My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday next to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken immediately after the Social Security (Breach of Community Order) Regulations 2001.—(Lord Carter.)

On Question Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the order is made under paragraph 1(1) of the schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000. The purpose of the draft order is to make the bodies listed in the schedules "public authorities" for the purposes of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Those public authorities will be subject to the statutory duties set out in Section 75(1) and (2) of the Act, requiring them to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between specific groups.

The House is aware that equality of opportunity and treatment are issues that are of particular importance in the context of Northern Ireland, and that the promotion of equality was at the very heart of the Good Friday agreement. The Good Friday agreement laid the foundations for a new dispensation based on respect for rights and the principle of equality. All those who were parties to the agreement affirmed their commitment to,

"the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity".

This Government remain committed to ensuring the full implementation of the agreement. This order is a further step in that important process.

Public authorities are required to produce an equality scheme that sets out how they will fulfil those functions. The schemes will cover the full range of the organisation's functions in Northern Ireland. They will include arrangements for policy appraisal, public consultation, public access to information and services, monitoring and timetables. Those schemes will be submitted to the Equality Commission for approval. The Equality Commission will advise on, validate and monitor the Section 75 statutory obligation and will investigate complaints of default. Section 75(3)(b) and (c) of the Act automatically brought the vast majority of public authorities in Northern Ireland—around 120—within the scope of the statutory equality duty.

However, the Act also provides the power for the Secretary of State to designate other organisations as public authorities for the purposes of Section 75. The first designation order was made under this power last summer. It covered mainly Whitehall departments and other UK-wide bodies that carry out functions in Northern Ireland.

I said at the time that we intend that the statutory duty should, in time, embrace as many bodies as possible. It is the Government's policy that non-designation should be the exception, not the rule. Since the last order was made, we have continued our consultation with the Equality Commission to consider what other bodies might need to be designated.

I am pleased to be able to report to the House today that many of the bodies which the commission felt should be designated are included in this order; not least, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and the further and higher education institutions in Northern Ireland, including the Open University.

But this is still not the end of the process and we will bring forward further designation orders as and when required. More important, the statutory duty represents the beginning of a process of increased dialogue between the public sector and community and voluntary bodies, putting equality at the heart of the policy-making process. This can only help lead to better, more responsive services for the people of Northern Ireland.

We remain determined to build a society where the active promotion of equality and good relations is seen as an integral part of public life. Section 75 is the key to that goal and I am pleased to be able to extend its reach to these further organisations. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

My Lords, I welcome this extension to the list and thank the Minister for his elucidation. Perhaps I may ask for further clarification on one point. How often is it intended regularly to review this matter? Is it to be every nine months or so? Secondly, if there were particular reasons for specific corporations and bodies to be included, is it possible to add them to the list between reviews?

My Lords, I too welcome the order, but perhaps I may also seek some further information from the Minister. Religious discrimination is forbidden in Northern Ireland but not yet in Britain. Racial discrimination is forbidden on both sides of the Irish Sea. The Race Relations Act will impose similar duties on central government departments here. In order to achieve some kind of symmetry across the Irish Sea in relation to public authority obligations of this kind, what will be the position in regard to central government departments like the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department? Is it contemplated that their functions in relation to race and religious equality in Northern Ireland will also bring them within this scheme in due course or is there to be an anomalous position in which those two departments—the Home Office and I think the Lord Chancellor's Department—will be outside the scope of the duty?

My Lords, I have no particular objection to this order. However, I repeat and support what has just been said. We need to be careful that we do not create too much of a gap between the other side of the Irish Sea and this side, particularly in regard to the other devolved regions in Great Britain. I am afraid that from past experience I have discovered that the racial safeguards have been neglected and overlooked to a great extent by the type of legislation which is brought forward here this morning.

My Lords, when I was in Northern Ireland recently for a conference on asylum, I was told that representations had been made regarding the designation of the Home Office under Section 75. While it was appreciated that there had to be certain exceptions so that discrimination was permissible under the Asylum and Immigration Act for certain limited reasons, and that those had been accommodated in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, it should have been possible similarly to designate the Home Office under Section 75.

I earnestly appeal to the noble and learned Lord to see whether the representations that have been made from Northern Ireland could be accommodated so that there is harmonisation of jurisdiction on both sides of the Irish Channel. What they ask for is simple. With a few exceptions, Section 75 could be applied to the Home Office. Therefore, it should be accommodated within their legislation as it is on our side with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act.

My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support given to the order. I shall deal with the specific points raised and turn first to that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith. There is no specific period of time for reviews. We regard this as ongoing work in progress. We are looking to see whether those bodies which are not designated can be designated. We would not think it appropriate to set a time of six months. However, we are in accord with the view expressed by the noble Lord. We are looking to have as many bodies designated as possible. However, work needs to be done and consultation must take place.

I thoroughly understand and endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. A significant number of central government departments were designated in the previous order; namely, the Northern Ireland Office; DCMS; DTI; the Northern Ireland court service—that is the only emanation of the Lord Chancellor's Department in Northern Ireland. Therefore, although the LCD is not designated; the relevant part of its activities is—Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. Again, we take the point raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised a point regarding the Home Office. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act made a specific exemption from the Great Britain race equality duty to exclude immigration from the necessity of promoting equality of opportunity. That exemption reflects a unique requirement for immigration entry clearance officers to discriminate on grounds of nationality and ethnic or national origin. There is no such scope for an exemption within Section 75. There are difficulties, therefore, concerning designating the Home Office in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may say, for the record, that the Home Office is keen to comply with the spirit of Section 75 on a voluntary basis in respect of all its other functions relating to Northern Ireland. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, raised the same point. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the House will feel able to approve the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the Justices and Justices' Clerks (Costs) Regulations 2001. These regulations have been considered in another place and a Motion to approve was passed on 27th March 2001.

Section 102 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 inserts Section 2A into the Taxes Management Act 1970 which prevents a court ordering a general commissioner to pay the costs in any proceedings in respect of an act or omission of a general commissioner in the execution or purported execution of his duty. That immunity does not apply where a general commissioner is being tried for an offence, is appealing against a conviction or acted in bad faith. Where the court is prevented from making such an order against a general commissioner, the court may instead order the making by the Lord Chancellor of a payment in respect of the costs of a person in the proceedings.

In parallel, Section 98(1) of the Access to Justice Act inserts Section 53A into the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 which makes similar provisions in respect of justices and their clerks. Section 53A will prevent the court from making an order against a justice in respect of any act or omission of his in the execution or purported execution of his duty or a justice's clerk when exercising, by virtue of any statutory provision, any functions of a single justice. As is the case with general commissioners, where the court is prevented from making such an order, the court may instead order the making by the Lord Chancellor of a payment in respect of the costs of a person in the proceedings. That immunity against costs does not apply where a justice or a justice's clerk is being tried for an offence, is appealing against a conviction or acted in bad faith.

The regulations, each containing the same provisions, provide first that an order for payment of costs by the Lord Chancellor cannot be made in respect of the costs of a public authority. Secondly, when such an order has been made, they make detailed provision for how the costs shall be determined. The Justices and Justices' Clerks (Costs) Regulations 2001 apply in England and Wales. Northern Ireland will shortly be making its own regulations that are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The General Commissioners of Income Tax (Costs) Regulations 2001 apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland will be making its own regulations separately. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to go through each regulation, as they mainly concern detailed provision about the determination of costs. In outline, they provide that a costs order cannot be made in favour of a public authority and, where a court orders that the Lord Chancellor makes a payment in respect of a person in the proceedings, they detail how costs shall be determined.

In my view these regulations are compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the regulation to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)

My Lords, it is right that we should examine these regulations. I have looked at what was said in the other place. This is rather like occasions many years ago when I was at the Bar, when one was instructed in court simply to say, "I agree", or "I have no objection", except that on those occasions one might even be paid a fat fee. I suppose that here one might say that one can collect somewhat modest expenses for turning up on a Friday morning.

It seems to me that there is no objection to the reegulations. I hope that they will be accepted.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint committee].—(Lord Bach.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Measure has the support of the General Synod of the Church of England, has been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and has been passed in another place. I hope that on Friday morning your Lordships will not be long delayed in completing the parliamentary process on this matter.

In the light of some of the controversy that surrounded earlier versions of the Measure, perhaps as a bishop I may say that churchwardens are not only the senior lay officers of the parish and the bishop's key people in maintaining the structure and mission of the Church in each community. They are also, in our experience, highly valued by all bishops for the outstanding service that they offer to the people of our country. Let there be no doubt concerning the sense of vocation, dedication to duty and professional skill of the tens of thousands of men and women in our country who perform this service.

Last year in my own diocese I conducted a formal episcopal visitation of the diocese. In that process, I oversaw the admission of the newly elected wardens to their office. In advance of that, I sent out a formal set of articles of enquiry to all wardens requiring them to respond. I had the temerity to ask them 100 questions. I had a 100 per cent response of a quality and depth of insight which gives enormous hope for the future. That opened up for me some far-reaching conversations with the wardens and the parishes about how we fulfil our duty to the people. The point I make from my own experience is that we are wonderfully served by all these people.

The Measure is necessary because of problems surrounding the process for election, admission and the handling of such matters as vacancies. The office needed protection from unsuitable persons and to be brought into line with contemporary professional expectations. The Measure before the House sets out a clear and comprehensive set of provisions to deal with all aspects of the process. It will help the Church to carry forward its work with greater precision and clarity.

I am aware that the Measure has had a prolonged and disputed life as the representatives of the Synod sought to agree its contents with the Ecclesiastical Committee. Not least, there were long debates about the original provision to give the bishop the power to suspend wardens in certain circumstances. That clause has been removed at the request of the bishops. The substance of the Measure is of such importance that we are concerned to see it supported and enacted.

The bishops would have valued the power which the original clause gave them. In very rare instances it might have been useful in protecting both parishes and parish clergy. Nevertheless, I have to say that in six or more years as a diocesan bishop I cannot recall a single instance where I would have needed such a power. It would be easy to have got that issue out of all proportion to its significance. Far more important are the excellent provisions of the Measure to ensure the rights and duties of parishioners in electing churchwardens and those provisions which set out the processes surrounding the office. That is why we are more than content to see the Measure progress in its present form.

Churchwardens are elected by the whole parish, not just by those on the electoral roll of the church. That is because every person has rights in their parish church. Although not all people choose to exercise them, they do possess them. The results of the visitation to which I referred indicated that at least one in three people make use of the services of the church in any one year. These rights include matters concerning holy baptism, holy matrimony and the burying of the dead. In the name of Christ and on the foundation of the faith once delivered to the saints, the Church has a duty to be open to all. Churchwardens are the visible sign of that duty in our historic parish structure.

Churchwardens are further required to work in close co-operation with the parish priest. Indeed, this relationship is of such importance that the Measure includes provisions in the elections in those occasional instances where there are,

"serious difficulties between the minister and the person in carrying out their respective functions".

They are elected by the people in the parish, work collaboratively with the incumbent and, finally, act as the bishop's lay officers in the parish, for the people, with the priest, on behalf of the bishop.

It is an unrivalled, historic and simple arrangement for bringing together the people, the priest and the wider universal Church represented by the bishop. As a sign and symbol of our common duty, it is they, the churchwardens, who, carrying their wands of office, lead the bishop into the church whenever the bishop visits the parish. It is my custom, whenever possible, to spend time with the wardens after divine service in order to have conversation about our shared responsibility.

Every parish, every parish priest and every bishop needs good churchwardens. With rare exception, we have them. In passing this Measure, the House will be giving them support and help in the work they do in this historic office. I hope that the Measure will have approval today and I commend it to the House.

Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Churchwardens Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Guildford.)

My Lords, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate can explain one matter. I remember the row about the bishops having the right to remove a bad or unsuitable churchwarden. As that provision no longer exists, how are inappropriate churchwardens removed, or are they not?

My Lords, in speaking to the Measure, I must declare an interest as I am married to a priest in the Church of England. It is a particularly topical matter as my wife is in the process of seeking a parish and I am only too well aware of the powers of churchwardens in that process. I echo what the right reverend Prelate said about the dedication of churchwardens. In parishes where my wife has been involved I have been impressed by their care, attention and hard work in making the parish a viable entity.

I declare a different interest. During my career I have been involved in drafting the constitution of two political parties. I see in the Measure issues similar to those which have exercised politicians in deciding how people should be appointed, elected and removed from office.

One of the interesting aspects of the Church of England is that there is a huge dichotomy between its form and substance. The form is one of almost rigid hierarchy. At least that is how it appears to outsiders. One would have thought that that meant the power structure was clear and rigid. The truth is that the Church of England is one of the most devolved institutions in the land. As a result, individual parishes and churchwardens have great autonomy in the way they go about their business. That led to the great row associated with the Measure over whether bishops should have the power to suspend in certain circumstances. As an outsider and former general secretary of a political party, I am all in favour of the centre being able to suspend people who misbehave. My vote would probably have been for the bishops. I saw the votes cast in the General Synod which clearly expressed an alternative view. There is now a consensus in the Church, with the bishops on the back foot, I suspect, in respect of the Measure.

I was also struck by the fact that the working party set up to revise the Churchwardens Measure was appointed in 1993. Four years ago, the General Synod voted almost unanimously to adopt the Measure. In those circumstances, and given the huge debate that has taken place, the time has long passed for the Measure to be approved and sent on its way. I happily support it.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the right reverend Prelate a question for clarification about the rare cases of cathedrals which are also parish churches. I speak as a former rector's churchwarden of Southwark Cathedral. The constitution of that cathedral and of the other one, which is also a parish church, allows for two churchwardens. One can be appointed directly by the dean and the other is elected as the people's warden. The practice in Southwark is that they are both elected. I have always welcomed that because it gives a great deal of confidence to the holder of the office to have been elected and not appointed. I see no provision in the Measure which mentions such cathedrals. Does the matter fall under Clause 10(1)(a) which allows the bishop to make special arrangements for cases which are not covered by the Measure, or is there some thought that the post of rector's warden will be totally eliminated? I should be very grateful for clarification.

