme.

Local authorities may want to set a threshold that exempts the first few parking places at a building from the workplace levy—and there are good arguments in favour. A threshold could help small businesses and reduce the administrative effort of managing and enforcing a scheme. However, in advance of working with the first levy scheme proposals and giving further consideration to the impact of thresholds, we are not in a position to consider whether a national threshold is appropriate or the level at which it should be pitched. The threshold of 10 parking spaces proposed by Amendment No. 244 might work in one town but another level might be more appropriate elsewhere.

Amendment No. 243 suggests that any business in a rural area should be exempted. These are enabling powers, so it is for each local traffic authority to decide whether and where to use them. Each is subject to our approval and we have said that in approving schemes, we envisage and expect that every scheme will have a direct bearing on local congestion problems—rather than simply being a means of raising revenue. If a rural area has no congestion problems, our expectation is that there will be a presumption against our approving a scheme—although the Secretary of State would have to give fair consideration to the merits of any put forward.

As to Amendment No. 245, I accept that there may be merit in giving exemptions or concessions to businesses that have agreed green travel plans that minimise their employees' reliance on car travel. I hope the Committee accepts that it would be best to tackle the matter locally, perhaps with guidance or regulations—not least because of the problems of definitions exemplified in the amendment's wording. A "green transport programme" is not defined in statute and there could be endless arguments in the courts over what constituted a significant reduction in the need for travel by car.

Amendment No. 246 suggests that all parking by any shift workers should be exempted from the workplace parking levy. Workers driving to a shift that began at 9 a.m. would be adding to peak-hour congestion in the same way as any other workers. There would be no logic to their exemption. I accept that there is a concern about people working during the night, when there may be little alternative to driving. Local authorities will be able to limit the hours when a parking licence is required, to exclude evenings and nights if that makes sense locally. It is worth noting that a licence to park a maximum of 50 vehicles, for example, will cover 50 vehicles during the day shift and an entirely different 50 vehicles during the night shift at no additional cost.

I accept also that there is then an issue about how shift handovers are managed. For a limited period, as one shift departs and another arrives, there may be an unavoidable need for excess parking. We intend to give guidance to local authorities to ensure that such situations are dealt with flexibly. We envisage that an employer would be allowed additional parking during a defined shift handover period at no extra cost.

We propose a national exemption for emergency vehicles from the workplace parking levy and road user charges but not for parking by employees at, say, an ambulance station. The public sector must take its share of the responsibility for congestion, and there would be the same value in public sector employees switching from car commuting as any others. Having spelt out at some length and in detail the Government's position on exemptions from new charges, I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw or not move their amendments.

The Minister did not answer my question about moving vehicle charging, where it may not be possible to identify whether the driver or passenger of a vehicle is disabled. Will there be some form of compensation for disabled people who might otherwise be exempt when they pass through a charging point?

While the Minister was speaking another thought came into my mind. A number of people work from home and often have assistants or secretaries who visit them. Will a workplace charge be levied on a person who works from home or his secretary or assistant? At some stage that may be a contentious point.

I apologise for not having addressed that question directly. I assumed that I had, at least indirectly, given comfort to the noble Lord. In regulation we shall provide for the disabled, but the exact form of that provision is subject to further consultation. We believe that some of the issues raised by the noble Lord are better defined during that consultation period.

Will the Minister answer my question about the treatment of those who work from home and their assistants or secretaries?

That is exactly the kind of detailed question that is perhaps best addressed in consultation. Therefore, at this stage I do not want to respond to the noble Lord's question definitively.

We have had a very constructive, useful debate. If all of us have come to the subject from slightly different perspectives at least we are agreed on the principle, even if the detail is not accepted. The problems of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in relation to white van man are, all too often, almost the opposite of mine, but perhaps that is inevitable given that his experience is urban and mine is rural. However, if white van man is not permitted to park on the pavement because somebody has a gas leak we shall experience real problems. It may be that that is a fairly rare occurrence, but we must be able to deal with white van man in both contexts.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen in relation to the registered disabled. I deliberately did not table amendments to deal with it because I was absolutely confident that others would do so, as they have. There is a very persuasive case in that situation. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may not agree that he supported me, but he did. In seeking to tackle a fundamental aspect of the problem in this particular field the noble Lord spoke to what I might call a negative exemption.

The Minister has given a very detailed exposition of the flaws in our drafting, among other things, and the difficulty of dealing with such matters on the face of the Bill. I am the first to accept that they are difficult to deal with in legislation. However, they are no less difficult to deal with in regulation and certainly in guidance. They remain problems. The only difference is that, to a greater or lesser degree, by being dealt with in that way they escape our supervision. As to that there is a fundamental difference.

That said, the appropriate national authority, be it the Assembly for Wales or the Minister in England, will be charged with making these regulations. He will make national exemptions. Further, because he has power to approve local schemes in effect he will make regulations which local people wish to apply. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If one is a wild optimist it will work beautifully; if, like me, one is a sceptical old pessimist it will not work quite so well. The whole purpose of this process is to ensure that it works as well as possible. Nothing in this world is perfect.

In the previous clause we accepted wide differences in principle and differentiation in charges at different times. I do not see why more of the considerations that the Minister dealt with in his detailed response cannot be put into the Bill. They must be put onto paper and spelt out in detail in due course. Somebody must account for it, even in this Chamber. Therefore, in part this debate seeks to prevent future trouble.

The debate has been helpful. The Minister has dealt with the matter as helpfully as possible, for which I respect him. I believe that in this instance the Minister has helped all Members of the Committee. I shall study the response of the Minister with great care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 227 and 227A not moved.]

Clause 171 agreed to.