Lords Sitting of 9 July 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Lord Bhatia
Amirali Alibhai Bhatia, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Bhatia, of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Prashar and the Lord Joffe.

Lord Moser
Sir Claus Adolf Moser, KCB, CBE, having been created Baron Moser, of Regents Park in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gibson and the Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Sudan
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Coxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to recent developments in Sudan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we remain focused on the situation in Sudan and are committed to helping to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. What really matters to the people of Sudan is an end to the enormous suffering caused by war. We were concerned, therefore, at the recent rebel offensive in Bahr El Ghazal and by the Government of Sudan's response. Last month we prompted an EU statement calling on both parties immediately to stop hostilities in order to create an environment conducive to negotiations and have reiterated that message bilaterally.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. As this is the first time the Sudan has been discussed in your Lordships' House since the sad loss of Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, this may be an appropriate time to say how much we all miss him and his always valued contributions on this subject.
Can the Minister say what the Government have to show for their policy of dialogue with the Government of Sudan, who continue to bomb innocent civilians and to perpetuate a war in which over 2 million have died and 5. million have been displaced? Has not the time come to follow the example of the United States
926
and adopt a more robust approach to that undemocratic regime which took and holds power purely by military force?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in her tribute to Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. We will sadly miss him.
The US Administration are reviewing their policy on Sudan. In fact, only this morning I had a meeting with Assistant Secretary Kansteiner. As the noble Baroness is aware, we take a balanced view on Sudan. Our central objective is to secure a just and lasting peace. The EU-Sudan dialogue focuses on five areas—I shall not go into them in view of the short time available. We believe that the Sudan has made progress in relations with its neighbours; for example, it signed an agreement with Uganda. The Sudan is adopting an acceptable approach to counterterrorism. We have noticed some progress on human rights and democratisation and there has been some moderation of police and security activity, although I agree that abuses undoubtedly occur. So there has been some progress, but there is still a long way to go.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the removal of civilian populations, the food shortages and the mass murders arise to a substantial degree from the exploitation of oil? If the oil companies chose to use their economic muscle to exact more ethical standards from the government, they might save thousands of lives. Has anyone discussed that possibility with them?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will be aware that through our own ethical trading initiative we have pressed organisations to ensure that they adopt ethical standards in their work in a variety of development countries. We have pressed for oil revenues to be used for development projects and for transparency in the oil accounts. The Government of Sudan gave public assurances to that effect. We shall be looking to them to honour those assurances. We shall remain focused on that issue as more evidence becomes available.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, among the five issues that are being discussed in the Sudan, the noble Baroness did not mention the abolition of slave-like practices. Does she agree that, although the committee established by the Government of Sudan to eradicate the abduction of women and children has made some useful progress, the practices continue up to the present day? No serious investigation has been made of the root causes and nobody has been prosecuted for the crime of abduction, contrary to Article 25 of the Convention Against Forced Labour which was signed by the Government of Sudan as long ago as 1957. Will the Government use their good offices, both bilaterally and through the ILO, to persuade the Government of Sudan to comply with the recommendations made recently by the Anti-Slavery International to eradicate those practices once and for all?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may find it helpful to know that we have been looking to the Government of Sudan to ratify ILO Convention 182 on extreme forms of child labour. To bring an end to abusive child labour practices, including slavery and bonded labour, has been a priority not only of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but also of the Department for International Development. We will continue to press the Government of Sudan on those matters.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, has the Minister seen the recent reports from the Bishop of Rumbek about the killing of civilians in Raga as a direct result of the bombing of those civilian populations? Bearing in mind what she has already heard from those who spoke earlier, is it not time that we reviewed our policy about exploitation of oil in Sudan? The areas around oil fields have been ethnically cleansed of civilian populations. In the light of that, should not we review the advice given by the Department of Trade and Industry in its booklet, Doing Business In Sudan, a Guide for Exporters?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, the Department of Trade and Industry and the FCO do not promote trade with the Sudan. We are completely honest in the information we give to companies in relation to what we feel about the situation there. We were of course concerned to hear the reports of aerial bombings in southern Sudan. We raised that matter with the Sudanese Government at the highest level, making it absolutely clear that the bombing of civilian targets was unacceptable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in view of the pertinent remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, can the Government say whether the time has come for our Government to call a conference, either bilaterally or through the United Nations, of the governments of all those countries in which companies exploiting oil in the Sudan are located, to agree minimum standards of human rights and to require those companies to make observance of those standards a prerequisite of their continued operation in the extraction of oil?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in my reply to my noble and learned friend I made absolutely clear that through our work in the Department for International Development as well as that done in the FCO, we are trying to ensure that companies take their corporate responsibilities extremely seriously. We are pressing the Sudanese Government to try to ensure that oil revenues are spent in a developmental context. I shall take away the noble Lord's specific point of bringing the oil companies together and write to him.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are now into the ninth minute.

Company Directors: Remuneration
2. 58 p.m.
Lord Tebbitasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to legislate to give shareholders the right to fix the remuneration of company directors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the responsibility for fixing the remuneration of executive directors lies with the remuneration committees of listed companies and the Government have no intention of changing that aspect of corporate governance. However, it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the corporate governance framework promotes transparency and accountability to shareholders, and we will be taking steps to improve both of them.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the Government lived up to the standards they expect of companies in that, immediately after the voting on polling day, they awarded themselves substantial pay rises? Would it not have been better to announce that proposal before the shareholders voted?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if the noble Lord had listened carefully to my Answer, he may have considered that a simple statement of thanks for giving him some accurate information was the right approach, rather than trying to introduce a totally different subject.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the Government honour the undertaking given by Mr Stephen Byers, when he was at the DTI, that he would produce a code of conduct regarding the remuneration packages of directors? Twice in the previous Parliament I asked that question and I was fobbed off with the answer, "Soon". The last time that I asked the Minister was over a year ago. Will the Government please have some care for the preservation of the English language or will they continue to procrastinate, bearing in mind the situation? It is a thorny issue but it is getting out of hand.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, consistently the Government have made it clear that they will produce their views on the matter of accountability as soon as the Company Law Review's wider recommendations on the issue have been made. That report is now with the Secretary of State and when she has had time to consider it, she will come forward with government proposals on this key area.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the concern about the salaries of senior executives in major companies extends to companies such as football companies and possibly to pop radio stations? Most footballers and popstars receive considerably more than many directors.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the same principle applies to those companies as to others. Essentially, how shareholders want to see their money used is a matter for them.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, would my noble friend care to distinguish between remuneration that comes out of the profits of companies and remuneration that has a significant input from taxpayers?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that shareholders should deal with remuneration resulting from company profits, but in a transparent manner and with accountability to shareholders.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, how does the Minister expect transparency to be increased? At the moment the transparency required for executive directors, as reported in the annual report and accounts of every company by the remuneration committee in the remuneration report, gives every detail possible. I just wonder what more will be imposed on companies.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I am sure that the noble Baroness knows, Stephen Byers made a clear statement on this subject. One major step forward would be clearer statements about the performance of a company, as happens in America, and to give effect to what the Greenbury report asked for, which was a clear statement on remuneration policy. As she knows from her careful scrutiny of many company accounts, that is very infrequently carried out.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, in applying their minds to this important matter, is it too much to hope that the Government may give some thought to the meaning of the word "bonus" that, of late, has got out of contra? Perhaps they could take the opportunity to make it clear that the word does not always have a big ingredient of merit.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord. The prime issue is that there should be a clear link between the performance of a company and an individual director and the remuneration that he or she receives; therefore, where performance is poor or mediocre large bonuses should not be given.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, given that there are, by any reckoning, hundreds of people earning packages of £1 million plus a year, how can the Government be indifferent to the impact of that on differentials, particularly as they affect the public services? As they pretend to be concerned about education and teachers, do they believe that such a state of affairs is gravely damaging to the recruitment of teachers and, for example, to the availability of affordable housing for public service workers in London?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are not indifferent to any of these issues,
930
nor to the action that should be taken to deal with them. Ultimately, it is for the shareholders, whose money is involved, to make the judgments through the remuneration committees on what payment should be made.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, what view do the Government take of directors exercising share options at reduced levels to discount a falling share price?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords. if there is such an issue—if I understand it at all—any action that is in any way out of line with company law would be a matter for the Financial Services Authority.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister consider that the desirable relationship between remuneration and reward exists in the recent case of Railtrack?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, again that is a case for the shareholders of Railtrack. In this case, I am delighted that it will be on the agenda for the AGM, where no doubt the shareholders can express their views.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, although we have had Greenbury, Hampel, Turnball and Cadbury, and while there may be codes of conduct, in recent times there have been too many instances, particularly regarding the renegotiating of stock options, that do not find favour with shareholders, with the public and with anybody other than those who benefit directly? If there is to be a review, perhaps that can be one of the first subjects to be examined.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is the point of the decision that we are to take on the accountability to shareholders. Clearly, on occasions when there is genuine concern by shareholders as to the remuneration practice of a company. the fact that they are not always given the opportunity to make their feelings known at the AGM is not satisfactory. That is exactly the issue that we shall consider when we bring forward the proposals on accountability.