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. Perhaps I may respond to one or two questions that noble Lords have asked. In reply to the noble Lord's question about powers of removal, the Measure does not contain a power to remove a warden. In terms of the formal legal process, that is entirely a matter for the electorate at the annual meeting. In terms of pastoral reality, the kinds of situation that the bishop has in mind, for example those involving sensitive child protection issues, will be dealt with by careful pastoral conversation. Wardens have been known to resign following such conversations, but formally they can be removed only at the annual meeting.

As to the comment about the form and substance of the Measure, I entirely endorse what has been said. If the noble Lord's wife still seeks a parish I am always on the lookout for a good parish priest. In response to the noble Baroness who asked about cathedrals, I shall write to her with a full answer when I have checked the position. However, I assume that the parishioners of the parish of Southwark Cathedral have exactly the same rights as any other parishioners. Therefore, the Measure's provisions should apply. The statutes of the cathedral must be in line with the law of the land with regard to wardens. I shall check the matter and ensure that the noble Baroness receives an accurate reply.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to allow highway authorities to levy charges on undertakers where the latter fail to complete works to the highway by an agreed deadline. The Government are very much aware of the increasing concern of the public and businesses at the level of disruption caused to road-users by street works carried out by statutory undertakers or their contractors.

I find it almost impossible to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is not in his place on this occasion as we owe more than a little to his tireless work on this subject. At the end of 1999 we launched a consultation on possible options for reducing disruption. After considering the responses, we announced last April that we intended to activate the powers in Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to charge for works which overrun. In the event, it proved necessary to take some additional powers in the Transport Act 2000 to allow a charging regime to operate effectively. The regulations which are before us today are the result of wide consultation with highway authorities, the utilities and many other interested bodies.

In addition to the regulations, this year should also see the introduction of regulations or codes of practice, in some cases both, on a number of aspects of street works practice, including inspection of works, safety and the effective co-ordination by utilities and highway authorities of different works. We shall also be issuing next week a best practice guide aimed at both utilities and authorities with a view to bringing the worst performing practitioners up to the standard of the best.

Perhaps I may turn now to the regulations themselves. Under the charging scheme undertakers will have to inform relevant highway authorities of forthcoming works, and works in progress, by means of a system of notices. For example, they will need to provide notice of the start date of individual works and to agree with the highway authority a reasonable date for completion of those works. They will also need to confirm that works have been completed to allow the highway authority to determine whether the works have finished within the agreed deadline, or, if they overrun, to calculate the charge to be levied on the undertaker.

Obviously, the disruption caused by different works will vary according to the size of the works and the amount of traffic on particular roads. The regulations take account of this by setting different maximum daily charges for different types of works. The charges which authorities can impose range from £2,000 a day for major work on the busiest roads to £100 a day for minor works of short duration on less busy roads. We recognise that there are some works which need to be carried out urgently or which are emergencies; for example, gas leaks where lives could be put at risk. The regulations take account of that by setting lower charges than for ordinary works.

It is for individual local authorities to decide whether they want to adopt these new powers. As disruption is clearly a greater problem in some parts of the country than others, it makes sense to allow decisions to be taken locally. More than 75 authorities have already informed us that they intend to operate charging schemes. The powers have been designed specifically to allow authorities to tailor the details of the charging scheme to the situation in their area. For example, they can choose to reduce or waive charges in particular cases if they consider that there are extenuating circumstances, or they can concentrate on particular roads, or even particular undertakers, if they deem it appropriate.

These regulations are not an end in themselves. We have recently appointed Halcrow as consultants to monitor closely how well the new powers work. If it turns out that they do not lead to a sufficient improvement in the current situation and a reduction in the level of street works disruption, the Government will not hesitate to activate the powers in the Transport Act 2000 to allow highway authorities to charge undertakers from the start of works a so-called lane rental. I have little doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, will also be monitoring the efficacy of the new measures.

To sum up, the regulations provide highway authorities with important new powers to reduce disruption, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments about my noble friend Lord Peyton. We all acknowledge that he has been very persistent in this matter. I, too, am sorry that my noble friend is unable to be here today to hear the plaudits from both sides.

I should like to raise only two issues. First, these regulations affect only about 50 per cent of the work done to the roads. The utilities do not cover the totality of the people who dig up the roads. Does the noble Baroness believe that these measures are sufficient to cover all aspects and it will be unnecessary to introduce further ones in future to cover the 50 per cent who do not come within these regulations?

Secondly, the noble Baroness dealt with the question of what happens if disruption is not decreased. What about the benchmarking that should have been undertaken to judge whether or not disruption is taking place? The regulations do not appear to contain any benchmark as of now by which local authorities are to judge the situation. How will the monitoring by Halcrow take place? Who is to lay down the benchmarks for monitoring, and when will further regulations, if they are necessary, be introduced?

My Lords, these regulations were discussed at length in another place. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I shall not repeat that long discussion. However, I have one or two queries.

I shall start where the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, ended, with the question of benchmarking. The Minister mentioned that 75 local authorities had already indicated that they were keen to implement these new regulations. Is there a basis on which to measure a possible reduction in disturbance and nuisance? Some boroughs, particularly London boroughs, may have good records of who has dug up the road and for how long they have been on the road. I do not know, and it would be interesting to learn, whether that is the case. Otherwise it is difficult to know how one is to measure improvement.

Supposing one can measure whether or not these regulations are effective, what if they are ineffective for perfectly legal reasons; for example, the number of necessary interventions in the road surface is increasing or there is an enormous amount of building and construction going on in every urban centre? How will that impact upon the effectiveness of these new regulations?

Finally, there is the question of lane rental, which would have the effect of increasing the costs to the statutory undertakers of any work. Bearing in mind that some of that work is to supply necessary services, does that mean that the cost to the consumer will rise? If that appears to be a danger, how will the Government tackle that issue?

My Lords, as one of the army of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in one or two of his debates on this subject, I, too, welcome the thrust of these regulations. I particularly welcome what the Minister said about in future charging not just overstayers but for lane closures.

I have one question about the local authority's autonomy over its charges. When we are considering the building of new roads, assessments are made of the time saved by building that new road and of the disruption caused by it. Values are put on those matters. A proper economic assessment is done before deciding whether to go ahead with it. From the point of view of an economist, the right way to charge for overstaying would be to assess the time wasted by motorists while they are sitting in traffic jams because of these road works and make the charge equate to or slightly exceed the cost of the time that they are losing.

To do a proper assessment for minor road works might be more trouble and expense than it is worth. Perhaps the Minister, as she assesses the progress of this scheme, will bear in mind the need and desirability for a more sophisticated system of charging which relates not just to local authorities having a look to see what jams there are but the actual time that is wasted as a result of these dratted works.

My Lords, I declare a personal interest in the subject matter of the debate in that, day after day, I have to proceed by one form of transport or another along Kensington Road to its junction with Kensington Church Street. I query what powers of real enforcement there are within the regulations we are discussing. For the past two months, opposite the Royal Garden Hotel in Kensington Road, about a quarter of a mile before the junction of Kensington Church Street, the road has been up—if that is a term of which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would approve. Certainly, there are road works there which have effectively narrowed the already existing bottleneck, so that, after a certain time of night, it is almost impossible to pass that way.

I have watched very carefully indeed the progress of these works. In most instances when I have passed the works there has been no one working there. That situation has gone on for approximately two months. To people's increasing irritation, there has been a considerable delay to traffic all the way along the road. Sometimes one passes the works and finds that one person is in charge of an operation on both sides of the road, with a great deal of spoil and various abstractions. Considerable amounts of timber are left lying idle day by day without any apparent endeavour to relieve the situation which I have described.

I have no wish to niggle over what is possibly to others a small point, but to thousands of Londoners who have to go that way it represents a considerable inconvenience for which so far there is no apparent relief. I repeat that I have no wish to niggle about this purely because I am personally involved, but I am bound to say that every time I pass, whether day or night, I wonder how often and how effective the powers of enforcement are on the various regulations and indeed Acts that are passed in this place on the assumption that they will become effective law and be effectively enforced.

My Lords, I begin by saying to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that he has outlined the reason why noble Lords should support this measure. The regulation has to be seen in the context of the other measures that are already being introduced—the best practice, to which I referred, the code of practice, the co-ordination and the launching of, in Middlesbrough and perhaps elsewhere, lane rental pilot schemes. That deals with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.

Several noble Lords have indicated that they will monitor carefully the efficacy of these measures. If we think that the disruption is not being sufficiently cut, there are possible new measures; for example, there could be a national launch of lane rental and, if necessary, greater powers could be given to highway authorities to control works.

My noble friend Lord Bruce referred to Kensington Church Street. These regulations should encourage works to be done more quickly. Those carrying out the works will incur significant fines if they are not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the question of whether the cost to consumers could rise. That will depend on the powers of the regulator or the particular utility. It is possible that some cost could be passed on to consumers. We do not envisage that being a major problem. The local highway authorities will be co-operating with Halcrow. It will make a study of the data held by those authorities in drawing up arrangements for monitoring and it will make recommendations to us. We shall try to take into account all the factors in deciding whether there is a need for further measures to be taken.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised the issue of the level of charges and the sophistication of the scheme. We believe that operating on a sliding scale will allow highway authorities to target the highest fines on those major roads where disruption occurs and where that disruption is most likely to be severe. We believe that it is important to leave to individual local authorities the decision whether to reduce or waive charges. For example, there might be conditions of particularly adverse weather that would allow authorities to make judgments in a locality.

The contributions made by noble Lords demonstrate that Halcrow, the department, the Government and local authorities will have to be stringent and sensitive in monitoring what happens. It is clear that, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, many other noble Lords step in to fill his place.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, somewhere along the line my questions—perhaps I did not ask them correctly—have not been answered. First, I pointed out that the utilities cover only 50 per cent of the road work. I asked whether the noble Baroness was satisfied that the other 50 per cent were already covered by regulations or whether, if necessary in the future, regulations would be introduced to deal with the other 50 per cent provided by private companies, builders and so on. My second point related to the fact that so far there is no benchmarking on which Halcrow can base its estimates for the future of what disruption is being caused and whether it is being lessened. I asked whether that benchmarking should not have been undertaken before the regulations were laid. As it has not been, will that benchmarking be undertaken urgently?

My Lords, I believe I am correct in saying that the process of developing benchmarking and looking at how to access and evaluate levels of disruption needs to be carried out in the context of the best practice that will start that process but also in co-operation with local authorities because of the varying issues. It will also have to be sensitive. We believe that this measure, alongside the other measures, will be very effective. I note the concerns and potential doubts raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. As I said earlier, greater powers could be given to highways authorities if, in the light of experience and following the detailed analysis, we felt that it was necessary to do so.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to specify seven new initiatives that will be funded by the National Lottery through the New Opportunities Fund.

When in 1997 the Government proposed introducing a sixth good cause for health, education and the environment there was widespread public support for targeting lottery funding in those areas. Since then the New Opportunities Fund has made a real difference to people's lives—£1.5 billion has already been committed to six successful initiatives.

There are two of those existing schemes which we now propose to expand, in addition to the new initiatives which are the main focus of the order. Two hundred and five million pounds has already been allocated to out-of-school-hours learning. In June 1999 we announced that £60 million would be made available through that initiative and through Sport England to establish and support school sports coordinators, who organise competitive sport and after school activities for young people. The out-of-school-hours initiative has been a popular one and less than we anticipated has been available to fund the activities of sports coordinators. We therefore propose to allocate a further £25.5 million to the initiative to fund the activities of sports coordinators and their equivalents across the UK.

Under another successful initiative, £250 million has provided ICT training for teachers and librarians. We know, however, that there have been concerns that home and hospital tuition service teachers have not been eligible to apply. We shall therefore allocate a further £1 million to extend the programme to cover teachers employed by LEAs to provide education for pupils at home or in hospital.

When the Millennium Commission's share of lottery proceeds transfers to NOF in August the fund will receive one-third of all lottery proceeds—amounting to around £500 million a year. That is why in November last year we issued the consultation paper New Opportunities from the Lottery to seek views on a range of new initiatives. Four hundred and thirty responses to the paper were received across the UK, the overwhelming majority of which were very supportive of the proposed initiatives. Our draft directions to the New Opportunities Fund, which set the framework for the new initiatives and were made available to Members on 9th March, have been developed with the benefit of the many useful comments made.

The New Opportunities Fund has so far done well to deliver a wide range of different initiatives. I am sure that it will rise to the challenge of getting the next tranche of programmes up and running as soon as it can, and we shall look at ways of helping it to do that, where necessary by removing inappropriate bureaucratic controls. There may be instances, for example, where published criteria make it clear which groups or areas are the intended beneficiaries of a particular programme without the need for formal application procedures. We shall therefore consider whether there is a need to change the financial directions to reflect that.

I shall outline our proposals for new initiatives. Sport has an important role to play in inspiring young people and motivating them to aim high. The sum of £750 million for sport in schools will help to bring about a huge expansion in the provision of sports facilities for young people and the wider communities in which they live. Priority will be given to areas of urban and rural deprivation but all local education authorities will benefit.

This will also provide up to £50 million to support the building or refurbishing of outdoor adventure facilities, particularly where that will benefit young people who do not currently have ready access to such facilities. More than £44 million will allow young people to take part in adventure programmes and other challenging activities. Secondary school leavers who have no idea of what to do at the end of compulsory schooling are far more likely to slip into long-term unemployment. We want to improve their self-confidence and increase the number who go into further education, training or a job with training.

Over £213 million will be available to boost the fight against heart disease and stroke, and to provide extra money for the existing initiative to beat cancer. The initiative will help improve diagnosis and treatment, areas often funded through appeals and charitable donations, leading to inequalities in provision. It will help to improve cardiac rehabilitation and palliative care by improving access to safe, modern and convenient facilities. It will take effective action to prevent coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer, focusing on areas such as stopping smoking, increasing fruit and vegetable consumption and physical activity.

The palliative care programme for adults and children with life-threatening and chronic illnesses will support more patients, families and carers wishing to stay in their own homes and communities. It will provide support for carers during bereavement. Children's hospices will also be eligible for support. The sum of £84 million will be available for this initiative.

The sum of £198.5 million will be available for childcare provision, funding capital projects that benefit up to three year-olds in socially excluded communities. It will also provide further support for childcare projects in deprived areas.

The sum of £159 million will be available for a wide-ranging initiative to transform communities. Funding will help to improve the appearance and amenities of specific local environments in both urban and rural areas and will also be available to expand community sector waste re-use, recycling and composting. Fifty million pounds of the funding for this initiative will be available to develop renewable energy sources, building generating capacity for electricity from energy crops, building offshore wind electricity generation projects, and developing small-scale biomass heat and power projects. In Scotland, £10 million will be directed towards projects which explore new kinds of community rehabilitation of people who misuse or have misused drugs.

Awards for All has been an extremely popular and successful programme under which distributors have joined forces to help support local groups in making small-scale grants. Sixty million punds over three years will allow NOF to join the programme and fund a wide range of health education and environment projects of between £500 and £5,000. The fund will make some of this funding available to support projects which celebrate the Queen's Jubilee in 2002.

The response to public consultation has shown overwhelming support for our programme proposals. The creation of the New Opportunities Fund has already helped thousands of communities to improve health, education and local environments. The latest round of grants will make a real difference to school sports facilities, as well as helping local communities to create a better environment and provide much-needed care support. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. As so often happens in this House, the noble Lord has managed to be more concise and clear than his colleagues in another place, for which I thank him. We do not oppose the making of the order and as my honourable friend John Greenway explained in another place we confirm that, if we were in a position to do so, we would honour the government funding pledges made in this order. At some stage in the future we would wish to review the scope of NOF activity, but as a fund it would not be abolished. However, that does not mean that the order should go through on the nod and I have one or two questions which need to be answered. I have limited my questions to only a few to reflect the fact that the Minister has been concise.

As he concluded his explanation to this House, the Minister referred to the popularity of the fund. In another place, the Minister, Kate Hoey, told the House that additionality was a recurrent theme contained in the responses sent in to the consultation paper, New Opportunities from the Lottery. She explained that respondents wanted assurances that the initiatives funded by NOF would be additional to and not substitutes for government spending—and quite right too. That is a theme to which I have returned again and again during our debates on the lottery and I do not apologise for returning to it once more today, however briefly.

We have been told repeatedly that the New Opportunities Fund does not breach additionality and yet, in the same breath, Ministers then often go on to explain how it does so. For example, one of the schemes which we have been told about today will provide teachers for pupils to be taught at home. I am puzzled why that is not the responsibility of the DfEE budget. Surely such a provision should be the subject of core funding. There is also the question of childcare, again a project which we wholeheartedly support. It is clear that it is a good project. But it seems odd that it has become a lottery responsibility. Why have the Government shuffled this away from the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and on to the lottery?

I was also interested to hear that the Government are continuing to use the NOF to bypass the authority of other lottery funding bodies such as Sport England. We welcome wholeheartedly lottery support for schools and arts projects; indeed, especially those projects aimed at schools. When we set up the lottery we made quite sure that such projects were defined as good causes. Why have the Government funded sports coordinators through the New Opportunities Fund? Why do they not trust Sport England to take decisions as regards the priorities for lottery spending in sport and make those grants direct? Why add yet another layer of bureaucracy to the granting of lottery money?

Will the Minister answer the question put in another place by my honourable friend John Greenway, but which the Minister for Sport failed to answer? How many sports coordinators are in place this month? When my honourable friend asked that question, the Minister rather unhelpfully gave him the number that will be in place from September rather than now. The Minister has said that the Government wish to see around 1,000 sports coordinators in place by 2004. Is it intended that they should be in place by the beginning or by the end of that year? It is important that we are given an idea of when the coordinators will be fully in post.

As we have said on past occasions, we value those proposals which relate to matters such as cancer care, always provided that they are additional to the care that should be made available through the National Health Service. We welcome, too, the proposals in paragraph (8) and those that are partly included in paragraph (7) to support schemes that will help our community life to prosper. Certainly, if we had the opportunity, we would wish to establish a community fund for that very purpose. In particular we welcome the plans indicated in the order to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee next year.

I have one or two questions to put to the Minister about those proposals. First, why is lottery money being used to fund schemes to generate heat and power? That merely seems rather quirky. Secondly, can the Minister confirm today that New Opportunities Fund money for community renewal will be made available in particular to those rural areas hit so disastrously by the foot and mouth outbreak?

My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the Minister for explaining in such detail the specific initiatives contained in the order. We have nothing particular add to the points raised by the noble Baroness. Indeed, we support her in her remarks about the need for further clarification on the additionality aspect of this funding. As regards the initiative to offer funding that will enable children to be taught at home, will that include the increasing number of disruptive children who are being excluded from school, no doubt for perfectly good reasons? That appears to be a matter well outside normal funding arrangements in education and I hope that that will be reflected in this new initiative.

As I have said, the matter of additionality needs to be explained a little further. A number of initiatives are not defined clearly as falling outside the accepted scope of funding, but they are subject to certain budgetary constraints which may well be got round by putting them into a list such as that contained in the order.

Having said that, the success of the New Opportunities Fund depends on the continuing success of the lottery—and a grand success it has been. I am sure that the Minister recognises that more than most, in particular in the area of the arts. Let us hope that that will continue.

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Of course the important point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, recognised—she has been consistent in making the point, but I do not complain about that in any way—is the issue of additionality. The best way to make clear how we are preserving additionality is to say that additionality does not mean that we shall spend money only on matters on which central government could not spend money, but also on matters on which central government would not spend money. The Government and the taxpayer can pay for anything they like. In that sense, any expenditure of lottery money involves issues of additionality.

But the example of childcare given by the noble Baroness illustrates my point most effectively. We introduced the National Childcare Strategy in May 1998. It aims to ensure the provision of good quality, affordable childcare for children aged from 0 to 15, and up to the age of 16 for children with special needs. The Government have already made provision from central funds—from the taxpayer—of £300 million towards the strategy for 1998–2003. What we are doing with the money targeted for funding childcare here is adding to public expenditure, particularly in deprived areas as well as for capital projects which it would not otherwise be possible to realise from the money which has been allocated by the taxpayer. That illustrates the difference between the two sources of funding and why these proposals do not breach additionality.

The noble Baroness asked me about the relationship with Sport England and the sport lottery distributors. The policy directions which were made available to the House state that NOF projects should be complementary to, and not in competition with, planned provision from other lottery distributors. That means that NOF will work with the sport lottery distributors to ensure that the money goes where it is most needed. In England, the school sports allowance will be very important in the implementation of this initiative. So they are genuinely complementary rather than competitive.

So far as concerns school sports co-ordinators, there are 145 in place now; there will be approximately 200 in September; and we aim to have 1,000 by the end of 2004. However, in practice, with any luck, it could be earlier than that. So we have kept the matter deliberately vague in that sense.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me how expenditure on heat and power generation was appropriate. The answer is that these are part of community initiatives. It is when communities wish to save themselves money by setting up installations for a wide variety of renewable energy that NOF money would become available for that purpose. It is rather different from commercial energy policy.

As to the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in regard to home teaching, yes, of course, the teaching of disruptive children is included. However, as the money is not to pay the basic costs of home teaching but to provide ICT training for home teachers and teachers in hospitals, it is not quite as fundamental as it might appear. In any case, there is only £1 million available for that purpose.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 14th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I explained when we debated the limited liability partnerships regulations on 16th March, due to an administrative error an earlier set of fees regulations had to be withdrawn and a new set laid. I should like to assure the House that the regulations before us today contain the correct incorporation fee for limited liability partnerships, which is £95. We have also taken the opportunity to propose a minor change to fee No. 4, which has been reduced from £20 to £10.

In setting the level of fees for limited liability partnerships, we have made every effort to ensure that it is as near as possible to the level of fees for companies. Following the revocation of the earlier fees regulations, we looked again at the fees applied to LLPs and concluded that fee No. 4 could be reduced to bring it in line with companies. However, because of the need to set up a separate registration system for LLPs, it has not been possible to do this in all cases, although six of the nine fees applied to LLPs are in line with companies.

Companies House is responsible for the incorporation and dissolution of companies and the publication of financial and other information supplied in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act. The Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 gives it similar responsibilities for LLPs.

Clearly, one of the fees that is higher for LLPs than for companies is the registration fee. I should like to explain why. The demand for LLP incorporation is unlikely to be on anything like the scale of company registrations. Market research carried out for Companies House suggests initial volumes of some 8,000 LLPs over the first three years, although, of course, there is considerable uncertainty about any estimate of that kind.

The administration of the LLP regime requires the creation of a dedicated team within Companies House. The fees charged for LLPs need to recover these costs, the cost of developing the necessary computer systems and the costs of provision of information to the public. As a result, the projected unit costs for the registration of an LLP gives a fee of £95. By contrast, there are 1.4 million active companies and some 200,000 new company registrations per year. This brings substantial economies of scale and accounts for the much lower registration fee of £20.

It is not permissible for Companies House to cross-subsidise LLPs from the moneys received from the registration of companies. Companies House has been an executive agency since October 1988 and has operated as a trading fund since October 1991. As a trading fund, Companies House must recover the costs of providing its services from fees. It must also aim to achieve a net return of 6 per cent on its assets, on average, taking one year with another. Within this framework, Companies House must also avoid, as far as possible, cross-subsidy between its various activities. So each major product and service category has to be broadly self-financing.

Companies House also has to finance development programmes from fees and charges. This includes the costs of continuing to invest in new IT systems. These costs must be charged to and spread across the relevant components of Companies House products and services.

As part of the modernising and e-commerce agenda, Companies House is putting a great deal of effort into systems which will widen the scope of electronic filing, permit electronic incorporation and make company information available over the Internet—a great relief to those of us who had to use the old microfiche system. At the same time, it is putting the final touches to a project to make all information held available electronically. Information up to five years old is already available electronically.

The users of information on limited liability partnerships will benefit from these changes immediately. Later on, there will be benefits for LLPs in terms of registering information electronically.

Companies House, as a DTI agency and a trading fund, is set strict public targets. Among those targets is a requirement to recover its operating costs from the fees it charges. In this way, it is self-financing and makes no demands on the public purse. It has made efforts. year by year, to reduce the unit cost of processing information by almost 20 per cent in real terms over the past four years. The result is that the fees for the incorporation of companies and registration of returns are quite exceptionally modest. The proposed fees for LLPs are inevitably higher for the reasons that I have given.

In the longer term I expect that the systems for capturing, holding and disseminating information on both companies and LLPs will come together. We can then look again at the relative level of fees, but I hope that I have explained why the fees for LLPs in these regulations are both reasonable and reflect the expected cost of Companies House administration. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 14th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the regulations so thoroughly. I should like to say a word on behalf of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

As the Minister explained, the regulations are before us almost for the third time of asking and certainly for the third time of printing. Unlike negative instruments, affirmative instruments normally sail through the Joint Committee on the basis that Members of this House and another place have to examine them for themselves; they have to be debated. However, when the original regulations were before the JCSI, they were accompanied, a few orders down in the pile, by the relevant companies order. It was, therefore, easy to see that the fees were different. So the Joint Committee decided to put in an artful little question to the Minister's department asking why they were different.

I am glad that the Minister has explained why they are different. I am even more glad that fee No. 4—the fee for the performance by the Registrar of Companies of his functions—has been reduced from £20 to £10. I am sure that the Joint Committee would wish me to congratulate the Minister on that. However, it does not alter the fact that this should never have happened in the first place.

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in describing the regulations to the House. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that there has been a bit of a muddle about a point echoed by my noble friend.

We on these Benches are happy to accept that this confusion was the result of an administrative error. I leave it at that except to say that, inevitably, it takes some of the gloss off the Government's pride in introducing for the first time in nearly a century a change to business entities in Great Britain.

As to the substance of the regulations, I understand that it has always been the Government's aim to ensure that fees for LLPs are as near as possible to those for companies. In those circumstances I simply ask: is £95 really as near as possible to the £20 that it would cost a plc for what is essentially the same service?

I am, of course, aware of the regime under which Companies House operates. The Minister was good enough to explain it in some detail today. What I fail to understand is why the Government felt it necessary for Companies House to introduce a discrete system, with the properly trained staff, to deal with LLPs.

The Minister will be aware that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said:

"The Government have carried out what we consider good, exhaustive market research on just how many limited liability partnerships there may be. We think that there may be about 8,000 during three years"—

a figure repeated today by the noble Lord. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell the House what was the cost of the market research and from which departmental or agency budget it was drawn.

Against the background of 1.4 million existing company registrations at Companies House and 200,000 new registrations each year, what sense does it make to set up an entirely new and discrete system for LLPs? Surely a more cost-effective—perhaps the phrase "best value" would be more appropriate—way forward would have been to take advantage of the existing companies database and software and bolt LLPs on to that.