Missile Defence Systems
3.6 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements they are making to evaluate the relevance of a missile defence system to their national and international security priorities, with particular reference to the outcome of the last defence review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, consistent with the Strategic Defence Review, we continue to assess the potential role of missile defence systems as

931
part of a broad ranging response to missile and weapons of mass destruction proliferation. Our position of monitoring developments, both in the threat and in defensive technologies, our involvement in NATO studies and our dialogue with allies all help us to make informed judgments on security priorities. But it would be premature to decide to acquire a ballistic missile defence capability.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that any missile defence system will have immense expenditure implications, with far-reaching consequences for our existing defence strategy introduced after the recent defence review? Therefore, does he also agree that it is absolutely essential that, before we drift into any commitment from which it may be increasingly difficult to extricate ourselves, there is a convincing threat analysis that demonstrates why such a system is necessary and could be effective? Does my noble friend agree that we must be clear about the consequences for arms control and disarmament, which must remain a cornerstone of global security? Is not terrorism, in its nuclear, biological and chemical dimensions, a much more immediate threat? Is that being addressed adequately?
Lord Bach: My Lords, there will be no drift at all into such a defence system. Perhaps I may quote from the SDR published some three years ago. It states that systems,
"may play a role within a balanced spectrum of capabilities to counter the risks posed by chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery. But technologies in this area are changing rapidly and it would, at this stage, be premature to decide on acquiring such a capability".
It went on to say:
"We will, however, monitor developments in the risks posed by ballistic missiles and in the technology available to counter them, participate in NATO studies, and work closely with our Allies to inform future decisions".
That was two or three years ago and it is exactly the policy that we have followed since then. What we said then applies now. Of course, my noble friend is right that any system would be very expensive. As far as disarmament is concerned, the goal of Her Majesty's Government is the global elimination of nuclear weapons. That remains our policy.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in the course of such monitoring, has the Minister come across the recently published internal US Defence Department study that indicates that the testing of missile defences is, first, long-delayed, secondly, subject to a high level of failure, and, thirdly, does not take into account the use of sophisticated decoys? Has he seen the article in the contemporary issue of Foreign Affairs by Mr John Newhouse, an outstanding expert, who argues that the single greatest threat to global security arises from the growing and dangerous disrepair of the Russian strategic forces?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have not had the benefit of seeing either of the articles to which the noble Baroness
932
refers. However, she can be assured that I will have seen them by this time tomorrow afternoon. I take great note of what she says and I know that she understands our policy, which we have made clear, that in considering any future request from the United States implications for United Kingdom security will be a major consideration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, has not the noble Lord, Lord Judd, put the cart before the horse? Is it not the policy of government that defence review and defence provision should take account of the reality of missile defence and is not that matter under continuous consideration?
Lord Bach: My Lords, of course it is under continuous review, and that is how I answered my noble friend Lord Judd. But there is no question of our drifting into a policy of ballistic missile defence. We will make a decision on the matter when we feel that it is right, in our interest, to do so. At the present time, we believe that it is premature.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his confirmation that none of these later developments affect the Government's commitment to the achievement of a nuclear-free world will receive world-wide support and acclaim?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has shown a huge interest in this subject throughout a long and distinguished career.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister gave me a complete brush-off when a few days ago I asked him about new construction at Menwith Hill. It is a matter of common knowledge that new radomes have appeared on the site and that pictures of them have appeared in national newspapers. Surely therefore it is a matter which we can discuss in this House.
The Minister says that there is no question of our drifting into a national missile defence policy. However, when we see those new constructions at Menwith Hill, and in the absence of any statement by the Minister or his colleagues, are we not entitled to draw a conclusion as to what they consist of?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord can draw whatever conclusions he likes. The fact remains—I said this last Thursday in the House—that it has never been the policy of governments of any colour to comment on specific security measures. Tempting as the noble Lord may be in the way he poses the question for the second time in four days, I shall not comment further.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to ballistic missile defence in the context of the Strategic Defence Review. When that review was put together three years ago, the BMD was not in consideration. Can the Government

933
assure us that if it is agreed to go ahead with BMD the money will be made available over and above the existing defence budget?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to give that assurance to the noble Lord today. Let us take things one stage at a time. At this stage no decision has been made and none is imminent. We do not yet know what the United States may or may not ask for. When we know that, I shall be in a position to answer the noble Lord better.

Waste Management: Incineration
3.14 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the incineration of waste.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government set out their aims and objectives for sustainable waste management in Waste Strategy 2000, published in May last year. The choice of waste facilities is a matter for local councils in consultation with their local communities. The Government recognise that the recovery of energy from waste may have a role to play, alongside recycling and composing, in an integrated waste management plan, but they have no plan for any particular number of incinerators.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he not aware of a general feeling that there is some ambivalence in the Government's policy, as was stated in a recent Select Committee report from another place? Is it not apparently a contradiction that whereas energy recovery from waste counts towards the achievement of the Government's objective for renewables by 2010, it nevertheless does not rate for the benefits under the renewables obligation? I believe that we are justified in asking whether the Government are seeking to encourage or discourage the recovery of energy from waste.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the disposal of waste has as its prime consideration the issue of whether we can reduce the amount of waste we produce in the first instance, or recycle or compost it. Therefore, the use of waste for energy production is second or third down the list. Nevertheless, the production of energy from waste makes a contribution to the diversification of energy sources and is considered in that context. However, from the point of view of waste management, it is not necessarily the optimum solution.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the thousands of bonfires or pyres which burnt—indeed, some are still burning—millions of animals under the auspices of
934
MAFF or DEFRA complied in every way with the waste incineration directives and laws which we imported into this country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the House will know that the impact of the temporary pyres, which regrettably we had to use during the foot and mouth out break, has been monitored by the Environment Agency and by the Food Standards Agency. A report was issued by the FSA last week and the indications are that no dangerous levels of dioxins are emanating from them. Clearly, the use of such pyres must be minimised and will continue to be so as we continue to fight the disease.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, given the need to maintain the balance between recycling and incineration, do the Government intend to give local authorities more money in order to make it possible for them to meet their targets on recycling and to encourage them to do so?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes; waste and recycling are being supported in the current spending review. During the next three years the amount available to spend on waste strategy will have risen by £ 1.1 billion. We have also provided significant funds—about £40 million—to the waste and resources action programme in order to overcome market and other barriers to the recycling of waste. Furthermore, we have provided support of £220 million through PFI projects, some of which have been announced. In addition, my colleagues in DCMS have announced that £159 million will be available for a programme of environmental renewal and that will include provision for recycling, composting and waste reuse.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I understand that the Government's waste disposal strategy will require many large incinerators to be built throughout the country—I have been given a figure of 165—and that there is strong public resistance to the building of incinerators in residential areas. How do the Government propose to strike a balance and do they intend to alter the planning regime in order to allow those incinerators to be built?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, the Government do not have in mind any particular figure for the number of new incineration plants. If a local authority decides that new incineration facilities are required, they will go through the normal planning application and, if they are large enough, through DTI assessment. No particular figure, particularly one of 165, has any bearing on government policy. The Government would prefer to see waste minimisation in the first instance and then the recycling of waste, rather than an increase in incineration capacity. However, where it is needed, the new standards for incinerators will ensure that there is a minimum safety standard.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following the previous intervention, what is the Government's latest thinking

935
on the impact of emissions from incineration, on which there appears to be a diversity of reports, particularly in respect of dioxins?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the technology now required of incineration plants will reduce to minimal levels any form of dangerous emission. For example, the level of total incineration exposure will be substantially less (about 6 per cent) than that from major manufacturing sectors such as iron and steel. Incineration plants make only a very small contribution to the problem of emissions, and exposure from any particular plant has been reduced to a minimal level. Therefore, some of the public anxiety to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred earlier is misplaced. Where incineration is necessary, subject to all the caveats that I have spelt out, the danger to the public is minimal.

Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [H.L.]
3.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I hope not to detain your Lordships for too long this afternoon. This is a very straightforward Bill with a single, specific purpose; that is, to equalise the entitlement to concessionary travel for men and women at age 60. It will bring to 8 million the number of people who benefit from the Government's statutory requirements for travel concessions.
Concessionary fares schemes offer cheap travel on public transport for people who are economically disadvantaged and demonstrate our commitment to fighting social exclusion. We want to ensure that bus travel, in particular, remains within the means of those on limited incomes and those who have mobility difficulties. Just last month we brought into force legislation requiring local authorities to offer a minimum of 50 per cent reductions to elderly and disabled people. Those changes benefit some 5.5 million pensioners and 1.5 million disabled people across England and Wales. With this Bill, a further 1 million men aged between 60 and 65 will be able to share these benefits, bringing the total number of people who benefit from our statutory travel concessions provisions to around 8 million.
Provision for travel concessions is at present contained in the Transport Act 1985, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 2000. Local authorities in England and Wales must arrange for elderly and disabled people living in their area to receive a half-fare concession, or better, on local bus services—that is, services within the local authority's area—subject to the person obtaining a bus permit, which must be given free of charge. Local authorities also have discretion to offer further concessions on bus and other public passenger transport services, as well as concessionary travel
936
outside their boundaries if they wish. Indeed, many local authorities offer concessions on other modes of public transport and fares cheaper than half-price—an obvious example is London—but they must not offer a scheme less than the statutory minimum.
Why are we legislating? Entitlement to travel concessions is linked to pensionable age as defined in the Pensions Act 1995. This means that women may take advantage of the concessionary travel schemes offered by their local authority at age 60, but men must wait until 65. There is no age barrier to entitlement for concessionary fares schemes for disabled people. Given strong opposition to current legislation because it discriminates on the ground of gender, we have decided to end the anomaly and are therefore legislating to equalise entitlement at age 60. As your Lordships may recall, this was raised during the passage of the Transport Act 2000 which introduced the statutory minimum requirement, and therefore I hope that the new legislation will be welcome.
Under the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995 pensionable age will start to equalise from 2010 so that by 2020 both men and women will receive their state pensions at 65. Your Lordships will notice that Clause 1(4) of the Bill provides for reserve powers for the Secretary of State, or National Assembly for Wales, to restore the link to entitlement to concessionary fares with that for state pensions. Should orders be made under this power, which could not be until 2010 at the earliest, the age entitlement to concessionary travel would similarly rise to 65 by 2020. Orders made under that subsection would treat a man as if he were a woman born on the same day. We may have some fun discussing this at a later stage of the Bill.
This Bill will not create new concessionary fares schemes, nor will it involve new bus operators entering the market. Local authorities will have to adjust all of their current concessionary fares schemes to broaden entitlement to men aged between 60 and 65, but we envisage that the additional burden on local authorities of issuing these extra passes will be minimal.
Reimbursement arrangements under existing legislative provisions mean that the financial impact on bus operators will be neutral. Bus operators are reimbursed for revenue forgone so that they are financially no better and no worse off than if they did not participate in the concessionary fares scheme. The calculation of the level of reimbursement by the local authorities may take into account increases in the number of passengers who travel—the "generation" factor. These reimbursement arrangements are well tried and tested, and I am pleased to be able to reassure your Lordships that neither local government nor the bus industry foresees any difficulty in administering or operating the increased entitlement.
There is no doubt that concessionary fares are expensive for governments. In England local authorities at present spend £440 million each year on their schemes. Extending eligibility to men aged 60 to 65 could involve an additional £50 million per year in England, and we will need to take this into account in the local government finance settlement.

937
I should perhaps say something about the territorial extent of this Bill. The Bill applies to England and Wales, and the National Assembly has its own commencement powers. Concessionary travel is devolved to Scotland and separate legislation is being progressed there. In Northern Ireland entitlement is already equalised at 65.
There was considerable debate in this House during the passage of the Transport Act 2000 that introduced the statutory minimum requirement for concessionary fares, and no doubt some of the same issues will be raised in the context of this Bill. I can see that several noble Lords are eager to join in this debate. I very much look forward to our consideration of these issues over the coming months, and I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his brief, concise and precise summary of the Bill and its provisions. I have no interest to declare in this Bill, having arrived at the age of discretion. Others who take part in the debate may be in a different situation. It is worth noting that the background to this Bill begins with yet another case before the courts. Concessionary fares were first provided by a number of local authorities, and their power to do so was challenged back in 1954. As a result, the introduction of the 1955 Act gave local authorities the power to grant concessionary schemes.
One of the reasons for the complexity of the provision of concessionary fares is that its origin was a local authority discretionary service. A series of Bills has been introduced since then. But it is perhaps no coincidence that this Bill arrives as a result of yet a different case before the European Court of Human Rights involving discrimination laws. In that case a man claimed, unusually, that he was being disadvantaged by the present situation. The fact that that court has admitted the case is the reason why this brief and easily understandable Bill is now before us.
That said, while the Bill itself is simple, the financing arrangements are not. There is a common thread. Transport operators should not be disadvantaged as a result of operating the scheme. That sounds quite simple. However, there are a number of problems in arriving at their actual costs. Those costs then fall with the local authorities concerned, which is where they arose. Local authorities have never found the revenue support grant to be an adequate and sufficiently precise means of distributing government revenues. Therefore, there may be a great deal to be said in the later stages of the Bill on that particular detailed front.
Behind the payment which local authorities make there are the annual negotiations of the costs to the operators. They are not straightforward. Although one is dealing with a 50 per cent concessionary fare, one asks, "50 per cent of what?" Every transport operator—bus companies or indeed railways, because on a local scale railways are involved, or London
938
Underground, and I shall turn to London in a moment—operates fare incentive schemes to try to persuade people to travel at times when the system is not under such great pressure. So one has annual negotiations at a local level with the transport operators and with local government, and, at a national level, with the Government. There is a great deal of opportunity for inaccuracy.
Unusually, too, as the Minister said, the Bill provides for something that is somewhat different. At present, concessionary fares are available to those drawing pensions or those who are disabled. That is straightforward. However, the Bill takes concessionary fares for the first time to a group of people who may be still at work. It is very easy—dare I say, facile—to describe the existing arrangements for calculating demand as rather erroneous, because if those people are at work they will be much greater users of the transport system than the people who at present are able to use it. To calculate the liability on the basis of existing practice, therefore, is potentially quite dangerous and would leave the local authorities with a shortfall of funds.
Perhaps one should think about that issue in a little detail. If concessionary fares are not available before 9 a.m. one might suppose that a good many people travelling to work would be excluded from a concessionary fares scheme. But those who have advised me tell me that that is probably not so. For a start, there are people in part-time work. That is a slightly reduced liability compared with that relating to those in a full-time occupation. However, there are people who work flexitime. If someone works flexitime he could probably travel using exclusively concessionary fares five days a week, week in and week out. Even if he could not use flexitime and get to work by travelling to work after 9 a.m. the matter is complicated because he could use a single fare for the outward journey and use the concessionary fare to return home. Therefore, there is a considerable problem with the calculation of funding.
One matter that we shall need to probe during the passage of the Bill is whether the arrangements for reviewing what actually happens are adequate so that if the Government's figure turns out to be greater than they are at present suggesting, there is some provision for recouping that sum.
I said that I would mention the situation in London. London is different because it has its own legislation on this. That requires not a 50 per cent but a 100 per cent concessionary fares scheme. Therefore, if the calculation is a miscalculation—I am first to admit that we need to prove that it is—the costs will be commensurately greater. The £50 million figure mentioned by the Minister suggests a London figure of about £15 million. The Association of London Government tells me that it thinks that the costs could rise as high as £28 million. That could ca use some difficulties.
There is yet another subject worth mentioning. I would welcome reassurance from the Minister on this matter. The judgment of the European Court of

939
Human Rights was that the arrangements made in this country to equalise the pension arrangements were not adequate. The original intention was that discretionary fares should be equalised between the sexes on the same basis as the pension arrangements are going to be equalised. If the European Court is admitting that at least there is a case to answer in relation to this particular point of concessionary fares, there must be a risk—I put the matter no higher than that—that someone might bring a case under the pensions arrangements. Is the Minister aware of any threat of any such action? If the noble and learned Lord is, that would concern me a great deal, as I am sure it would him.
My final point is that it is extremely tempting to go down a road which demands an hypothecated—if one wants to put it that way—specific grant from the Government precisely spread to local authorities on the basis of their actual expenditure; in effect, a national scheme. I return to the origins of this matter, which was local authority discretion. If we believe in local authorities and in local authority powers and independence, then I would regret a national scheme. I hope that the Government would regret one also. We must accept a certain amount of diversity in our community. Desirable though absolute equality might appear, communities should have a right to decide their own affairs. Therefore, although we need to make sure that what is done to aid this scheme and to help it forward is as precise as possible, I should regret any resulting suggestion that we should have a national scheme. I hope we shall not go down that path.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, at the start of the passage of the Bill, I declare an interest as a county councillor in Suffolk and also as vice chair of the Local Government Association transport executive.
I would like to thank the Minister for his introduction and welcome him to the House of Lords transport Mafia. After the marathon Bills to which the noble and learned Lord is accustomed, I expect that this one must feel like a stroll around the park. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble and learned Lord enjoys it.
Despite its modest size, it is an important Bill. It has the support of these Benches. Indeed, it would be extraordinary if it did not, given that we tabled amendments to the Transport Act last year aimed at doing exactly what is proposed—equalising the age of eligibility for concessionary fares. It seems like only yesterday—in fact it practically was only yesterday—and it is a pity that in a crowded legislative programme we have had to find time for this extra piece of work when we could have got it right just a few months ago. Local government is now faced with altering within a matter of weeks a scheme only recently introduced. I hope that perhaps a lesson can be learned. Certainly, when from these Benches we table amendments, they are intended not only to be constructive but are also based quite often on a great deal of experience. My
940
noble friend Lord Bradshaw who cannot be here today has a lifetime of experience in the transport industry and his input is very valuable. I should like to think that our amendments might not be treated so cavalierly in the future, but then I am an eternal optimist. One has to be to sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
As I said, we support equalising the ages for men and women in this regard and see no good reason why inequality should have been brought into new legislation when we have been slowly phasing it out. However, there are still some unresolved issues in the area of the new concessionary fares, and the Bill provides an opportunity to explore some of them. First, I wonder whether the Minister has had time to become aware of some of the significant structural problems facing the bus industry. Right across the country we are seeing large numbers of de-registrations of less commercially viable services, often in rural areas but not exclusively so. That puts pressure on local authorities to provide subsidies, either directly or through the Government's rural bus grant. The operating costs of buses are increasing way ahead of general inflation and in some areas chronic employee shortages are leading to significantly higher wage bills. Fuel bills are rising in the bus industry, as elsewhere, and so too are insurance premiums. There is a limit to the amount by which fares can be increased to counter those costs. We know very well that bus patronage quickly declines whenever fares are increased beyond inflation. I mention all those points because it does not matter how good the concessionary fares scheme is or who is eligible if there are no buses on which to use it.
Secondly, I should like to raise the issue of the cost of the concessionary fares scheme. The Explanatory Notes estimate that the Bill will add £50 million to the cost of the scheme provided in the Transport Act. Understandably, that is only an estimate and will be subject to variation according to take-up, fare levels and so on. At this stage we are not sure whether the costs incurred by local authorities through the 2000 Act will be fully met by the grant made. Early indications are that, even with the increased figure made available, the costs were underestimated. The significance is that the funding is to be made available through the standard spending assessment and revenue support grant. Therefore, any shortfall will be made up by local council tax payers or through reductions in other services. In response to a question I asked during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, agreed to keep the matter under review. I should like to ask the Minister—I shall understand if he cannot give me a detailed reply today but I would appreciate a response in writing—whether mechanisms are in place to review those costs.
A further area is worthy of discussion. The provisions of the Transport Act have given us a nation-wide set of schemes with a minimum standard. That is a welcome advance on the patchwork of schemes previously available but falls short of being a national scheme. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I should like to see a national scheme and I shall