As my honourable friend Mr Gibb observed, a unit handling 8,000 registrations during three years will be a tiny unit within Companies House. I repeat: are these regulations really consistent with the aim of making fees for LLPs as near as possible to those for companies?

With the leave of the House, I turn to a related matter. The Minister will recall that, when the House debated the limited liability partnership regulations on 16th March, my noble friend Lord Burnham sought clarification of a discrepancy relating to subsection (5) of Section 391A of the Companies Act. As my noble friend explained, this is the introduction of a fine and a criminal record when no such sanction applies against company directors. In other words, secondary legislation has been used to introduce a new criminal offence.

At the time, the Minister maintained a contrary view. I make it plain that I am not in any way impugning the integrity of the noble Lord. This is a highly technical matter. None the less, as he will know, his letter of 21st March to my noble friend Lady Miller accepts our interpretation that a new criminal offence has been created, albeit with the qualification of being only in "the very narrowest sense".

We can perhaps agree to differ on that point. The fact remains that under the regulations a failure to communicate an auditors' report to members of an LLP has become a criminal offence, whereas a similar misdemeanour in the case of an ordinary limited company is not subject to any sanctions against its directors. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to take this opportunity to confirm this for the record.

Perhaps I may also ask the noble Lord to give the House an undertaking that, in future, across all departments, every effort will be made to ensure that there is no repetition of this. For our part, we on these Benches deplore the use, however inadvertent, of secondary legislation as the mechanism to create new criminal offences. Such matters should be dealt with in primary legislation. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord could also indicate that the Government share this view.

My Lords, I accept the rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It is even more embarrassing that we did not discover the point ourselves; it was discovered by the Opposition in the course of proceedings in Committee in the other place.

The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked whether the difference between £95 and £20 is the real difference in cost. I have explained that the costing system and the pricing system which Companies House has to adopt derives from its status as a trading agency. That, in turn, derives from decisions of the government that the noble Earl supported at the time.

On the practicalities, clearly we are talking about something that will happen in the future. I said in introducing the regulations that there would have to be a dedicated team. Indeed, at the outset, there will have to be such a team, probably of six people, because they will be working up the forms, the software and the procedures. If there is a wrong estimate of the numbers or if the numbers fall off after the beginning, clearly the dedicated team will be diverted to other activities. There is no point in keeping a team of people twiddling their thumbs. Our calculation is based on the best estimates of the likely number. I do not know the cost of the market research. It was carried by Companies House and comes from its own development budget and is, therefore, in turn paid for by fees from companies and in future from LLPs.

I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that the workload of the team will be monitored so that we can keep the fees in line with changes in demand. If this is enormously successful and there are hundreds of thousands of them, clearly the fees will come closer to those applied to companies.

Finally, the noble Earl asked about an issue that was raised when we debated the other LLP order on Section 391A. I have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on that point and I have copied the letter to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. The noble Baroness has written to me again and I am preparing a reply to her letter at the moment. Since it does not raise a matter covered by these regulations, I believe it is better if we keep it in the realm of correspondence at present. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order permits the use of 70m1 capacity measures for use for trade for the purpose of measuring gin, rum, vodka and whisky—collectively defined as "intoxicating liquor".

Under the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988, as amended, gin, rum, vodka and whisky, when sold by the glass for consumption on licensed premises, may be sold only in quantities of 25ml or 35ml, or in multiples of 25ml or 35ml. In practice, other spirits are also sold in the prescribed quantities.

The purpose of selling spirits in prescribed quantities is to enable consumers to make price comparisons and to provide protection against short measure. In practice, 25ml and 50ml—what the consumer. is taken to order when he or she asks for a "single" or a "double"—are the quantities which are most commonly served in the UK. However, 35ml and 70ml quantities are also sold, principally in Scotland.

These quantities can be measured in a number of different ways. Spirit measuring instruments, generally of the push-up type, are very common; but some establishments prefer to use capacity measures, otherwise known as thimble measures.

Thimbles of 25ml, 35ml and 50ml are already provided for in the legislation. The order adds 70ml "double" capacity measures to be used where customers request a "double" serving. The benefit deriving from this is that bar staff can carry out a single measuring operation where a "double" measure is requested, without having to fill a 35ml capacity measure twice.

The purpose of prescribing capacity measures is to provide an accurate measuring instrument to enable bar staff to measure the prescribed quantities. I should point out that the introduction of 70ml capacity measures does not mean that such measures must be held by establishments selling intoxicating liqueur; the change merely provides them with an optional alternative means of measuring and serving 70ml of intoxicating liqueur. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

My Lords, the Minister explained the order very well, but his explanation was not as clear as some of the comments made in the regulatory impact assessment, a copy of which I took the trouble to obtain this morning. In view of my long association with the all-party group on alcohol misuse and my connections with various treatment centres for drug and alcohol abuse, it would be remiss of me—indeed, it would be perceived as such—not to delve a little into the background of alcohol consumption and its associated problems. If this order had been dealt with on another day—not a Friday—someone else would have spoken for these Benches. I apologise because, in that case, noble Lords would not have had to listen to me drawing their attention to the fact that this seemingly innocuous measure, which appears to be just a tidying-up measure as regards weights and measures, has implications that need to be mentioned.

Most of the alcohol abuse in this country that grabs the newspaper headlines—though probably not enough headlines—relates to binge drinking, which is mainly indulged in by young men between the ages of 14 and 18, and does not involve the kind of alcoholic beverages that are featured in the order now before the House. That is a particular case apart but is of much concern to this Government, as, indeed, it was to previous governments. Older people tend to drink whiskey, gin, rum and vodka, which for the purposes of this debate are what we are discussing. The original single tot of 25ml could be served as a 50ml double under Schedule 3 to the weights and measures Act. However, as regards the additional 35ml measure, it is now proposed that it should be possible to have a 70ml measure served as a large double.

When I sought a copy of the regulatory impact assessment, I was interested to find out what the benefits of the order would be. Quite simply, the benefits are that bar staff serving large double measures of intoxicating liqueur will need to fill a measure only once, not twice. As I believe the Minister explained, that increases the speed of service—if, indeed, that is a good thing, bearing in mind the constraints on people's drinking time, and so on. However, I accept that point.

Perhaps I may illustrate the concern that many people may have in this respect. I telephoned Alcohol Concern this morning to find out what the relationship was between a double if it was served as a result of this order—a 70ml double—and the permissible amount of alcohol that is allowed to be in the blood for those driving motor vehicles. As far as concerns the measurement of the lowest tot or measure of 25ml, I was told that four of those measures would put the average 11-stone man just below the limit allowed to drive a motor vehicle. For a small man or woman, that measurement would put them just above the limit. We are talking about 100ml. In that case, a 70ml double would put a small man or woman just about on the level of what is permissible to drive a motor vehicle.

As a result of this order, I suggest to your Lordships that at times when people are accustomed to drinking more—for example, Christmas, Easter, public holidays and at other times of celebration—it will be more common for people to go for the "double"; indeed, they will probably have two doubles. If you have two doubles, which amount to 140ml, you will, no matter what size you are, be above the limit permitted in this country for driving a motor vehicle. At Christmas and at other times of celebration, people are most at risk from being injured by motorists who do not obey the law. Unhappily, there are still far too many casualties as a result of drink driving, although it must be admitted that there has been a welcome culture change in the attitude towards drinking and driving, especially among young people. That is why I make the point. However, that change does not apply quite so much to older people, who tend to run a pretty fine line between what is and what is not permitted. I believe that more people may well fail the breath test at such times as a result of this order.

I have a further point to make regarding those who travel abroad. I have in mind France in particular, which, after all, is the most favoured country for tourism. When driving, the permitted level of alcohol in the blood in that country is only just over half what is permitted here. If people become accustomed to drinking a double measure of rum, gin, vodka or whiskey and they believe that they can do so in France, they will have to be extremely careful. They could put themselves above the permitted level. The authorities in France are very harsh in this respect. People could run the risk of being arrested, having their cars impounded, and so on. I shall not spoil noble Lords' weekend by delving further into the horrifying consequences that face those who abuse the laws in that country.

Therefore, the order is not quite as simple as it appears: it is not just a tidying-up measure. Its implications will be watched most carefully by organisations like the government-sponsored body, Alcohol Concern, the all-party group on alcohol misuse and all those bodies that are pressing government—and, indeed, pressed successive governments—to take a more serious attitude towards the abuse of alcohol in this country. After all, alcohol abuse is responsible for many more deaths, fatalities and illnesses and much greater family disintegration than drugs, either soft or hard. That is a matter of statistics. It just happens that drugs and their abuse are featured in newspaper headlines at present, while drink, because it is permissible, is the subject of general national denial, if I may put it that way.

I shall cease to harangue your Lordships on these matters further. In the past, when I used to speak more often on the subject, I did not have anyone sitting behind me on these Benches. I am happy to see that three of my noble friends are present today. No doubt they have been tricked into being here. I dare say that I shall be subject to some pretty grim looks from my colleagues later. However, we are discussing serious matters which must be addressed.

My Lords, the noble Viscount is right in one respect: a 25ml measure is, indeed, one unit. Therefore, a 70ml unit is substantially more. It is roughly equivalent to half a gill in old measures. I totally reject his suggestion that this has anything to do with alcohol abuse. I simply do not believe that people drink more because it is possible for a bar tender to serve a Scottish double or a large double in one movement rather than in two.

If it were the case that the size of the measure used to pour alcohol affected alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse, one would not allow anyone to sell anything in bottles. One would not allow people to order doubles; one would force them to go to the bar and buy another single. It just does not make sense. There is no connection between alcohol consumption and the way in which a measure is poured.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am not suggesting that there is any direct relationship between this order and an increase in alcohol abuse. However, those who are habitual drinkers of these kinds of alcoholic beverages are liable, perhaps unconsciously, to fall into the habit of ordering in larger quantities. I am talking about older people. Nevertheless the habits of young people in this country are directly related to the example set them by older people. That is another aspect of the matter. As I say, I accept that there is no direct relationship between the order and an increase in alcohol abuse. However, I thought it only right to point out the possible effects of the provision. The fullness of time will show whether I am right.

My Lords, I simply do not agree. People can order doubles, small doubles, large doubles or gills. My grandmother used to order a quarton of gin in the east end of London. I have no idea what that is. The point here is that we are providing for a different measure. We are not dictating what size drinks people should order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft regulations make detailed provision for holding referendums under Part II of the Local Government Act 2000. They set out the necessary requirements to ensure that local referendums are well conducted and put in place the technical provisions required to ensure that they run smoothly. The regulations follow as closely as possible existing provision for the conduct of elections and referendums set out in other legislation and take account wherever possible of new developments in the electoral process. I should also like to place on record that I am satisfied that these regulations comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Councils are required to hold a referendum on proposals for executive arrangements in three main circumstances, the first of which is, when, following consultation, the authority draws up proposals for a form of constitution for which a referendum is required; in other words, a proposal that includes a form of elected mayor. Secondly, where a council receives a valid petition for a form of constitution that includes an elected mayor. Thirdly, when a council is required to hold a referendum by a direction given by the Secretary of State for any of the forms of executive provided for in or under the 2000 Act.

These regulations will, subject to parliamentary approval, form an integral part of the Government's modernisation agenda for local Government and will allow councils to continue to progress their implementations of new constitutions. I commend the regulations to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

My Lords, in another place these 120 or so pages of regulations were debated at such length that our colleagues ran out of time and the Minister did not have the opportunity to reply to points raised in the debate.

I have a number of questions which I am sure the Minister will have anticipated. Has the new electoral commission, or, at any rate, its shadow form, been consulted? The shadow chair of that commission has raised questions as regards the possible date of the general election. Certainly there is one solid proposal on the table. We hope that the regulations setting the process in train will prove to be robust and will work.

The wording on the ballot paper set out in Schedule 1 is crucial. Given the prescribed wording, I wonder how anyone could vote against a proposal for an elected mayor as no alternative arrangement is offered. In other words, the fallback option is not printed. My next question is not rhetorical. Why is there not a choice on the referendum ballot paper between the elected mayor proposal and the fallback arrangements as the existing arrangements will not be an option? How can electors understand what they are voting on when the fallback proposals cannot be promoted within 28 days of the referendum, as provided for by Regulation 5, or at any rate cannot be promoted by the local authority itself?

It seems to us that the main source of information on the fallback proposals will come from those who are campaigning on both sides of the elected mayor argument. The effectiveness of their campaigning will in large part depend on the cash available to the two sides. That is not a healthy situation. Over the past two or three years I have heard a number of criticisms not of the noble Baroness's department but rather of the Home Office with regard to the inadequacy of the information that it has published, particularly on the London referendum and the GLA elections. I hope that one might be able to learn from that.

The noble Baroness may be sympathetic—although she may not feel able to express this—to my question as to what help the Government are giving to ensure that the title of mayor does not give rise to confusion as between the elected mayor and the traditional mayor. In the past the noble Baroness has expressed concern on that point.

I turn to the question of expenses limits on referendums. Will the Minister explain the position as regards election expenses, particularly for local council candidates who are standing for elections taking place at the same time as the referendum and who want to express in their literature their view for or against the referendum position? As the noble Baroness will know, that is particularly important in Berwick-upon-Tweed which is the first authority to have received a petition for an elected mayor. Will council candidates who express a view, and perhaps explain their position on a mayoral ballot, be expected to apportion some of their own election expenses to the mayoral election expense limits? Is that simply part and parcel of standing for the local election and does it not count towards the mayoral election expense limits, or is that not the case?