941
explain why. Currently, the administrative areas are set on district council boundaries. But travel needs are not set in such a tidy way; and the kind of people covered are even more likely than the rest of us to require services such as hospitals, which often lie across county borders, never mind district ones. In some rural areas, and in parts of the patch I represent, the nearest bus stop may be in another district council area and therefore outside the scheme. I should like to think that we could move towards a genuinely national scheme, which would not only cross those borders but could be extended to other forms of travel, notably rail, and which would be cheaper to administer centrally. I know that it is an ambitious aim, but perhaps the Government are prepared to make a modest start by including in the guidance to local authorities the need to include essential services which lie across administrative boundaries.
In a similar vein, I should like to mention that some local authorities have always offered up to 100 per cent concessionary fares to blind and partially sighted people. There is a danger that in the future conformity with the 50 per cent concessionary fare could severely disadvantage that group. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can comment on that aspect.
Finally, I return to another matter which was the subject of one of our amendments during proceedings on the Transport Bill. I refer to the extension of the scheme to children and young people up to the age of 19 while they remain in full-time education. Our estimates are that this would cost approximately £50 million each year, a relatively modest sum for the potential benefits available. Young people deserve to have access to the services they need and the facilities they want. It is the other side to the coin advocated by the hard-liners. It is about understanding that the majority of teenagers are decent young people who simply want to be able to get out and about independently. It is the group that, sadly, is most vulnerable to road accidents, yet we positively encourage them into cars by ending cheap fares at such an early young age. On the same note, we should also consider whether it is wise to encourage car use among those who are forming the travel habits which will stay with them for life. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was at least sympathetic when I raised the matter last year. I hope that we might progress from sympathy to action this year.
The role of the bus in developing a more sustainable transport network is just beginning to be recognised. If it is to fulfil its potential in this regard, there are wider issues which must be taken more seriously by the Government. I look forward to the Minister's response.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, although my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has already referred to London, as a member of a London local authority—the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—I should like to concentrate on some of the issues in the Bill that will affect the capital's scheme.
942
There has been some talk about when the scheme started. I am sure the House will be aware that London has had a mandatory scheme of concessionary fares, paid for by individual London boroughs, since the passing of the London Regional Transport Act of 1984. The scheme, which was amended by the Greater London Authority Act, includes not only those of pensionable age but also anyone above the age of five who is blind or suffers from a disability or injury which seriously impairs his or her ability to walk. There is a secondary discretionary entitlement which my borough, among others, has adopted so that those with hearing difficulties or learning disabilities and the seriously mentally ill receive passes as well. The Transport Act 2000 extended those eligibility criteria.
As we have already heard, the London scheme is more generous than the statutory minimum 50 per cent discounted fares on local buses which the Transport Act 2000 introduced for the rest of the country as it offers free fares for all the eligible categories. The scheme is currently run on behalf of all 33 London boroughs by the Association of London Government, and the freedom pass entitles its holders to free travel on London Transport buses, the London Underground, the Docklands Light Railway, national rail services and the Croydon tram link. It consequently conforms with, but far exceeds, the statutory minimum requirements, introduced in the Transport Act 2000, of 50 per cent entitlement on just local buses. The current cost for London as a whole is some £150 million.
The provisions in the Bill before us today, which would give the concessionary fare entitlements to men of 60—many of whom, as my noble friend indicated, will be in work as they will not have reached the official age of retirement—will severely increase these costs. It is estimated that there are 141,000 men aged 60 to 64 living in Greater London. About 10 of those will already hold a disabled person's pass or other concessionary freedom pass, so the additional numbers in the scheme could be as many as 127,000. Demographic trends are likely to make those numbers increase. We have heard that —50 million has been set aside by the Government to cover the additional costs for the whole of England. However, as my noble friend said, it has been calculated that, because of the complexity of the compensation arrangements between the boroughs and Transport for London, an additional —28 million will be required annually by London alone.
As I have already said, the London mandatory scheme is for free fares on a variety of transport run by Transport for London, but the country-wide scheme is based on half fares on local buses. I ask the Minister today how he proposes under those circumstances that London should be compensated for the additional costs which will now arise. If that compensation is to be based on half fares on buses only, then either the boroughs are going to be faced with the possibility that the London scheme will have to be reduced to maintain affordability, or they are going to have to make decisions about other priority services in order to continue to support the freedom passes as now.

943
It is clear that London cannot introduce the option of giving men between the ages of 60 and 64 passes for half fares only since, at the very least, it would make the scheme cumbersome and could raise further issues about discrimination if women and the other groups currently receiving concessions were to continue to do so on the full fare basis. Indeed, the Minister probably acknowledged this point when he suggested that we might encounter some fun on the question of eligibility for men and women.
It is clear that this provision seeks to pave the way for the ultimate harmonisation of benefits for those of pensionable age. In order to do that, it envisages reducing the age of eligibility for men at a time when, as my noble friend has already indicated, they will still be at the height of their earning capacity and when their need to travel frequently in respect of that work is still a part of their lives. Their use of the concession will, in all probability, far exceed all other users.
Once the age has been harmonised at 60 years in respect of concessionary fares, it is intended that, in due course, both men and women will have that entitlement gradually raised—in tandem—to the age of 65; namely, from where the men are starting now. This is what I would call the "inside out umbrella" effect—what goes down must come up. One can only presume that external forces are at work here since the rationality of what is being proposed does not seem clear. However, whatever the reasons which have brought this about, I believe that the question of proper compensation for the London scheme has not been addressed adequately. I hope that, before the Committee stage, the Government will provide the answers to some of the problems that I have raised.
Finally, from London's point of view, the date of implementation of any changes is crucial. In order to keep costs to a minimum, the freedom pass is issued every two years. The next date when this will be done is 2002. If London is to meet that timetable, it will need to hold discussions with the transport operators and advertise the extensions to the scheme by December this year. If, as has been suggested, implementation is to take place in 2003, then other arrangements will have to be made. Either implementation in London will have to be delayed until 2004 or London will need to incur the extra costs of issuing passes in 2002 for one year only. This is another matter which it would be helpful if the Minister could take on board and respond to with an answer in due course.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I join with many organisations in the disability field in warmly welcoming this Bill, which will equalise the age at which men and women become eligible for concessionary bus travel. In particular, the Royal National Institute for the Blind believes that this will benefit many thousands of men in their early sixties who may be losing their sight but who have not yet been identified as being blind or partially sighted, or who are unwilling to define themselves as such.
944
I wish to concentrate on the points already raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Hanham. The RNIB is concerned that the legislation may lead inadvertently to a reduction in the travel concessions which are currently available to blind and partially sighted people and other disabled people of working age.
As a result of the Bill, an extra 1 million men will become entitled to half-price bus travel. The estimated cost to local authorities is £50 million, which will be reimbursed by the revenue support grant. What concerns the RNIB is whether this represents a realistic assessment of the level of subsidy which will be required. If the eligibility extension is not properly funded, it will jeopardise the more generous concessionary fare schemes for disabled and older people which are currently operated by some local authorities and which the Government have said that they wish to encourage. Local authorities will simply reduce their provision to the minimum required by law.
That is precisely what is happening in many authorities falling within CENTRO—the West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority. Before the Transport Act 2000, which established the national minimum half-price bus travel concession for disabled and older people, along with a £50 million subsidy, a number of these authorities provided blind people with free travel on public transport.
For example, visually impaired people in Birmingham have enjoyed free travel on public transport since 1913, but that is to end this August. Instead of a free off-peak travel pass, covering train, metro and all bus travel, or a pass costing £18.70 for free travel at all hours, they will be entitled to half-price bus travel only. If they want to continue to have the freedom to travel on the bus, rail and metro, they will have to buy extra tickets costing £232 per year for off-peak and £265 a year for 24-hour travel.
Not surprisingly, blind, deafblind and partially sighted people living in Birmingham have been extremely distressed by this move. Four out of five are unemployed and have a range of visual impairment-related costs which disability living allowance does not begin to meet. If they cannot afford to get out and about, this will have a damaging impact on their health, independence and well-being. Other disabled people, who currently pay £13 every four weeks for unlimited travel, will also be hit by a £146 a year increase. In total, around 6,000 blind and disabled travel pass holders will be affected.
Birmingham City Council argues that it has had to pare down its provision for disabled people to the minimum because the costs of funding the subsidised travel passes have increased dramatically as bus operators have more than doubled their charges. It should be remembered that local authorities must reimburse bus companies for revenue forgone so that they are neither any worse nor any better off as a result of participating in concessionary fare schemes.
What is the reaction of my noble friend on the Front Bench to the situation in Birmingham and its potential impact on the mobility and quality of life of disabled

945
people in that area? Can he say whether any further subsidies will be provided to protect the position of blind and other disabled people currently benefiting from more generous travel concessions in this and other areas? Furthermore, can he give the House an assurance that sufficient subsidy will be provided so that the extension of eligibility proposed in the Bill will be funded in such a way so as not to lead to cuts in the existing provision?
3.58 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should declare an interest in the provisions of this Bill. Although currently I am not old enough to benefit from the provision of the proposed age-related travel concessions, by the time the Bill has been enacted, I will be. I was going to speak about the blind, but the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has already done so for the House. She has spoken far more eloquently than I would have done, so I shall shorten what I have to say, which I hope will be of benefit to the House as a whole.
I hope that the Bill will encourage more people to use public transport. But where is that to take place? It will be of very little benefit to those who live in rural areas. That is because of the paucity of public transport provision, in its volume, the range of its routes and the hours of operating. Furthermore, I wonder whether the change from having most shops situated in the centres of towns, where people used to shop, to large supermarkets and hypermarkets on the edge of our towns, very often served by little public transport, does not mean to say that many people must use a car out of necessity in order to do their shopping. If elderly people live, as I do, a mile and a half from the nearest available public transport, it is hard to imagine them—even with a travel concession—walking home on a dark evening, in foul weather, carrying all their shopping. They will not use it.
There will be a number of people, mainly men—all men, in fact—over the age of 60 and below the age of 65 who will be working and eligible for the concession. I wonder whether the tax authorities will consider this to be a benefit in kind and that such men will have to pay tax on it. Can the Minister assure the House that that will not be the case until such time as the pension age is equalised and men and women retire at the same time? The noble and learned Lord may feel that he cannot tie the hands of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we should be given some assurance on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, suggested that the scheme should be extended to young people to keep them away from private cars. But the noble Baroness lives in the country and she knows that young people need to get home after they have been out and that public transport does not run. So it will not work there. However, the suggestion is well worth looking at in greater detail because if we can get people into the culture of using public transport it will benefit the nation in the future.
Today, we all drive around in our own cars because it is so much more convenient. I know that I live way out in the country, but it is quicker to get to the House
946
by private car than it is by using public transport. It also means that I can leave the House when I am ready and not when the train wants me to board it, and I can remain in the House for a Division or to hear the contribution of a particular Member of the House.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith suggested that we should have local schemes and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, suggested that we should have a national scheme. I am sorry that my noble friend does not agree with me, but I believe that the noble Baroness is right, for the simple reason that many people making journeys of any considerable distance cross many local authority boundaries and county boundaries and move from one kind of transport to another.
The system seems to have become very complicated. It would be better if we were in a position where we could buy one ticket to take us straight from A to Z, rather than having to buy a ticket from A to B, B to C, C to D and so on, at possibly different concessionary rates all the way through. We should keep the system as simple as possible. The more complicated we make it, the more likely people are to use private vehicles rather than public transport.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for giving me the opportunity to take part in the debate. I have been working abroad and my name was not on the list of speakers.
I welcome the Bill to equalise the age and eligibility for travel concessions. I have long campaigned for equality, especially on the ground of age but also on the ground of gender, which is what this particular inequality relates to primarily.
But there is still much work to do, for example, for British pensioners who retire overseas to be with family or friends and then find their pensions dwindling away; or for an older person who wants to take advantage of lifelong learning but cannot do so because he or she happens to be over 50. There are many such examples.
It is a shame that the Government have managed to bring the Bill forward only when forced to do so by court action. I have a lot of personal experience of the time and the money that has been wasted by the noble and learned Lord's predecessors and, more importantly, by their departments, which have obstructed this issue over the past decade. The legal costs alone have been enormous.
This points to the failure of governments, across all departments, to take action and to change a policy at the right time—that is, when it is the right thing to do—rather than when they are forced to do so. That is a shame because the credit has to be given to the quite small organisations which have raised the matter—in this case PARITY—outside Whitehall.
In the last Session, during the passage of the Transport Act 2000, we tried to persuade the Minister's predecessor that the Government should take action on this matter. It is a little frustrating that we were ignored then only to be proved right now.

947
The Bill has an enormous drawback for older women. In Clause 1(4), reference is made to the Pensions Act 1995, which will equalise the state pension age at 65 between 2010 and 2020. I am not opposed to this. I believe that much more flexibility has to be introduced because of the rise in longevity. Artificially-set state retirement ages are too rigid for the new society that we are entering. People may want to work longer—60 is not old—and one may have more adult life after the age of 60 than before. That is not unreasonable to suppose and I hope that more people will have a working life beyond the age of 60.
But I am concerned that the Bill is being presented as something more than it really is. It benefits men aged 60 to 64 only for seven or eight years, until 2010. The press release on 28th June makes no mention of this rather crucial fact, other than in the notes to editors at the end. That is a shame. The press release states that,
"current law means that reduced travel fares would not be equalised until 2010 at the earliest".
In fact, it will be 2020 before they are equalised at 65. The press release goes on to say that,
"The new bill is fairer ensuring that at least one million more men will enjoy reduced travel fares".
That is very welcome to the people who will benefit, but it does not say that between 2010 and 2020 all women who turn 60 to 64 will lose this benefit, and that men will have to wait until they are 65, as now.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a straight question. He may prefer to write to me as this is also the responsibility of many other Ministers. Do the provisions of the Pensions Act 1995 mean that the current eligible age of 60 for benefits such as free entry to museums, free prescriptions, free eye tests, the winter fuel repayment and a reduced TV licence fee in sheltered housing will also rise to 65 between 2010 and 2020? Crucially, also, is the same true of the minimum income guarantee, which now applies from age 60?
If the eligible age increases to 65, I am sure that there will be an uproar from older people. If it remains at 60 for these benefits and concessions, one has to ask why the travel concession is treated differently. If it rises to 65, the Government must give a clear statement of why. The demographic revolution and the unprecedented increase in longevity must inevitably lead to changes in public policy. These changes must be made clear, otherwise it will be a case of over-selling in the same way as the story about the travel concession was oversold.
As has been said, the travel concession applies only to local bus journeys. It is very welcome, but many older people want the concession to apply more extensively—for crossing boundaries and so on—and that is why we tried to amend the Transport Act last year.
I refer finally to a fundamental issue affecting women who will be aged 60 or under in 2010. I earnestly hope that the Government have learnt the lessons of the inherited SERPS disaster or scandal. I know that not enough women are aware that state
948
retirement age for them will increase from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020. If in addition they are to lose the benefits that I have mentioned, I hope that the relevant departments—mainly the Department for Work and Pensions, but also the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—will be honest enough to say so well in advance.
No one can hide from the implications of policy decisions. By the same token, the Government need to be absolutely clear in introducing these policies. Since 1997 the situation regarding travel concessions has not been clear; older people have become angry on finding out what is really the case. It is one of the reasons why people become disillusioned with politics altogether.
Despite my concerns about the process of delivering policy change, I strongly welcome the Bill to equalise travel concessions and congratulate the Minister on introducing it in this House. Discrimination on grounds of age or sex or any other basis is, after all, unacceptable.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Scott said, we on these Benches welcome the Bill—although I echo the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross: it is a great pity that it took an application to the European Court to concentrate the Government's mind. I declare an interest as vice-president of PARITY, the organisation that supported the individual who made the application. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the doggedness of that organisation. As with so many voluntary bodies, it comes down the work of a tiny handful of people. I also pay tribute to the gentleman concerned. It takes a lot of bottle to go through such an application if you are not used to legal procedures—indeed, even if you are. I declare a further small and indirect interest as a member of the Greater London Assembly. I shall not set out the reasons why that might be an interest; it just might.
Because the Bill is so welcome, I ask the Minister immediately whether he can tell the House when he expects its provisions to commence in England. I appreciate that there will be a different arrangement in Wales. Not unnaturally, the campaigners hope that, as they put it, justice will not be delayed and that the Bill's provisions can come into effect within the next two or three months. Those of us who are familiar with parliamentary procedures realise that it will take at least until November or December for the Bill to complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament. However, it would be helpful to hear the Minister's response.
What consultation have the Government had with local authorities—in particular with the local authority associations? In the light of comments by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will the Minister meet the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government to discuss the difficulties if that is their wish? I suggest that such a discussion should take place before the Bill has completed its stages in

949
this House. It is a good deal easier in the calm atmosphere of this place to deal with alterations, either on the face of the Bill or in terms of any underlying scheme or regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that the cost could be £50 million and that we may have to disprove that figure. I take issue with him on the responsibility to disprove it. It must be kept under review and scrutinised by all involved. While referring to figures—merely so that Hansard gets it right—I should perhaps mention that the briefing I have received from the Association of London Government suggests that it is not "10 men" in London, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, who hold a disabled person's freedom pass; it is 10 per cent of men. There was some slight confusion. I am not trying to trip up the noble Baroness; I merely want to put the figure into context.
My noble friend Lady Scott talked about the problems with the current scheme. In London we have rather more provision than the Minister suggested; namely, we have a statutory provision for concessions to travel to places in the vicinity of greater London. During our debates on the previous Bill it was recognised that a journey does not stop naturally at the boundary of greater London. If statutory amendment is required for travel outside greater London, let us take the opportunity in this Bill to deal with such an alteration.
The London scheme, as has been said, extends to more than buses; there is a huge variety of modes of travel in London, which is a complex city. However, it is not the only place where buses are not the only method of travel. The other city that I know moderately well is Manchester, where the light-rail Metrolink is a very useful mode of transport. Encouraging the use of public transport by making changes between modes of transport easy is a point that we must always bear in mind.
Returning to the question of cost, we must be careful that the concessions do not lead either to a reduction in service or to a reduction in other local authority services as a result of local authorities carrying the cost. As my noble friend said, we need buses to be there for the scheme to work. As a member of the Greater London Assembly, perhaps I may briefly "plug" some recently published work highlighting the need for investment in the bus fleet. It points out the need to modernise bus stops, so that they have telephones attached 10 them, and so that they provide public information about when the bus is coming that is accurate and easily understood. They might even—if one dare mention such a thing—have toilets attached to them: if passengers have to wait, let it be made comfortable for them. We must also ensure that bus drivers, who are a part of making the city work, are retained in their jobs. That is a question of money too. It seems that a large number of bus drivers, having learnt their skills at the cost of the bus operators, then go off and drive white vans—which may be why they use bus lanes so often to park!
950
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred to an effect like an "inside-out umbrella". As the public begin to realise the implications in this and other areas as we move towards equalisation of the retirement age, this legislation will be a small piece in a very complicated jigsaw. However, I strongly agree with the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, about the context of the Bill. Its provisions are relatively limited but they are extremely important in setting us off on a road of equality which is at least as important as making sure that people move to public transport.
4.19 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, this is, indeed, a simple Bill: it is all about sex equality. I shall not detain the House for very long because other noble Lords have made excellent speeches, and I certainly cannot match their expertise. Before putting down my name to speak on any Bill or in any debate, I consider whether or not I have an interest to declare. On this occasion, it occurred to me that I shall be in a position to benefit from this Bill in about 15 years' time. That observation will obviously annoy many noble Lords: but it terrifies me when I think about my rapidly advancing years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, apparently made the substantive point of my noble friend Lord Swinfen for him; and he, in turn, made mine. My noble friend Lady Hanham spoke about the London perspective, while other noble Lords raised the issue of cost uncertainty. We know that a million men may benefit, and that they could be economically active. The Minister said that their inclusion could cost £50 million, but he did not sound certain in that respect. He does, however, always sound confident.
In conclusion, we generally welcome this Bill, while sympathising with the Minister's position vis-à-vis the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and her amendment to the Transport Act 2000. It must be very galling to introduce a Bill which will have the same effect as the noble Baroness's amendment; and, indeed, for the same reasons. We look forward to debating some interesting amendments to the Bill at a later stage.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. A few days ago I introduced the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. On that occasion, the Liberals referred to me as joining the group of housing "nerds" in the House, whereas today they welcome me as having joined the "Transport mafia". So there is much to be said for this particular job.
Perhaps I may run through what I believe to be the important points in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and, to a lesser extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, raised the question of cost. The underlying questions were: how will this cost be calculated; what about the particular position of London; and will other services suffer? As regards the costs, local authorities will have to reimburse the bus operators for