I turn to campaign organisers. More than one is allowed. There is an expenses limit of £2,000 plus five pence per elector for each campaign organiser. The obvious question arises: can one side of the argument appoint more than one election organiser, thus upping the expenses limit? How will that work?

Regulation 13 concerns counting observers. Will the Minister confirm that it will be possible to appoint counting observers to represent those who oppose the proposition in the referendum question?

Finally—this point was not raised in another place—I refer to the hours of polling, from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. I expect the Government will express the view that the hours of polling for a referendum should be the same as for a local election. However, I believe that people are too often disenfranchised by the inability to get to a polling station within the prescribed hours and direct their minds too late to the need to apply for a postal vote even though those are now more widely available. I cannot let today pass without stating that polling hours for local matters should be as long as for general elections. I acknowledge that the authority may decide that the whole referendum should be conducted on a postal basis.

I apologise to noble Lords for taking a relatively long time. However, I believe that it is better to take time in this House to ask questions and receive answers than to go over past issues, as occurred in another place. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

My Lords, my noble friend put forward a number of points that I had wished to raise. I shall not pursue them further, apart from one.

I wish to make three points. First, it seems extraordinary that a document of 96 pages is being given only this fairly rudimentary scrutiny. The document contains a number of complex points which must be got right. As my noble friend said, if the system goes wrong there are many ramifications.

The size of the statutory instrument makes the position difficult. The layout and design makes it difficult to get to grips with its exact meaning and how the system will operate. The large number of schedules set out in the form of amendments, additions, or new applications to existing statutory instruments also make the situation difficult. In a previous professional capacity I used to be able almost to recite the principal areas rules without looking at them—we have all had sad experiences in our lives! So I thought that I knew my way around them. But I found it extremely difficult to work out exactly what the schedule means. I took the schedule to bed with me one night to study. I fell asleep long before I had achieved to my satisfaction my understanding of it.

Will the Minister confirm that once the statutory instrument is approved, the amended rules and regulations for running elections and referendums at different levels will be reprinted in a form which those involved in political campaigning, elections and council work can understand—although perhaps not the man in the street? If not, the position will be very difficult.

Secondly, there is provision for all-postal vote referendums. On their own, that is not a particularly dangerous practice. However, it is another extension of substantial postal voting in this country. As people in Northern Ireland know only too well—in Northern Ireland postal votes are not allowed—substantial postal voting can, unless there are careful safeguards, lead to very substantial electoral fraud and corruption. There seems to be a mood in the country, and a desire by the Government shared to some extent across all the political parties, that there should be substantial increases in postal voting and that this is a way of increasing participation in elections. I do not believe that people have considered the new safeguards which may be required. The obvious one—it has been resisted so far—is the provision after the election of a marked register of who has used his postal vote, as applies to those who vote at a polling station.

There are two fundamental principles underlying the system of secret ballot elections in this country: that it is secret; and that the identity of the person voting is checked to ensure that the vote is cast by the person who is supposed to cast it, the elector. Widespread postal voting potentially undermines both those fundamental principles. Although it is not a particular issue with regard to referendums—I cannot imagine that a lot of people will engage in a great deal of electoral fraud over this kind of referendum—the extension of postal voting in this country leaves the system open to a substantial increase in electoral fraud unless measures are taken. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the matter.

Thirdly, I refer to election expenses. I do not know whether I have missed a trick. In the district where I live the new referendum expense limits would come to about £5,500. Let us imagine a situation in which the council is controlled by one party which decides that it will go for an elected mayor. The other local political parties, of which there may be two or more, may decide individually to campaign against that. In addition, I might decide to campaign against that choice and set up a campaign, "Lord Greaves against a mayor". I cannot imagine what the acronym might be. My wife might decide to set up a separate campaign, "Lady Greaves against a mayor", and so on. What guarantees are there that those expense limits on referendum campaigns mean anything at all? Everyone in the borough could set up their own campaign and the expense limits would become completely meaningless.

In particular, what is to stop a local election candidate setting up his own campaign against a mayor and suddenly having election expense limits in his own ward of £5,500? I am not clear about the safeguards. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.

My Lords, I shall try to answer all the questions posed. I understand the circumstance referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about there being inadequate time at the end of the detailed debate in another place to allow these questions to be placed on the record.

With regard to the Government giving help to ensure that confusion over the title of mayor is minimised, our guidance is clear. Where a council which currently has a ceremonial mayor adopts a constitution with an elected mayor, the title of mayor will fall to the elected mayor and not to the chair of the council. The council will be able to decide which of these two people, the chairman or the elected mayor, takes formal legal precedence. The council will be able to choose which of them, or both, undertakes ceremonial duties. If such a council has en elected mayor, the chairman will have no statutory title so could be called anything other than mayor. None of this affects town mayors or lord mayors. Town mayors are unaffected because town councils cannot have a directly elected mayor. Lord mayors are unaffected because the title is easily distinguishable from that of mayor.

The noble Baroness raised the complex issue of whether fallback proposals should be included as part of the option. Including the issue of fallback would over-complicate the referendum question. More importantly, the referendum is to ask people whether they want a directly elected mayor, not whether they want to vote for the fallback. Regulation 5(2) does not prevent councils publicising their fallback proposals. In fact, Regulation 4(1)(b) requires them to do so.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also referred to expenses. Ultimately, it will be for the courts to decide on the circumstances of any particular case. Our intention in the regulations is that only activities that are directly attributable to a campaign seeking a particular outcome to the referendum would count towards the referendum campaign expenditure limits. If a candidate expresses a view on a referendum question in literature that he or she has produced for the purpose of seeking to persuade people to vote for him or her in the election, the costs of production should count only towardsthe candidate's election expenses limits. On the other hand, if a candidate were to produce literature that explicitly sought to persuade people to vote for him or her in the election and to vote in a particular way in a referendum—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves raised—the costs would have to be apportioned appropriately between the election expenses limit and the referendum expenses limit.

The department will produce technical and specialist guidance for the local authority returning officers in a document known as a Keeling schedule. It will show in full the relevant legislation, as altered, applied and modified by the schedules to these regulations, together with covering explanatory guidance. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, we shall do everything that we can, in addition to being clear and accurate, to make the guidance as comprehensible as possible.

The noble Baroness also referred to consultation with the Electoral Commission. We shall consider carefully its recommendations on polling hours. Once the Electoral Commission assumes its functions in respect of referendums under the Local Government Act 2000, we shall consult it on the regulations. That is in line with commitments that we have given to your Lordships and others. We shall also consult the commission on any amendments that we need to make to the regulations, such as those to specify further questions if a council with an elected mayor draws up proposals to change its form of executive. The commission assumes those functions on 1st July this year. We understand that it is fully aware of our intention to consult it on those issues.

The noble Baroness also raised an issue to do with expenses. It is correct that the regulations impose no limit on the number of individuals or bodies who can incur referendum expenses in a campaign, provided they are not spending money on each other's behalf. If each group is spending its own money, each will be able to spend up to the referendum expenses limit on its campaign. That mirrors the decision for referendum expenses in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which the Liberal Democrats supported. There is no limit on the number of organisations that can campaign in a national, sub-national or regional referendum.

However, it is not possible for one organisation or individual to get round its expenses limit by giving money to other individuals or bodies to spend in the campaign. If they did so, the money so spent would count against their own expenses limit. The draft regulations specifically state that referendum expenses are those incurred by or on behalf of any individual or body. Again, that mirrors the position for referendums covered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. If, on studying the details of that reply, the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wishes to write for further clarification, I am sure that the department will be delighted to help.

The noble Baroness also asked about counting observers. The counting officer for the referendum can allow anyone whom he or she thinks fit to attend and observe the count, whether they are in favour or against. We expect counting officers to choose carefully whom they allow to attend the count, ensuring that there is a fair balance between those who oppose the proposition and those who support it.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about postal voting. There was no evidence from last year's pilots of any increase in electoral fraud. We shall keep a close eye on how all postal voting progresses. The Government deplore electoral fraud and will not tolerate it. We shall want to consider further the noble Lord's suggestion about the publication of the names of those who have voted.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the offer of further clarification on expenses limits in correspondence. I am not satisfied that it would be impossible for a number of campaigners to co-ordinate while carrying on separate campaigns. My noble friend Lord Greaves might campaign in week one, his wife in week two—

I would volunteer.

My noble friend Lady Thomas could do week three and I would do week four. That covers it. We might want to take that issue further.

The Minister also mentioned the proposed Keeling schedule. I hope that the detail can be made available to organisers and candidates in accessible form. As my noble friend Lord Greaves has pointed out, the issue is complicated. I do not think that I even got as far as he did in reading through the schedules. I also hope that the Government will consult the Local Government Association on the details of the schedule and any accompanying detailed guidance.

My Lords, we shall undertake to make the detail as accessible as possible, in both senses—as comprehensible and as widely available as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about the way in which individuals could take part and talked about people forming a group together. I spent 20 years as a member of Lancashire County Council, where the noble Lord was also a member. From that experience, I think that it would be almost impossible for anyone to construct legislation that the noble Lord would not find some way of using to his advantage, while remaining strictly within the law. I shall give further consideration to his point. I remember being involved in a by-election in the Ribble Valley. During the course of the campaign, a lot of people came who had never been there before. They realised how beautiful the place was and that helped with the tourism industry there. If the noble Lord is inviting lots of people up to test the law, I know that they will want to return time and again to Pendle.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft regulations, which set out alternative arrangements, put in place the "fourth option" of a streamlined committee system with overview and scrutiny for district councils in two-tier areas with a population below 85,000. They fulfil the commitments made by the Government in accepting the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to last year's Local Government Bill.

The Local Government Act 2000 also provides for councils which wish to implement a form of executive arrangement that requires a referendum—that is, for a mayor and cabinet or mayor and council manager—to draw up proposals for fall-back arrangements to be implemented, should the local electorate vote "no" in that referendum. The alternative arrangements are one of two options that currently we intend will be available to councils in such circumstances.

I also want to place on the record that I am satisfied that these regulations comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Your Lordships will recall that during debates on the Local Government Bill we made clear our belief that executive arrangements provide the best new form of governance to replace the traditional committee system. Nevertheless, we recognised the views expressed from the Liberal Democrat Benches and accepted the need for an alternative system for small shire districts of a streamlined committee structure with overview and scrutiny.

These regulations make available that streamlined committee system. They provide for a stronger role for the full council, setting the authority's budget and providing the policy framework within which the committee system will operate. Together with the guidance, they provide for fewer and smaller policy committees. Most importantly, they require each council which operates alternative arrangements to put in place robust arrangements for overview and scrutiny.

The traditional committee system has served local government well but it is now creaking at the seams. It is essential that councils adopt a more streamlined form of decision-making. The statutory limit on the number of councillors who can sit on committees, coupled with statutory guidance recommending that there should be no more than five policy committees, achieves that aim, while giving councils flexibility to meet local circumstances.

Having listened to representations made by the LGA and others, we have decided not to include regulatory committees in the description of committees to which the limitations apply. The regulations and guidance make specific exceptions for committees discharging quasi-judicial functions which, under executive arrangements, would not be the responsibility of the executive.

Regulations 7 to 17 deal with the overview and scrutiny of education where it is the responsibility of the authority concerned. They reflect the importance which the Government attach to providing a voice for Church and parent-governor representatives in decision-making at school and local authority level.

The regulations provide for the appointment of Church representatives to overview and scrutiny committees whose remits include education. Representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are granted that right directly. Representatives of other faiths and denominations may be granted such rights on an authority-by-authority basis by direction from the Secretary of State. They also provide for at least two, but not more than five, parent-governor representatives on such overview and scrutiny committees.

The regulations will, subject to parliamentary approval, form an integral part of the Government's modernisation agenda for local government and will allow councils to continue to progress their implementation of new constitutions. I commend them to the committee. I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am aware that representations were made in relation to the earlier draft, and I am glad that the Government were able to respond to them. While I thank the Minister and note the actions that the Government have taken in response to the points on which we bargained in a fairly hard-nosed fashion last summer, she will understand that, nevertheless, we wish that there were further discretion, and not only in relation to small authorities. We are dealing today with regulations for small authorities, and on these Benches we wish that the population limit had been increased to a higher number. I make those points for the record because I know that some people who read this may be new readers. Of course, the story does not start here.

The Minister will be glad to know that I do not want to raise as many points as I did in relation to the previous order, although I believe that my noble friend may have some searching questions. With regard to the detail of the regulations, I have heard that, although approximately half of the smaller councils, as defined, are likely to wish to use the fourth option—at any rate, they may not wish to use options 1 to 3—other small councils are wary of them—this is my point for the Minister—because they believe that they will be punished by the Government if they do so. I hope that she will take the opportunity today to put on the record that that is not in the Government's mind.

The first draft of this order caused much anxiety as to whether it would create an unworkable bureaucracy and whether the streamlining proposed by the Government was such that it would become impossible. I am glad to see that the committees, limited to five in number, now exclude regulatory committees. I believe that area and joint committees are also excluded. I do not believe the noble Baroness mentioned those. I am still not convinced that the limit is either needed or appropriate. However, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can confirm that it will be possible to exceed five because, as I read it, the limit is set out in the guidance and not in the order. Perhaps she will confirm the position.

I believe that while the number is probably acceptable for small authorities, which have fewer functions, there could be a considerable problem in relation to all-purpose authorities, for which these will be the fallback arrangements in the events that we have just discussed.