951
any additional costs incurred. In turn, local authorities are entitled to be reimbursed by central government for the additional cost of complying with this change in the law. That reimbursement will come from the revenue support grant, which is reviewed each year when the standard spending assessment is considered and the settlement agreed. My department keeps a watching brief on the costs involved, but local authorities must bid for funds as part of the normal settlement process.
We have already consulted local government associations. I am very aware that the ALG has particular concerns in this respect, and that its estimate of the costs differs from that of the department. A meeting is to take place this week to discuss the issue. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, another deeper issue is involved; namely, whether 100 per cent or 50 per cent will be reimbursed. In the circumstances, I believe that the less I say about that the better at this stage. I believe that such a conversation should take place between the ALG and officials. We can then see what progress can be made in that respect. I understand the importance of the costs issue; it is one that must be addressed. However, that should not detract from the fact that, in principle, the Bill before the House is a good one.
Save for the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I detected from what most speakers said that the Bill is broadly welcomed. The noble Lord speaks on behalf of the Conservatives, but it was impossible to tell from his remarks whether or not they welcome the Bill.
As regards the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord tempts me to rise to my feet. When the Government are operating under force majeure, it is rather difficult to make up one's mind whether one should welcome the Bill or sympathise with them in their predicament. I thought it better, therefore, to hold my peace.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that rather confirms what I said; indeed, we still do not know where the Conservatives stand in relation to the Bill. We shall no doubt find out during the course of the Bill's passage through the House.
If I may say so, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, displayed commendable self-restraint. At no stage in today's debate did she say, "But I introduced a similar amendment under a previous Bill", whereas the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned the fact that the provision was previously proposed.
I turn to the important issue of travel outside a local authority's area. The example that the noble Baroness gave of hospitals being located outside local authorities' boundaries is a good one. As the noble Baroness knows—indeed, she specifically pointed this out—under their discretionary powers local authorities can make arrangements with neighbouring
952
authorities and offer concessionary travel beyond their own boundaries if they so wish. This concession has already been made available in certain areas.
We believe that local discretion is important in relation to the issue of cross-boundary schemes, and where local authorities acting singly or jointly are best placed to meet the needs of their elderly and disabled citizens. The noble Baroness made the specific suggestion that we should give some thought to updating the guidance to deal with the situation, which I shall certainly consider.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, raised the question of free fares for the blind, and specifically drew my attention to the position in relation to Birmingham. The Transport Act 2000 guarantees half fares for the elderly and disabled on local bus services. As the noble Baroness acknowledged, that is an improvement on the previous, rather piecemeal, situation. It is important to remember that it is the minimum and that local authorities are free, if they so wish, to offer greater concessions to other categories of people; for example, blind people.
In practice, the extra cost of complying with the legislation will be met out of the revenue support grant. Therefore, this Bill should not endanger any existing concessions. As for the contention that this provision will bring into the costing equation a cohort of men who work, I can tell noble Lords that that is right in the sense that the retirement age for men is 65 and this provision will apply to men between 60 and 64 years of age. Although the retirement age for women is 60, it is true to say that many women over that age continue to work. Therefore, it is wrong to say that a person has to be retired at present in order to gain the benefit under the Bill. The "pensionable age" is simply the starting-point for gaining the benefit available under the Bill.
The points made about how many men in the cohort of a million would be likely to take advantage of the benefit are also important. It seems to me that that leads us to the conclusion that we need to be most careful in working out the best way to monitor the use of the benefit so as to ensure that local authorities and bus companies are properly reimbursed.
A number of other points were raised, with which it would not be appropriate for me to deal at this stage. It is obvious to me that the Bill has broad support. I hope, therefore, that we can work through it as quickly as possible. However, I should perhaps deal with the timing of this provision's introduction. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Scott, specifically asked when this benefit would be introduced. We trust that it will be introduced as soon as possible. We shall, of course, take into account the kind of points that have been raised during the course of today's debate. We very much hope that it will be introduced no later than April 2003. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Citizenship
4.28 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will implement the recommendations of the Carnegie Trust report Taking the Initiative: promoting young people's involvement in public decision making in the UK to encourage more active citizenship.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very happy that young people's participation in public life is being debated by a group of people who are so knowledgeable about, and sensitive to, the issues. The noble Lord, Lord Alton—who I see has just arrived in the Chamber—has even compiled a book about it; and a very good read it is, too. I should like to thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their enthusiasm for the topic; many of whom have expressed interest, even though they are unable to be here to speak this evening.
I should like to welcome my noble friend Lord Rooker to what I believe is his first response to an Unstarred Question. From his earlier contributions in your Lordships' House, I know that we can look forward to a well informed and spirited reply.
The report under discussion, from the Carnegie Young People's Initiative, is timely and exciting. It points out that devolution in the UK has,
"unleashed a new focus on youth issues and new structures for involving young people, from youth forums and parliaments to Children's Commissioners".
Two challenges are pointed out: first, that of reaching a larger and more diverse set of young people and sustaining their commitment; and, secondly, the need,
"to move beyond tokenism and ensure that young people have a genuine influence over decision making".
Action is called for which makes the participation a right, lowers the voting age to 16 and allows people to stand as councillors and MPs at 18—of course, this is very controversial. A system of independent children's commissioners across the UK is advocated, as is action across schools, local authorities, central government, the health sector and the voluntary sector. The report calls on central government departments to produce a policy and action plan for young people based on common minimum standards and co-ordinated by the Children and Young People's Unit.
It is significant that other recent reports from the Gulbenkian Foundation, the Social Exclusion Unit and the Trust for the Study of Adolescence—I declare an interest as a trustee—all agree that including children and young people in decision-making in their communities contributes to active citizenship.
We do not have time today adequately to cover this vast and important agenda, so I shall make mainly general points. I know that other noble Lords will want to be more specific. Perhaps we should first look at what we mean by participation. UNICEF developed a model relating to young people's participation in health structures. Participation was
954
rated on a four-point scale from young people being consulted and informed to, ultimately, youth-initiated decision sharing with adults—a challenging vision.
Where do we begin to encourage participation in decision-making in society? As in most things, with parents and families. We must not forget to involve them in structures for participation. Very young children can learn about simple decision-making as a step to more complex forms as they mature. I remember when my children were small and I said, "We are having eggs for breakfast, how would you like them cooked—fried, boiled or scrambled?" Of course, to complicate things, they all decided to have them done in different ways. I tell this story not to reflect upon myself as a parent but to illustrate that it can be difficult and complicated to involve young people. How much easier it is to make the decisions ourselves.
We, as adults, often choose not to involve young people as a basis for action. Maybe we think they are not capable of decision-making and participation in public life. Maybe we think they will be too challenging. Maybe we fear the risk and the time involved. Maybe we feel that children need to be protected for as long as possible from the nasty adult world. Of course, they sometimes do need protection. I actually believe that they need to learn how to protect themselves and to be confident in influencing the world rather than be manipulated by it. The Carnegie report claims that society underestimates this ability with a,
"deep reluctance to share power".
Young people are often considered to be "citizens in waiting". They know this and resent it and either challenge it or switch off from the way in which they are being treated. The educationalist, Piaget, said as long ago as 1932:
"Young people need to find themselves in the presence not of a system of commands requiring ritualistic and external obedience, but a system of social relationships such that everyone does his best to obey the same obligations and does so out of mutual respect".
We cannot just advocate or teach about democracy, social justice and mutual respect, we have to demonstrate them across institutions and systems.
I applaud the fact that citizenship education has guidelines in the national curriculum, but, like personal, social and health education, it is not compulsory. All these areas should, of course, be coordinated across the curriculum and across school life generally, as well as having specific slots in the curriculum. The guidelines recommend that children should learn about political and social institutions and about their rights and duties as members of communities. They should learn,
"to respect our common humanity, diversity and differences so that they can go on to form the effective, fulfilling relationships that are part of life and learning".
It is all applaudable stuff with desirable messages. But without real participation and real involvement by young people in their communities, schools cannot be expected to glue together the scraps. Many schools, including primary schools, have school councils. In the primary school where I am a governor, that works

955
well. But what also works well in that school is children's participation in the life of the school as a whole. That is respected and encouraged. There is a deliberate philosophy of fostering children's self-esteem. It is no accident that that inner-city primary school, with all the problems that that entails, was rated last year one of the best schools in the country by Ofsted.
We have youth parliaments and youth networks. Some young people are actively involved in volunteer work for charities, in sport and in local communities, although volunteering by young people has sadly declined sharply over the past 10 years. As we know, there are also young people who are disaffected by our institutions. We need to ask why that is and to take action. What can government do? I believe that we pay a price for non-participation. It is not just about voting at elections; low turn-outs are only partly to do with young people and more to do with politicians and the media. The matter is more serious than that. Alienating our young people from systems in society may result in truancy or bad behaviour in school, hooliganism at sports events, and violence in communities, such as we have recently witnessed in northern England.
I do not believe that the negative outcomes of exclusion will be resolved by imposing more and harsher rules and penalties; nor do I think that the avoidance of negative outcomes should be the sole reason for involving young people in decision-making processes. Avoiding negative outcomes is a byproduct. The real issue is that by giving young people a voice and listening to it, we stand a better chance of getting things right in the structures of society, and that affects all of us. By encouraging young people to be involved in the present and the future, we tell them that they are valued members of society, and valued members of society are more likely to contribute positively to the well-being of that society. Can we be reassured that the Government will take note of the report?
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for introducing the Unstarred Question and for writing to me to draw my attention to the report which I read with great interest. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to his position on the Front Bench. I also welcome the fact that he will reply to the debate this afternoon.
In the time available it is not possible to do justice to the many issues raised in the report. I was particularly interested in its introduction which identified a real problem. Whatever any of us may think of the outcome of the recent general election, I think we all agree that the low turn-out is bad for democracy. The report refers to a wide age span of young people, from 10 to 25, and asks how they can be further involved in various decision-making processes.
During a debate on the constitution earlier this year, I said that it was a sad fact of life today that politics is a complete turn-off for young people. I do not simply
956
refer to disadvantaged young people. Much to my surprise I discover that it is a turn-off for university students. When I consider how much time young people spent in my day setting the world to rights, I find it extraordinary that politics does not interest young people today. During the election campaign I was surprised to hear a young girl say that she had decided not to vote. I asked her if she was aware that women had died for a woman's right to vote. She was unaware of that fact and disinterested in it. Those are sad facts, some of which the report addresses. There is not time this evening to discuss why the situation is as it is. However, I say in passing that a number of people have suggested to me that there should be compulsory voting. That is not something to which I subscribe, but I am surprised at the number of people who now think that that is the answer.
The intention underlying the report is to engage young people in local, voluntary, social and political issues, to increase the vote turn-out at elections and to recognise children's creativity, innovation, energy and enthusiasm at a time in their lives when learning is easiest. They can discover the fulfilment of participation and of making a difference to the projects in which they engage. The report recognises that today's children are tomorrow's voters. Those are important points.
We run into more difficulties on addressing the problems. I have been involved with many schools which have school councils. In my experience they are very successful. They involve the pupils in a number of decisions so that they learn about democracy and responsibility. However, I believe that the imposition of student councils in schools with imposed regulatory standards on frequency of meetings, elections and so on would prove unworkable. The suggestion would be unpopular with teachers who are already complaining, not surprisingly, of too much regulation and bureaucracy. It is something to be encouraged but not imposed.
I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, refer to parents. I can find only one mention of parents in the report. The report states on page 10 at line 4:
"Schools and local government are the two organisations which have the most direct influence on most young people's lives and they need to be the priorities for involvement on a daily basis"
Is that statement true? Surely parents and the family are most influential in most young people's lives. It seems unfortunate that the report makes only one mention of parents.
That leads me to a concern which I have already expressed. There is today a theory about what is known as the "autonomous child"; that families are likely to fail children and that the solution is to free children from their families and endow them with adult rights—freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right of association, the right to privacy and so on. Those rights would be safeguarded largely, if not primarily, by the state. The implication in the report is that those rights would be safeguarded by children's commissioners. The report proposes a