That leads me to a question which the Minister will probably not want to enter into today but which I shall again put on the record. Why is this fourth option acceptable for fallback arrangements for all authorities but not an option on which they can consult in the first place? I wonder also why the limits on membership of committees have been set at 15 and 10. In addition, what are the criteria for the plans and strategies listed in Schedule 4 to which Section 101 of the 1972 Act is not to apply; in other words, the plans and strategies which must remain matters for the full council? We on these Benches do not intend to hold up these regulations. Authorities are required to submit proposals for new constitutions by the end of June, and we are already very close to the wire. Therefore, we support their passage. We have doubts about the underlying guidance, but that of course is more easily reviewed and revised.

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for the very kind words that she said to me. I remind her that very often reformed poachers make the best gamekeepers. I also compliment her on the broadness of her back in reminding your Lordships, or, indeed, anyone else, about the Ribble Valley by-election.

I live in an authority which qualifies potentially for alternative arrangements because it has a population of fewer than 85,000. It is an authority in which I spent a great deal of time over the past three decades as a member. I also spent a large part of the 1990s looking for ways in which local government could be modernised—if I dare use that term—so as to become more efficient and more effective. At the same time, I looked for ways in which it could become more democratic and responsive to the people in the area and, indeed, involve them far more in the work of the authority. I refer, of course, to the borough of Pendle in east Lancashire.

I consulted the leading officers in Pendle about the statutory instrument and the guidance that they had received from the Government on the fourth option. In that authority, where the political will is to go for the alternative arrangements fourth option—a modified committee system—if that is sensible, I have to report that the advice that the officers are giving as a result of the guidance that they have received from the Government is that the approach may be unworkable and that if it is not unworkable it will certainly be extremely difficult. Their view is that despite the fact that the Government made such welcome concessions during the legislation's passage through Parliament, the Government are now attempting as best they can to obstruct those authorities that wish to adopt the alternative arrangements fourth option. That is their view; it is not a political view. I have worked with those officers for a long time, I respect them and I trust their judgment.

The regulations are fairly innocuous—there is not much in them about which to complain. However, limiting the number of members of committees to 15 and the number of members of sub-committees to 10 is an arbitrary limit. People can obviously live with that. Such detailed and pernickety interference by central government in the work of local government gives central government a bad name. Such detailed prescription is ridiculous. Nevertheless, that is the way of the world at the moment.

The problems that people report involve the guidance pack, which is entitled, New Council Constitutions Guidance Pack: Volume 1. Look at the size of it! People are struggling with it. It contains statutory guidance. It may be true, as my noble friend said, that it has less legal effect than a statutory instrument, but the clear message that local authorities receive is that if they get statutory guidance from central government, they ignore it and attempt to act in ways that are contrary to it at their peril. So far as concerns local authorities, there is very little difference between a statutory instrument and statutory guidance. The message nowadays is very clear. Authorities are told, "You've got to do it. If you don't, we have all sorts of ways of twisting your arm and of penalising you". We all know that that is the case—it has been for many years and under various governments.

I regret the fact that the regulations are so slim compared with the document that we have not been asked to approve but with which local authorities will still have to comply. Even the section of the statutory guidance that refers to alternative arrangements—chapter 9—consists of 20 long and detailed pages. People say that the devil is in the detail. In this context, the devil is in the statutory guidance, not the regulations. The view of officers in an authority that has streamlined—it has only three central policy committees—is that if they are to go along the alternative arrangements route, they will probably have to increase rather than reduce the number of central policy committees. Most authorities may still be living in the Dark Ages and that provision would not apply to them.

We should not treat every small district council as if it suffered the abuses experienced by some of the large metropolitan councils or the problems suffered by large county councils such as Lancashire or big cities such as Manchester or Liverpool. Local democracy and traditional, local committee-based democracy have been thriving in at least some of the smaller districts—perhaps the system is easier to put into effect in them—in a sensible and modernised way.

I do not want to go on for much longer; I shall make one or two further points. The decision-making powers of sub-committees should be limited to time-limited projects only. That is again seen not simply as a pernickety national rule but as a rule that could cripple an authority that is running efficiently. The suggestion that the leader of the authority in a small district should have the status that a big city leader might have is inappropriate. I am told by my officers that a leader who has to attend, vote and speak at all policy committees may be viewed with suspicion in some authorities. They understand that that could disrupt the co-operative arrangements between political parties. The proposal would introduce a new culture. That may be a new dynamic, leader-led culture, which may be what the Government want, but it is not necessarily the best way in which to run the smaller authorities, which can be run in a more traditional, co-operative and consensual way.

Another suggestion is that some members of authorities should sit only on scrutiny committees, not the main policy committees. Who will those people be? Where will we find them? Those questions have been raised with me. There is a limited pool of interest—I was going to use the word "talent", but that is the wrong word—in a small authority. There is a limited pool of people who are interested in getting involved in the technical aspects of scrutiny. Some councillors get elected because they want to be involved in policy decisions and in running the authority. That might be true of one-fifth of the members across the parties in a small district. Most of the other people become involved because they are interested in representing their areas and wards on the council. The idea that there is a great pool of talented people who can scrutinise and monitor but not otherwise become involved in the policy process is a myth. The view among the officers in Pendle is that that is a myth. The rules will force some councillors into a scrutiny and monitoring role that they do not want and in which they are not interested. That will stop them from doing what they really want to do and what they are really interested in; namely, representing their wards and being involved in taking policy decisions. The result will be that people will lose interest and give up when they would have been good councillors and done a good job in their field.

Such rules are not in the regulations, and I have no objection to agreeing to them. The problem lies with the rules, regulations and instructions that the Government send down to local authorities. There are too many rules and the system is altogether too complicated. In relation to smaller councils, the Government should pull back a little, let go and get away from the idea that they have got to tell everyone how to do things at every minute of every day.

My Lords, I begin by referring to the guidance pack, which was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It covers all aspects of executive arrangements and alternative arrangements. Only part of it is statutory; much of it is advisory and non-statutory. Much of its material was included as a result of requests from local government to provide that degree of information.

I make it absolutely explicit that there is no question of punishing councils for adopting alternative arrangements or of punishing any local authority that takes advantage of the wide variety of opportunities for making judgments on subjects that are matters of guidance rather than requirements from the Government. I hope that that reassurance will be recognised and transferred to others by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.

It is quite possible, in alternative arrangements, to have one or even no policy committee. The guidance recommends no more than five such committees, but that is a different issue. We have consulted widely on the regulation, and to date, no one has expressed the view that alternative arrangements would be unworkable. The plans and strategies in the schedule were chosen to mirror those which, under executive arrangements, form the policy framework for approval by the full council. It would be strange if we had taken a different view of what constitutes key policy from that for councils operating executive arrangements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the five committees point. That point is not covered by the draft regulations. It is purely a matter of guidance. The draft regulations specify only a maximum number of members of a policy committee. Such policy committees do not include area or regulatory committees. The draft guidance then goes on to say that for small district councils, there should be no more than five policy committees and excludes explicitly those area and regulatory committees. The guidance will be statutory guidance, to which councils must have regard. Some councils may decide that their local circumstances dictate that they should have more than five committees, but we cannot imagine those circumstances. As regards the larger councils, as I said, the draft guidance applies to the keeping of committees to a minimum.

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of fall-back. The streamline committee system is also available as a fall-back for any council holding a referendum for a directly elected mayor. We are firmly of the view that such a fall-back is less likely than an executive-style fall-back—that is, a leader and cabinet—to deliver the efficiency, transparency and accountability that people want. But if local people are content with it, they will be able, in a referendum, to choose a streamline committee system.

As regards limits on membership, we made a judgment following widespread consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, expressed concern about the people involved in the scrutiny process. My experience is that people become involved in the work of local government and local authorities when they are motivated to do so by a particular set of circumstances which has impinged dramatically on their own lives. Many of those people continue with that involvement.

We believe that the new arrangements will enable a wider cross-section of people to be involved in local government and that in many ways, particularly in the large authorities, the current system militates against having a full cross-section of the community.

Finally, the noble Lord said that I must have a broad back. It is impossible to lose spectacularly in a by-election without everyone knowing about it. I was only pleased that the Ribble Valley tourism did so well. At least someone got something out of it. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first, I should say that, in my view, the provisions of the Greater London Road Traffic (Various Provisions) Order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Parliament has already agreed to provisions to allow Transport for London to operate a decriminalised parking regime on the main traffic routes in London, called GLA roads, in due course. The principal purpose of the draft order before the House is to fill a gap in the 1999 Act by applying to TfL the legislation relating to the removal, storage and disposal of illegally parked vehicles. TfL needs those powers to operate an effective parking regime when it is ready to do so.

The draft order also provides an opportunity to resolve two problems with the drafting of the 1999 Act. Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the draft order all make amendments to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 with the object of conferring on Transport for London, in relation to GLA roads, the same powers as the London borough councils with regard to the removal, storage and disposal of illegally parked vehicles.

Article 7 makes a consequential amendment to the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986. Article 3 amends Section 124A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as inserted by Section 272 of the 1999 Act. Section 124A enabled my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make the initial designation of roads or proposed roads as GLA side roads which are very short lengths of roads which, for the most part, connect with GLA roads. Section 124(4) of the 1984 Act, as inserted by Section 292(4) of the 1999 Act, provides that all references in the 1984 Act to GLA roads include references to GLA side roads. However, because it deals specifically with the designation of GLA side roads, it is important for the purposes of Section I24A that GLA side roads and GLA roads are defined separately. Article 3 makes it clear that the references to GLA roads in Section 124A are not to be taken as including a reference to GLA side roads.

Article 8 amends the definition of a London authority in Section 82(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 as amended by Section 287(2) of the 1999 Act. The effect of the existing definition of "London authority" is that only Transport for London is able to collect parking revenues for parking places on GLA roads and side roads. This amendment will allow local authorities to continue collecting the revenue from any parking places which they have designated on GLA roads and side roads.

To sum up, the order provides Transport for London with powers which are necessary to allow it to undertake parking enforcement and clarifies two matters relating to the drafting of the GLA Act 1999. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

My Lords, as I understand it, this order transfers responsibility for enforcement of red routes to the Greater London Authority. Will the Minister confirm that that enforcement will now be carried out by staff of Transport for London or will it remain in the hands of the Metropolitan Police? I believe it is fair to say that there has not been uniform approval of the standard of enforcement by the police on red routes. I seek clarification on that. Otherwise, I support the order.

My Lords, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is one of considerable controversy. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the Greater London Authority. The Act does not allow GLA members to be members of the board of TfL, so I have no interest in that capacity.

I asked whether the GLA had any comments on this matter. I received a note yesterday which said that in the hurry to prepare and pass the Act, various parts were left out. I admire the Minister in another place who simply referred to "awkwardness". We support the order in order to assist enforcement.

My Lords, I appreciate the different use of language in another place to deal with issues. I sometimes feel, as I am sure do others, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the rest of my life will contain just the odd adjustment to the GLA Act.

Transport for London will take over parking and enforcement on GLA roads; the noble Baroness was correct. I note the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the relationship within and between her role, that of the Mayor and TfL. I am sure that we all want to see the operation of the best possible measures to ensure that traffic flows freely in London.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have before us today two orders under the Scotland Act. These are the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2001 and the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2001. With the permission of the House, I shall speak to both orders together.

Noble Lords have in the past commented on the usefulness to them of seeing the executive notes prepared for the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Executive for the guidance of its Members on orders debated there. The executive note for the modification of Schedule 5 order has been made available to noble Lords here once again. I should explain that the consequential modifications order is debated only in this Parliament and so there is no executive note.

Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act forms part of the definition of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and sets out the matters which are reserved for the purposes of the Act. It represents a central part of the devolution settlement and changes to it must therefore be treated with particular care.

However, it was never the intention that the devolution settlement should be incapable of adaptation. Section 30(2) was included in the Scotland Act to provide a mechanism for Schedule 5 to be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the approval of both Parliaments. Such an order can be used to adjust the boundaries of the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence by adjusting existing reservations or their exceptions or by removing or adding them.

At present, Section C2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act specifies that certain matters relating to the insolvency of business associations are reserved to this Parliament. There are exceptions to this reservation concerning mainly the process of winding-up. The order adds an additional narrow exception to the reservation of insolvency. It brings legislation on various aspects of the insolvency process within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. However, that applies only in relation to the very specific issue of a moratorium on the disposal of property held by a registered landlord.

In preparing for its Housing Bill now before the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive issued a consultation paper called Better Homes for Scotland'sCommunities. In its response to that consultation, the Council of Mortgage Lenders suggested that the Bill should include measures to protect tenants, landlords and other lenders in the event of insolvency action by a creditor against a registered social landlord. The Council of Mortgage Lenders pointed to legislation which was introduced in England and Wales as part of the Housing Act 1996 which provides a model for this.

The Scottish Executive has taken up this suggestion and wishes to incorporate a provision to that effect in its Housing Bill. It will provide for a moratorium period in the event of insolvency action against a registered social landlord. During that period, the agency charged with regulating registered social landlords will be able to enter into negotiations with the landlord's secured creditors to agree proposals for the future ownership and management of its assets. The basic aim of the provisions will be to ensure that the regulator will have both the opportunity and the powers to ensure that tenants' interests are to the fore.

There is an additional benefit to the measures proposed by the Scottish Executive. Putting the insolvency regime for registered social landlords in Scotland on a similar basis to the one that currently applies in England and Wales will assist Scottish registered social landlords to see finance on a level playing field.

In considering the proposals, it has become clear that legislation to that effect would be caught by the reservations relating to insolvency in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Specifically, the reservation of,

"the general legal effect of winding up".

in paragraph (a) of Section C2 of Schedule 5 would cover a moratorium on the disposal of land and the related provisions about the ownership and management of such land.

There is also likely to be a provision giving a power to apply to the Court of Session in relation to the execution of the negotiations which take place during the moratorium which would be caught by the reservation in paragraph (c) of Section C2 of Schedule 5. Accordingly, the effect of the order will be to give the Scottish Parliament powers to legislate in this area. The relevant UK departments have been consulted and are happy with that change. That includes in particular the Insolvency Service, an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry, which is responsible for the operation of the Insolvency Act 1986 in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.

It is relevant that the general objective of the reservation of insolvency is to ensure the uniform treatment of business associations throughout Britain. That particular matter, however, has been dealt with through housing legislation in England and Wales and has not been regarded as problematic in terms of insolvency law. In practice, I believe that it has never been used. There seems no reason to deny the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to address the same issue of regulating social housing through its own housing legislation. It is perhaps an added bonus, if slightly ironic, that the outcome is expected to be uniformity with England and Wales.

I turn to the second order, which is made under Section 105 of the Scotland Act 1998. Section 105 enables existing enactments or instruments to be amended as necessary in consequence of the Scotland Act. The order amends the wording of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The changes are so that the post-devolution division of responsibility between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions are properly reflected.

In particular, the relevant definitions of "traffic authorities" and "roads authorities" in the two Acts I have mentioned need to be amended. This is a purely technical adjustment with no policy significance. This is precisely the kind of consequential modification for which Section 105 of the Scotland Act 1998 was provided. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support both the orders. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this pair of orders to the House. That is not a complaint. It is inevitable that whenever an anomaly is identified of whatever magnitude, or whenever there is a new piece of UK legislation, there will be another Scotland Act order to rectify it or to bring it into operation in Scotland. I presume that the process will be ongoing and without end. It is undoubtedly characteristic of the devolution process.

A useful spin-off is that whenever that occurs we have a brief chance to debate Scotland. Wisely, in my opinion, the House has been anxious to avoid discussing Scotland following the moment of devolution. I believe that the return of national democracy in Scotland has taken substantial root and that it is now more secure than the Secretary of State's reference to it as being a "fragile flower" would imply. I therefore believe that Scotland ought to be discussed in this House, though perhaps along the lines of how it is "getting on".

Today, the problem is the division of responsibility for veterinary policy and it is a pity that the orders do not deal with that—they clearly do not. I hope that the unified British Veterinary Service can come to see the merit of a vaccination policy in England but not in Scotland. The consequences for Scotland's export trade must be kept firmly to the fore.

I turn to the order dealing with the modification of Schedule 5. That is the most comprehensible of today's three Scotland orders. Not only do I recognise it as a type A order requiring the approval of both Houses of this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, but it is also supported by a descriptive executive note from Edinburgh. The noble Baroness will note my joy at that!

The order is simple and follows the devolutionary trend of which I approve. The devolution of responsibility for certain aspects of the insolvency of a registered social housing provider is not only a mouthful but is also precautionary in nature. However, I do not decry the order because it foresees the merit of instituting a moratorium into insolvency proceedings for the good reason that it ought to protect the position of the tenants of an insolvent registered social landlord.

The genesis for the order is undoubtedly the Housing Bill currently before the Scottish Parliament. The proposed new housing executive agency would use the 28-day moratorium to organise a rescue package for the assets and the tenants of the insolvent social housing provider. I hope that the legislation is never needed in practice, but I approve of its passage today.

I turn to the consequential modifications order, which is more narrowly focused. It is simple to comprehend and difficult to understand. As there is no executive note, it does not need to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. We learn that the order carves up responsibility for trunk and other roads between the Secretary of State at the DETR and the Scottish Ministers. But then if fails to explain exactly how it does so.

I believe that it does not relate to motorways, which are apparently referred to as "special roads", so I am left to wonder what are the other roads. I can recognise a trunk road and I recognise that most of the road networks in Scotland are the responsibility of the 32 local authorities. If my analysis is correct, I hope that the Secretary of State at the DETR and the Scottish Ministers will be wiser than me.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments on the two orders. He is right that there will be the unavoidable, expected, logical and normal need to make such adjustments from time to time. Devolution is a process and we were always aware that there would be such requirements. For that reason, the Act contains built-in procedures under which adjustments can be made between reserved and devolved matters and in the interests of greater efficiency.

I noted the noble Earl's comments about a "fragile flower". However, although I accept and agree with his view that devolution is strong, my right honourable friend was correct in saying that the Scottish Parliament and the devolution settlement was one of the biggest constitutional changes this country had known for centuries. As regards its development, it behoves everyone to go forward with care. I do not believe that brutal attacks on the Scottish Parliament, which seem to be the preferred option of the Scottish media, help anything develop properly and well.

I am happy to say that vaccination has nothing whatever to do with the orders and I do not intend to comment on it. The noble Earl is right that the Housing Bill which is going through the Scottish Parliament necessitates one of the orders. Finally, he is also correct in his assumption about the differentiation between the road systems. I hope that with those answers the House will approve the orders.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order amends the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999 which makes provision for the conduct of elections and the return of members to the Scottish Parliament. The order has been produced following consultation with election administration practitioners, and also with the Electoral Commission as required by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

All the changes being made to the 1999 order are necessary to take account of and reflect changes made by recent primary and subordinate legislation, which has previously been debated and approved by this House. The new order will align the procedures for registration and elections to the Scottish Parliament with those for other elections, including to the United Kingdom Parliament. Electoral registration officers, returning officers, candidates and their agents, and the electorate in Scottish Parliament constituencies would all face difficulties and confusion if the rules for the conduct of elections are not aligned.

The amendments introduced by this order are therefore not in general new ones, but simply apply changes already made elsewhere. No new issues of policy are raised. The amendments are needed as a consequence of changes made by the Representation of the People Act 2000; the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; the Postal Services Act 2000; and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001.

The main changes concern registration; absent voting; the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers; and election expenses. Other changes are made to take account of the role of the new Electoral Commission and provisions on registration of political parties and the nomination of candidates.

The Representation of the People Act 2000 made two important changes to the law on elections. First, it altered the arrangement for registration of electors, by introducing a system of what is referred to as "rolling registration", by which the register of electors continues in force indefinitely. Additions to and deletions from it are made as and when required.

The other main change made by this Act is in respect of absent voting. In particular, it allows postal voting on request without the need for a special reason to be given; and in most cases applications for a postal vote can be made up to the sixth working day before polling day, instead of the eleventh day as previously. In addition, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 has established the Electoral Commission, whose functions include the review of electoral law, the registration of political parties and controls on national election expenditure by individuals and organisations other than political parties.

As a consequence of the changes introduced by the Representation of the People Act 2000, the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 were made and came into force on 16th February. Some noble Lords may recall that they were debated and approved in this House on 7th February. These regulations, among other matters, made detailed provision for rolling registration of electors and extended or eased the registration process, eased the requirements for absent voting and improved the provision for disabled voters. The present draft order makes changes to the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Order 1999 comparable with the changes which were made by the 2001 regulations for elections to the UK Parliament and also for local government elections in Scotland.

We have made available to the House Explanatory Notes which explain in detail, article by article, the specific changes introduced by this order. I shall, therefore, not take up noble Lords' time by repeating those details here. As I said at the outset, this order is needed to align the procedures for elections to the Scottish Parliament with those for other elections. Basically, it simply takes account of, and reflects, changes previously debated and approved by this House. I ask noble Lords to support the order. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)

My Lords, this order brings into the Scottish Parliament's own elections substantial chunks of newly enacted UK legislation, primarily the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. The order does not appear to create anything new but, rather, transports the procedures under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act into the Scottish Parliament. I have been unable to identify what type of order this is. Because it does not need to be approved by the Scottish Parliament we are deprived of its ever-helpful executive note. However, I was more than impressed by the clarity and comprehensibility of the order's own Explanatory Notes.

I certainly approve of the new rolling register which will do away with the substantial temporary disenfranchisement which was a symptom of the previous annual system, although citizens must still play their part by notifying the compilers of the register of any changes. I am interested in the widening of the scope for voting facilities for the blind, partially sighted and people with disabilities. I believe that this is a liberalisation of the special facilities regime to date, and I approve of it. I am also very interested in the liberalisation of the postal vote. I shall be encouraging people to take up that opportunity. I am impressed by the fact that there is to be even a stamped addressed envelope for a return which will ensure that in effect no one is disenfranchised for want of a stamp.

I have two questions about postal and proxy votes. Perhaps I should refer to it as "absent voting". First, is it the Government's hope and belief that postal voting should be encouraged and increased in scale, and even to become the norm? Secondly, is there an intention to move voters away from the use of proxy votes to postal ballots? I note the cautionary words of my noble friend Lord Greaves about postal votes. I believe that to prove the register of postal voters will be a useful activity in future.

This order brings to the Scottish Parliament elections two new institutions: the Electoral Commission—a substantive change and addition—and the clumsy new description "universal postal service provider", for what has always previously slipped off the tongue as "the Post Office". This order should be approved. The United Kingdom Parliament has reserved elections to itself and so Scotland must accept this order in that context.

My Lords, I should like to put one brief question to the Minister. Will Scottish members of the Armed Forces be able to enjoy postal or proxy voting?

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his welcome for the order and also for his kind words about the memorandum prepared by the Scotland Office. I am sure that that department will welcome and note his complimentary remarks. I believe that they are very well deserved because I also welcome the detailed memorandum.

I share the noble Earl's view that liberalisation of the postal vote will encourage more people to exercise their democratic rights and use their franchise. The noble Earl asked what type of order this is. I am advised that this draft order is type C; that is, it is laid in draft and approved by each House of this Parliament, and it is only for this Parliament to approve it. As to proxy or postal voting for members of the Armed Forces, of which I have experience as someone who was subject to the same rules while in Crown service abroad, they can use both or either.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order allows a mandatory 50 per cent rate relief to a pub or petrol filling station in a village with a population of up to 3,000 provided it is the sole such outlet in the village and has a rateable value of up to £9,000.

The order will provide support to these businesses where they are the last such outlets in a rural settlement. It is intended to help ensure that isolated settlements continue to have access to essential community services. It was first proposed last September in the local government finance Green Paper and has been revised in the light of responses to that consultation. This additional help to rural communities will be even more welcome at this particularly difficult time.

Last September we published the Green Paper Modernising Local Government Finance. It included a proposal to extend the 50 per cent mandatory element of village shops rate relief scheme to certain pubs, petrol filling stations and food shops. the order will implement the relief for pubs and petrol filling stations. Primary legislation is needed to extend it to food shops. That is contained in the Rating, (Former Agriculture Premises and Rural Shops) Bill introduced on 16th March.

All small businesses in designated villages with populations below 3,000 are already eligible for discretionary rate relief of up to 100 per cent, providing that the local authority feels they are of benefit to the community. In addition, the existing legislation specifies that the sole general store or post office with rateable values of up to £6,000 should receive 50 per cent mandatory relief which the local authority may top up to 100 per cent.

The Green Paper proposed that the mandatory relief should also be given to singly owned pubs and petrol stations that were either the sole retail outlet or also provided a community service, such as cash-back facilities or meetings rooms, and that had a rateable value of no more than £6,000. That proposal was widely welcomed, although there were some concerns over the detail which, in some cases, was felt to be too restrictive.

In the light of these comments, under the order there will be no restrictions on ownership and no requirement to provide specific community services. Where there is just one pub or petrol filling station in a village, it is, in itself, providing a service to the community which is worthy of support. Increasing the rateable value threshold to £9,000 reflects that pubs and petrol stations tend to occupy larger premises than shops.

Although this measure is not directly related to the foot and mouth disease outbreak, it will provide additional help to these important rural businesses in the short term and secure services to village communities in the longer term.

Our proposal to extend mandatory relief to all food shops with rateable values of up to £6,000 in qualifying villages will require primary legislation. That is because it cuts across the provisions in the Act limiting mandatory relief to the sole general store selling mainly food and household goods. The Bill will also implement a scheme of rate relief for new small-scale farm diversification enterprises. That was first proposed last March in the action plan for farming and last summer and autumn was the subject of consultation. It will provide 50 per cent mandatory relief for premises with rateable values up to £6,000 for a five-year period where they previously benefited from the agricultural exemption from rates. Local authorities can top up the relief to 100 per cent of the rates bill. That will help farmers move into other activities by reducing the costs of so doing. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

My Lords, as the order affects beneficially small rural areas we have no difficulty in supporting it. I hope very much that in the not too distant future one of the Minister's colleagues will be able to say that such similar help will be given to the farmers who are suffering so grievously from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

My Lords, I thought that I made clear that the Government have proposals that involve legislation which will help farmers. I am sure the House would not like me to detain it by going through the list of proposals. There have been a great many measures undertaken. I will ask that the noble Baroness is sent a copy of the measures being undertaken to help farmers.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 provides for a new ethical framework to govern the conduct of members and co-opted members of relevant local authorities in England. A key element of that framework is the general principles of conduct which are the subject of the order before the House today. This contains 10 principles which will provide a touchstone for councillors' behaviour and conduct. They require members to behave selflessly and serve only the public interest, to discharge their duties with honesty and integrity and to take decisions on merit. They stress that members should be open and accountable to the public and should treat people with respect, regardless of their race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. The principles also require members to uphold the law, ensure the prudent use of council resources and to act in a way that preserves public confidence. In short, they provide a core set of values which exemplify the public service ethos. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order and for bringing to the House the general principles that will govern the model code in due course. I want to ask about the model code. I am not clear whether the model code will be introduced by regulation or whether it will simply be introduced by consultation. I should like to draw to the Minister's attention the great necessity that the model code should not be too prescriptive. What is laid down in the general principles is self-evidently how someone in public life should behave. Therefore, the principles are really not controversial. But there is a danger with model codes that they become so prescriptive that people either ignore them or they do not have any benefit.