957
situation whereby parents are excluded and the rights of children are supported not by the parents—they should surely be the first port of call—but by the state.
During debate on the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill which completed its passage just before the general election, I argued for the inclusion of parents for consultation purposes in the powers of the commissioner. I had support from noble Lords from all parts of the House. The Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales made the same point. It stated:
"We consider that the prime justification for the establishment of a Children's Commissioner is the absence of mechanism to allow children and young people directly to influence decisions which impact on their lives. Their voices are frequently not heard because they do not have the vote and are all dependent, to varying degrees on adults around them".
This is a new philosophy about which we should be cautious.
In conclusion, it is always important to talk to and communicate with young people. There is much to be said for lessons in citizenship and for school councils. I am impressed today by the numbers of young people I meet who take part in voluntary activities of one kind or another. Leaving aside the Duke of Edinburgh's award schemes, there is not a school I have visited which does not have a large proportion of its young people undertaking work in the community. That is the best way to learn. It is something we should encourage.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, on initiating the debate. It follows the debate on 24th January introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, whose responsibilities include citizenship and immigration. Citizenship is at the heart of this debate, although some find that an unwieldy word.
I declare my interest in the subject as president of the Citizenship Foundation, a body which I established in 1988. Like other charities of that ilk, its work relates closely to suggestions in the report. For example, we run a mock parliament competition and mock trial competitions for schools in Crown courts and magistrates' courts. We produce an annual young citizens passport which last year went into the pockets of 80,000 young citizens.
I congratulate the Carnegie Trust on undertaking the work which underlies the report. It is a valuable stimulus for all of us. Unless we can today engage young people in the affairs which concern us day by day all is lost. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the stupefying turnout of 59 per cent at the last election.
In the short time available I shall suggest two or three matters for consideration by the Government in implementing their programme. I congratulate David Blunkett. As Secretary of State for Education he brought citizenship into the curriculum. I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, understands that it will be a compulsory part of every secondary
958
school curriculum from the autumn of next year. That will put us in the forefront of the world in citizenship education. I realise that there are some misgivings about that. However, it is a non-prescriptive programme of citizenship education setting goals rather than telling people what to do and how to do it. I believe that it will be crucially important in achieving what we all want.
I refer briefly to the Crick report published in September 1998. I urge Members of this House who have not read the report to do so. It presents perhaps the best survey yet produced of all issues on citizenship and citizenship education. In saying that, I mean no disparagement of the more practical report we are considering today.
After autumn next year we must allow the citizenship proposals to bed down. Many schools are trying frantically to enable the start of citizenship education to be a success. The initiative must be given time to show its paces and to allow already overburdened teachers to get to grips with a new subject and new proposals. Until that is done, many of the report's proposals should be dealt with delicately, if not left on the back burner.
The report has two main proposals: to enable young people to exert "tangible influence" and to enable them to effect real change, giving genuine effectiveness to individuals in our society. Nearly everything that the report says about young people is equally true for adults. It is shocking to realise that every statement about powerlessness, insignificance and disconnectedness is as true for most adults as it is for most young people. Unless we get to grips with that wider problem, there is no real hope of making a major change in the condition of our young people. Where do they learn their interest in politics and public affairs? If they do not start by learning it in the home, the chances of them learning it elsewhere are very much diminished.
I fear that the report envisages a massive amount of new legislation. One has only to look at page 84, on the right to be involved, which says:
"There should be legislation throughout the UK to enforce the right to participate as set out in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child".
It goes on:
"There should be a system of independent children's commissioners throughout the UK… Their remit should be based on the UNCRC. They should have extensive enforcement powers".
I understand why the authors of the report have gone down that route, but I believe that legislation has already reached saturation point. I urge the Government to proceed with great care when considering legislation on any compulsory commitment for any of the proposals. The report makes that case, saying:
"There are inspiring examples of policies and mechanisms to increase participation".
The authors also acknowledge:
"In the UK there is an abundance of legislation and we are hesitant about suggesting more".

959
Hesitant they should remain. A huge amount can be done without recourse to legislation. We must go down that route. Most of the proposals in the report are not justiciable without making a lawyers' picnic of yet another aspect of our national affairs. I want to avoid that.
Once again, I congratulate the Carnegie Trust. I hope that it will galvanise many more in this House and beyond to the realisation that unless we can make politics and public affairs of real concern to young people so that they have a sense of ownership of it and care for it, the job will be ill done.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I declare an interest as director of the Foundation for Citizenship at Liverpool John Moores University. Like others who have spoken already, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for introducing this topic and putting this important report before your Lordships' House. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to the Front Bench to reply to the debate. Ironically, he had the misfortune to have to reply to my maiden speech in another place in 1979 when I was the youngest Member of Parliament. Reading the report, which places great emphasis on attracting young people into politics, reminded me how much water has flowed under the bridge since that debate in 1979.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I shall reflect for a moment on the omissions from the report, one of which is the failure to emphasise sufficiently the role of the family in the plight of young people. Some 800,000 young people no longer have any contact with their father. Many of them live in difficult circumstances on large overspill estates with limited social structures available to them. I prefer to talk of the extended family rather than concepts such as the nuclear family, because it implies the messiness of family life and accepts the importance of grandparents and the network of uncles and aunts, as well as recognising that families are not the perfect affairs that people sometimes make them out to be. We make a huge error by not saying more about the importance of solid family structures in the background of our young people and of society generally. They are the basic building blocks of society and the community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also referred to participation at the election. The report rightly puts great emphasis on participation. The 19th century French politician, de Tocqueville, remarked that an impressive practical wisdom and power of judgment may be developed simply from participating in the affairs of a free society. There is no substitute for experience learnt at the coal face of democracy. Academic theories have their place, but better than all the theories and teaching combined are the practical actions that we take as citizens. It is crucially important just to take part.
We should reflect on the 12 per cent fall in turnout at the general election and consider that more than one in three of our fellow citizens did not take part. In the
960
Liverpool, Riverside constituency in the heart of the city, which I know well, just one in three voted in the election. Paradoxically, it was in the Westminster ward of that constituency in one local election that turnout went down to 6 per cent. It behoves us all to start taking seriously the reasons for such disinterest in and alienation from our civic processes. In the light of recent events in some of our northern towns and cities, including in Bradford over the past 48 hours, it is clear that some people are completely alienated from the rest of us. We must consider the causes and reasons behind that as a matter of urgency and encourage our young people to see their role in society.
The phrase "the common good" springs to my mind. As Aristotle said, we are not solitary pieces in a game of chequers. We must all play our part. The antidote to the individualism and atomisation of society during the 1980s and 1990s must surely be a proper emphasis on citizenship, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said. We must once again emphasise citizenship and the rebuilding of community life.
T.H. Green, the great 19th century idealist, moral philosopher and exponent of ethical liberalism, held that virtue was best understood as a personal outpouring for the common good. He said:
"And if the idea of the community of good for all men has even now little influence, the reason is that we identify too little with good character and too much with good things".
The materialism of the past 20 years and the exaggerated emphasis on consumerism and the ownership of objects has alienated many of our young people. We have to recapture their sense of idealism and draw them back into the political and community life of our country.
What is the best way to do that? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I am instinctively opposed to compulsion on this. There is a danger of prescribing yet more legal remedies and more laws to try to tackle some of the symptoms that many of your Lordships are all too well aware of. Children's commissioners, an exaggerated emphasis on rights and insufficient emphasis on duties, obligations and responsibilities and the idea of more and more law will get us nowhere. Only in this country could community service be turned into a punishment to be dispensed by the courts. Only a week ago, the front page of the Sunday Times reported:
"Government advisers are translating the prime minister's wish for the rehabilitation of the term 'do-gooder' into proposals that would ensure nobody leaves school or college without having some record of completed voluntary work".
The report went on:
"Schools will be told to draw up plans for their pupils, aged 11 to 16, to carry out compulsory community service".
That is not the way forward. We shall bring far more out of young people by encouraging them into voluntary endeavour. The foundation at John Moores University has promoted a citizenship awards scheme, which is documented in the Liverpool Echo. Some 600 primary and secondary schools are participating voluntarily. Local companies present the awards and young people are recognised for their achievements. In one case, for example, at the Holly Lodge girls' school,