I hope that the model codes will leave room for local authorities to put forward their own regulations that are germane to their areas and that the model codes will just rely on the general principles laid out in the order and not go into too much extended detail. The more detail and prescription there is, the more vulnerable councillors and those in public life will feel. After all, what we are trying to do with all the legislation is to ensure that councillors feel that it is a job they want to do, that they are supported and that it is not something by which they will be harried in the future.

My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has just said. One could not object to the order, although it would come better from both Houses of Parliament if they had accepted explicitly for themselves the Nolan principles on which the order is based. I agree that it is sad that there has to be a statutory set of principles of what, as the noble Baroness said, is self-evident. As soon as one begins to codify certain principles, others, by definition, are regarded as excluded when perhaps they should not be.

I have a specific question about the paragraphs that are to have effect in relation to the activities of a member undertaken other than in an official capacity. In other words, what is to be regarded as applying in private life? People in public life are too often expected in their private affairs to have standards of conduct which those criticising them are often not capable of achieving for themselves. I hope that I am not being thought to be overly pious, but it strikes me that paragraph 7, which is headed Respect for Others and refers to not discriminating unlawfully, and paragraph 10, which refers to supporting these principles by leadership, and by example, and acting in a way that secures or preserves public confidence, are ones that one would wish to observe at all times and are relevant to public perception as well as to private life.

My Lords, in response to both noble Baronesses, the general principles will provide the basis for the national model code of conduct and it will contain key mandatory provisions that every local authority will be required to include in codes of conduct that they will be required to draw up later this year. Once councils have formally adopted their own codes of conduct, all their councillors will be required to sign up to them. Any allegations that a councillor has breached the code will be investigated by a new independent body, the Standards Board for England, and where it thinks there is a case to answer, an adjudication panel will be convened to consider the evidence. If a councillor is found to have breached the code of conduct, that person could be censured, suspended from office or even disqualified for up to five years in the most serious of cases.

The model code will be introduced by regulations subject to negative resolution. We shall keep the model code as simple and straightforward as possible. Furthermore, as I have said, local authorities will be able to add to the model. At the moment we are still consulting on the code. The closing date for comments is 24th April 2001. We aim to lay the regulations by the end of May so that they can come into force by the end of June. I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 28th February, be annulled (S.I. 2001/561).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for being available this afternoon. Noble Lords will be aware that she is held in very high regard in your Lordships' House. On previous occasions the noble Baroness and I have debated far more sensitive issues. In the course of the debate, when the Minister speaks, she speaks for Her Majesty's Government with full authority and on the record. However, she does not have ministerial responsibility for these matters. Her noble friend Lord Whitty has that responsibility and, what is more important, he has detailed knowledge and experience in this area. Interested parties outside your Lordships' House will be, I believe, a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has found that he has more important business to attend to and that it was not possible to move this business to a time when he was available. However, I am sure that there are perfectly understandable reasons for that.

I have three concerns regarding these regulations. First, the effect on clutter. I prefer to see a plain number plate with no unnecessary symbols. During the passage of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley covered this point and I believe that it will be discussed later in another place. For that reason, I shall not weary noble Lords on that point.

Secondly, I have concerns as regards readability. The order provides for smaller and narrower characters and I believe that closer spacing must lead to reduced readability, at least to some extent. I hope that the Minister will be able to give noble Lords some reassurance on that point and that she will be able to offer evidence to demonstrate that both ANPR and the Mark One Eyeball can deal with such closer spacing. In particular, can she guarantee that these regulations will not result in any degradation of the capability of the automatic number plate reading system?

My third and most substantive objection is on the grounds of practicality; namely, I fear that the regulations will not work and that they will not solve the problem. Perhaps it would be useful to noble Lords if I outline the problem, which I believe to be a real one. The issue with which the regulations seek to deal is that of illegal fonts, in particular the use of italics and illegal techniques to foil the automatic number plate reading system as well as, of course, the well-known use of misleading spacing and misleading characters. I fully support the Minister's objectives in that regard.

However, I fear that the Minister has disregarded the needs of the "little man". In this case the little man comprises the owners of left-hand drive cars made in North America. I have to say that such cars are not quite my cup of tea, but I can understand the interest shown in those vehicles. There is no safety issue involved. We have in place the single vehicle type approval scheme which is implemented before registration. Without SVA, it is not possible to register such vehicles. However, American cars are designed to accommodate a 12x6-inch number plate. The number plates are often recessed into the boot. The recess in the boot is designed to ensure that the number plate is properly illuminated. However, the recess in the boot—and sometimes the one in the front bumper—will not accommodate a standard European-type number plate as provided for in the regulations.

This is not a problem for Japanese cars which are marketed both in the United States and in Europe because the Japanese and the Far East manufacturers will produce separate boot lids for the North American market and the European market. These left-hand drive North American cars are imported in very low volumes, and therefore it is not reasonable to expect the manufacturer to produce a number- plate recess to suit the European market.

What is the Minister to do about this problem? Perhaps she can do nothing. The single vehicle type approval scheme is not helpful or relevant because its procedures take place before the vehicle is registered. It would be possible for an owner of one of these vehicles to get over the MoT test problem by temporarily fitting a number plate which meets all the safety requirements and is properly illuminated, but that would seriously damage the appearance of the car. After an owner has acquired an MoT, he or she could remove the temporary number plate and run the car with an illegal number plate. The Minister, of course, will not be surprised when I say that I do not support that solution. I recognise the pressing need to tighten up the regulations.

I suggest that we should perhaps consider using a 12x6-inch number plate, with the Secretary of State allocating only six characters for the vehicle registration number. That would fit in the space available on these cars. Alternatively, we could use a 12x6-inch number plate and use motor-cycle fonts. The motor-cycle font approved in the regulations is slightly smaller than the standard font used on a motor car and, therefore, it will fit in the space available.

I have photographs showing cars with this smaller font but, quite rightly, it would be out of order to display such photographs to your Lordships in the Chamber.

The final alternative is to modify the boot lid. However, this is highly skilled work and the appearance of the vehicle may be seriously damaged. It would also be extremely expensive; I estimate that it would possibly cost £1,000 per boot lid.

The Minister will have a well thought out argument but, from my point of view, I suspect that it will be flawed. She will say that if she adopts the motor-cycle size font, the automatic number plate reading system will not work. However, there are many more European vehicles than US vehicles running around in the United Kingdom with small fonts—we are talking about very low numbers—and, of course, these American cars are very distinctive. Most importantly, if a motor-cycle font is okay for a motor-cycle, why is it not okay for a motor car?

Noble Lords could be forgiven for thinking that I am taking a Conservative europhobic position. Nothing could be further from the truth, but is not the Minister experiencing difficulties in regard to Article 8 of EC directive 98/34? What concerns in regard to the free market has the Minister received from the European Union? How will she be able to meet those concerns? What possible technical, rather than legal, solution does she propose?

It seems to me that we are talking about the cast-iron inflexibility of officials, with no regard for the little man; there is no regard for an imaginative micro-business importing interesting American cars. Although, as I said, they are not my cup of tea, not everyone wants to run around in "euroboxes", no matter how efficient and good looking they are.

I find that our friends in Germany go in for far too much regulation. For instance, Germany has laws stating on which days of the week people can mow their lawns and on which days they can hang out their washing. But, interestingly, even the Germans can find a solution to this particular problem. Why cannot the Minister? I beg to move.

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by stressing that the Minister with responsibility for this area of policy intended no discourtesy to the noble Earl or to the House. I think noble Lords will agree that for the Minister in this House the workload is extremely heavy. He has departmental responsibility and is expected on many occasions to undertake ministerial responsibilities other than in the immediate London area, which inhibits his ability always to be present in this House at times which may sometimes be slightly difficult to predict and which may interfere with his ability to leave the London area. I know that he will read with great interest and fascination the points raised by the noble Earl and, if necessary—and should I prove to be inadequate to replace him—will supplement my answers in writing.

Control on number plates has been in existence since the Motor Car Act 1903, which first introduced measures to help to identify vehicles and drivers. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that it is vital that all motor vehicles should have clear and easy-to-read number plates. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, expressed his concern about the impact of new number plate regulations on the importation of American vehicles into the UK. These vehicles are designed for the American market; consequently, the space for fitting the number plates may, as the noble Earl said, be too small to fit a UK legal number plate. Representations have been made to the department by the importers of such vehicles that the new regulations should exempt them from the standard requirement. First, let me assure the House that the department considered these representations carefully. We understand that people importing these specialist vehicles do not wish to break the law.

The noble Earl has explained the cost involved in adapting such vehicles. However, I question slightly some of his remarks. In our opinion, it should be possible to fit a UK legal number plate without undue cost, although I accept that this may have a minor effect on the appearance of the vehicle, as a UK number plate would extend beyond the area designated to accommodate a US number plate.

The noble Earl referred to the low number of these imports. However, I should point out that it is not just American cars that have this problem. All vehicles that have been manufactured for the European market have sufficient space for fitting a standard-sized UK number plate. However, vehicles are imported into this country from other markets, especially from Japan and the Far East. Like American vehicles, they are not manufactured to European standards and, similarly, may have difficulty in fitting a UK legal number plate. We estimate that up to 100,000 vehicles may be imported into the UK annually from these other markets. This is, therefore, not a small problem.

The noble Earl referred to the use of smaller plates on motor-cycles. Two-wheeled and three-wheeled vehicles, quadri-cycles, agricultural machines, work trucks and road rollers are permitted to use smaller characters on their number plates. In the case of two and three wheelers, the small number plates are necessary for safety reasons and the vehicles could not reasonably accommodate larger plates. The other vehicles that use smaller plates are tightly defined and are not generally used on public roads.

As the noble Earl recognised, we regulate number plates because we need to be able to identify vehicles. For example, the police value any information that the public can give them about a vehicle that may have been involved in a serious incident, such as a hit and run accident. Even remembering one or two of the letters of the number from a registration mark may narrow down police inquiries and help to trace the culprit.

However, in this day and age, it is no longer just the human eye that needs to read number plates; camera technology is vital to the police in enforcing some of our key road safety messages. Traffic speed cameras help to keep our roads among the safest in the world. The development of automatic number-plate readers for enforcement purposes has made it even more important that number plates should be legible. It is not just road safety that concerns us.

Vehicles are used in connection with many crimes, including terrorism. Vehicles caught on security cameras and CCTV can also provide vital evidence for the police. The new regulations therefore ensure that our number plates remain among the clearest to read in the world. Taking all those points into account, we decided that there should be no change from the existing position that American vehicles should fit standard number plates.

The noble Earl also referred to the issue of readability. I understood him to allege that we were altering the spacing. I can tell him that the spacing on acceptable number plates has not been reduced; it remains exactly the same. There has been a minimum reduction in the width of the characters from 57mm to 50mm. We are satisfied that that will not have a deleterious effect.

The EC has written to the UK Government on behalf of the importers to state that it reserves the right to challenge the regulations if they have an impact on trade within the European Union. I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble Earl.

I believe that the noble Earl briefly mentioned the issue of the position within the European Union. Noble Lords will be interested to know that these regulations permit motorists to take advantage of an EU regulation that allows vehicles displaying the euro symbol on their number plates to dispense with the need for a separate national identity sticker for journeys within the Community. Our new number plate regulations do not require the use of that symbol. It is entirely up to the individual motorist to decide whether he wants to use that style of plate.

We believe that it is important for number plates to be clear. No one should customise them or try to make them different in any way. We can never meet everyone's wishes as regards personalising or moderating the size and the style of number plates in a way that is acceptable. I appreciate that the noble Earl has expressed strong feelings on the issue of number plates for American vehicles. I shall, of course, pass on his concerns to my noble friend Lord Whitty, the Minister responsible. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his Motion.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply to my Motion. To begin with, I should like to point out that I wish the noble Lord. Lord Whitty, no discourtesy in this respect. With the planning of our business, it is unfortunate that he was unable to be here today. The noble Baroness knows very well that I work extremely closely with the noble Lord.

I did not quite catch all of the noble Baroness's reply with regard to the European Union. Unfortunately, I was being advised by one of my noble friends at the precise moment when she was saying whether or not she had received representations from the EU on the matter. The noble Baroness also referred to about 100,000 vehicles coming into the EU from the Far East. If our regulations and those of the EU discriminate against those vehicles by requiring them to be disfigured by the way that the number plates are fitted, it seems to me that we could experience some difficulty with GATT, let alone with the EU. She also said that she was happy for the number plate to extend beyond the original recess on the boot of the car. How will that number plate be illuminated?

I have a question on the Rover 75 car that is manufactured at Longbridge. If my memory serves me right, it has a half-elliptical rear number plate. It is stylish, but will it have to be disfigured in the future?

My Lords, not having the model of Rover car to which the noble Lord referred I find it impossible to answer his question either as regards its shape or whether it would require modification. Given my many years' experience of garages, I cannot believe that it is possible to create any problem that someone in a garage cannot solve. They sometimes have to have more than one attempt to achieve their objective, but I am sure that they would be able to provide the proper illumination to meet the legal requirements.

I repeat that the EC has written to the UK Government on behalf of importers to state that they reserve the right to challenge the regulations if they have an impact on trade within the EU. I think that that answers the point that the noble Earl raised. I do not foresee any difficulty with regard to imported vehicles that have been made for other markets. However, should I acquire any further Information, I shall, of course, write to the noble Earl.

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I hope that at some time in the future she will enjoy a Rover 75. It is unusual to vote on regulations on these occasions. However, the House would not hesitate to do so if that were necessary. That is not the case this afternoon and, in any case, the time is clearly not right. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.