961
a teacher told me that at first she was not sure who should be given the awards, so she asked the students. She said that she was amazed at the number of nominations that came forward—more than 600 from one school. She said that, as a result, she learnt more about the youngsters than she could possibly have discovered through any other means.
I believe that that is the way forward—encouraging what is already there. The report states rightly that there is also a "high level of volunteering" among young people. It is there; let us encourage and nurse it. Instead of compulsion and more laws, let us draw out the good that is there and encourage altruism. That must be the best way forward.
I conclude by referring to the personal manifesto of Frances Lawrence, published in The Times in 1995. Noble Lords will recall that she wrote movingly at that time, following the death of her husband, Philip, outside his school gates in London. Among other things, she called for the establishment of a nationwide movement to banish violence and encourage civil values; a ban on the sale of combat knives and the closure of shops that stock them; and for primary school lessons to be given in good citizenship. Those aims were to be encouraged rather than made compulsory.
She also called for the raising of the status of the police and teachers, and for the end of government neutrality in relation to the family. She called for parents to no longer allow children to lead separate lives within the home, and for there to be an emphasis on teaching the three "E"s—effort, earnestness and excellence. I believe that we can do no better than to return to the principles that Frances Lawrence enunciated at that time. In doing so, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for giving us the opportunity to take part in the debate today.
5.1 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Massey for bringing this report to the attention of the House. I also add my welcome to my noble friend Lord Rooker.
It seems ironic that a society that hopes to see its young people grow up to take responsibility for the communities in which they live and to be responsible citizens should deny those same young people real rights as citizens. It is very modern to say that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. With that, I agree totally. If one takes away my rights and I have no sense of responsibility, why should I care about my society? I would have no stake in it.
We all know to our cost that people who have no say politically find other ways to express their dissatisfaction. The levellers, the Chartists and the suffragettes are all good examples of people who have taken the law into their own hands. When people feel disenfranchised and dissatisfied, they find a way to make their views known. With the freedom fighters in Brixton during the 1980s and, more recently, in Oldham, we have seen what happens when people, and especially younger people, feel that they have no stake
962
in their society. I say that it is better not to exclude but rather to bring in and include everyone, especially the young.
The giving of political rights to young people is nothing to fear. As a society, we tend not to listen to young people. We spend the first five years of a child's life teaching him to talk, and the next 10 to 15 years telling him to shut up. We often do not listen to young people and then we complain that they never listen to us.
I grew up in a strict but loving family. The adage, "Children must be seen and not heard", was true of my upbringing, as it was, I suspect, of that of many of your Lordships. But my family taught me a sense of civic responsibility and public service. I suspect that that may not be the case for many young people today. I value the lessons of civic responsibility that I was taught as a child. I should like to see children enjoying the same privileges today.
That is why the subject of school exclusions is one of my main hobby horses. I cannot for the life of me understand how we can help children to grow up to explore and reason out difficulties if we exclude them from teachers in the classroom and shut them away from adult control. Today's pupil who walks the corridors is tomorrow's juvenile delinquent and, most certainly, with very few exceptions, will be a guest of Her Majesty in later years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have already mentioned the last general election, which saw a dramatic landslide for the "non-voting" party. I am sure that younger people made up a large proportion of the disconnected and disengaged non-voters. If we want to reverse that worrying trend and reconnect with young people and engage them in politics, I believe that we must take proper action to include everyone in the political process.
It is said that young people do not care about politics. That may be true of party politics, but we all know that young people care passionately about many issues: animal rights; the environment; development in developing countries; globalisation; equality; and the legalisation of drugs, to name the most obvious. With a voting age of 18, some young people may not be able to register their votes until they are aged 21 or 22, depending on when an election falls in relation to their birthday. If such people pay taxes, are answerable in law for their actions as adults, and, from the age of 16, can have consensual sex, how can we justify not giving them a voice?
I urge the Government to take the report seriously. We deserve the children that we raise. If we treat young people as voiceless, how can we expect them to contribute as adults? The two go hand in glove with political rights and civic education. If we can get both right, I believe that we shall deserve the responsible adults of the future that society so desperately requires in order to prosper in this millennium.
Finally, civic education must not simply be passed down from above to people below. We all need to spread the word of civic responsibility. I encourage the

963
Government to welcome efforts by the private sector in that process. I am aware, for example, that the Co-operative Insurance Society, which is based in Manchester and is part of the co-operative movement, is putting together an education resource pack for schools on civic education.
Noble Lords may recall that the CIS was born of the 19th century co-operative friendly societies, which encouraged ordinary working people to take responsibility for their own affairs and, in turn, for the rest of society. As we look to the 21st century, we have much to learn about civic pride and civic education from our forefathers and mothers. Many of our young people will benefit from that as well. I support the report, Taking the Initiative, by the authors, David Cutler and Roger Frost. We need to build for the future and build wisely and well.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Massey on enabling us to hold such a profound debate on issues of fundamental importance to the future of our democracy. I also join other noble Lords in welcoming my noble friend Lord Rooker. I know that he relishes awkward questions. Even if this is his first appearance, I am sure that we can store up some difficult ones for him by the end of the debate.
I believe that the report is excellent and that the authors are to be congratulated not only on the conviction with which they presented it but on the clarity with which they marshalled the evidence. I believe that it is a wake-up call in the aftermath of an election about which we should all be seriously concerned. The evidence shows that young people aged between 18 and 25 are four times less likely to have registered to vote, which is profoundly serious. I wonder whether those people will be voting when they are 50.
A paradox, from which we should take some hope, suggests that those young people are not rejecting a role in the workings of democracy. Although they are disengaged from and exasperated with political institutions, they are incredibly happy to be involved in matters in relation to which they can make a difference. That is why they are active in organisations that are associated with animal welfare and globalisation. They are not capable of breaking into or making their voices heard in the more formal political organisations. We should be extremely worried about that. Why are those organisations so deaf to the contribution that those people can make?
The recommendations about energy and the environment from the Children's Parliament in 1999 show the extremely clear thinking that those young people put into that work. I wish I knew what had happened to those recommendations; maybe the Minister can tell us. I also wish I knew what future provision the Government are making for the UK-wide youth parliament, which is capable of making a marvellous contribution to the way in which debates are conducted.
964
A second paradox is involved. Just when young people appear to be "disconnecting" from the political process, we are reinventing or rediscovering democracy in this country in many ways. Your Lordships' House is a good example of that, as is devolution. Our approach to neighbourhood renewal and to involving communities is very much from the bottom up. The application of human rights legislation is also relevant in that regard. Those are extremely important and exciting opportunities.
I turn to the report. There is an astonishing difference with regard to youth policy and participation between England and the other countries of the UK. There may well be difficulties with the Children's Commissioner but it will be interesting to see how the Welsh example proceeds. The fact that children were involved in the appointment of the commissioner was particularly interesting, as is the fact that the Welsh Assembly has established a panel that is available for consultation by the Welsh Assembly. There is nothing far-fetched about that arrangement and I hope that we shall consider it in relation to Parliament.
I like the fact that the report is radical but I like it even more because it is realistic. The authors came up with the idea of voting at the age of 16 and of being able to be a Member of Parliament at 18, but they know that their report will not be manageable or realistic unless it is accompanied by profound cultural changes.
Building up the confidence to be included in the first place starts with the family and continues in primary school. Those are the settings in which children learn whether they are valued or not. All the research that I have seen—I should declare an interest as the director of a national education charity—suggests that the crucial difference between success and failure in later life is the ability to participate, in and out of school, in the sustaining and enriching activities that connect people with the community. One teacher recently told me that children who participated in an out-of-school arts project had a tremendous impact on the life of the school. Moreover, a long-term impact is involved—one day the children will become very confident. She said that they would,
"move and shake and activate for better facilities. more access, things to do, and a better deal for young people".
Where will the young movers and shakers learn those skills if not in schools councils? That is why I believe that every school should have a school council, although only one-third of schools currently has one.
If we are to have education with character, where best to see it develop and encourage it other than in school councils? How can such an education be promoted other than through the citizenship curriculum? I entirely agree with the comments of noble Lords on the pressures on teachers. At the same time, the citizenship curriculum will miss an opportunity if it does not connect with what is going on in the community, in voluntary organisations and local government and if it does not give children an

965
opportunity to participate in the life and work of the community. This is a new opportunity and I hope that in time it will be realised.
My noble friend Lady Howells spoke powerfully about the force of exclusion. It is a truism to say that the most difficult aspect of putting the report into operation will be the need to reach the people who are not likely to participate because they do not know how to do so—they do not have the necessary experience, knowledge or skills.
I very recently discovered digital democracy, which is currently a failing technology. However, there are hopes that people will be able to connect up. I have greater hopes for the children's and young persons' unit in the Department for Education and Skills. That unit, which has got off to a good start, has a right to roam across Whitehall and to speak to and represent children in new ways. There are new possibilities relating to the way in which we record and reflect the way in which children think and to the way in which they make an input to policies for social justice and so on. If it can prioritise a means of setting standards across Whitehall relating to the involvement of young people, it would be doing an excellent job. What progress has been made in setting up a young people's advisory forum involving young people?
Finally, the report has a strong and clear agenda. It talks of the hunger for greater responsibility. Its funding recommendations are terribly important. It would be cruel to involve young people by offering them the prospect of participation but no prospect of continual funding for the many excellent projects with which they are involved. I hope that the Minister will take that point seriously. The report shows us a way forward and a way of involving young people; that should be the norm and not the exception when we try to renew our democracy.
5.17 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the inspiring and well-informed speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for initiating this timely debate and I welcome this stimulating report, which I read with great interest. I should declare an interest as a patron of A Voice for the Child in Care.
I shall give an example of participation. At Centrepoint's Berwick Street shelter for 16 to 23 year-olds who are homeless, all residents and senior staff meet every two or three weeks. That innovation was introduced during the past three months. I should explain that the residents may be newly homeless or they may have camped on the floors of their relations or friends for a while. One may have come from university and found that his or her accommodation had fallen through and another, so she tells me, has never been to school. The occasional young person may suffer from mental health problems and another might have special educational needs, although that is a rarity. Many are asylum seekers. Apart from those seeking asylum, a weak family structure is commonly in the young person's background.
966
At one meeting the young people asked whether the curfew could be extended from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on weekdays and from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. on weekends. They also asked when the boys—or men—could have their hot showers again and not have to share with the women. The staff responded by saying, "Yes, the curfew can be raised. What you are requesting seems quite reasonable. We apologise for the delay in fixing the showers". They provided an explanation for the delay in plumbing repairs and added, "We are shortly to repair the dilapidated seat covers in the canteen".
Those are simply examples of normal business. We also have a comments box, a standard complaints procedure and a questionnaire which is given to each resident as they move on. That asks about their experience within the hostel. To me the most important aspect of that is the experience of agency. Those young people are experiencing control over their environment, or at least the ability to influence their environment. They have the ability to determine the circumstances in which they and their peers live.
As Ravi Gurumurthy says in the foreword to the report,
"young people need to feel they are having a tangible influence and perceive the link between their contribution and real changes".
That is what is happening at Berwick Street.
Perhaps I can define "agency" by its absence. A young mother told me that she had approached her landlord about the bathroom in her multiple occupation house. She told him that it was insanitary. His reply was, "That is how the residents leave it". That woman lacked agency. She could not influence one of the most basic elements in her environment. Such powerlessness leads to anxiety. It is damaging. It is harmful for a schoolgirl in a large school to feel powerless and that she is simply a product to be processed and stamped with a qualification at the end so that the school obtains its marks. It is harmful for children in care to be passed from foster parent to foster parent feeling that they are not listened to. It is harmful for their self-esteem and undermines their potential. I know that my prerogative in this House to regulate proceedings gives me greater confidence to challenge Ministers—on only rare occasions I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
I turn to another point. Many speakers this afternoon spoke of the low election turn-out. That is a cause of great concern particularly, as we heard, as it affects young people. But perhaps there is a certain good in it. Does it mean that politics are now more complex? It is no longer a matter of goodies and baddies, of cowboys and indians, of devils and angels, of Right and Left. Is it less dramatic? It may be dull, but is it more authentic, more real? I leave those questions open.
I have worked with young people on estates and seen the flat roofs which inevitably leak; the lifts which often do not work; the parents separated from their children at play by 10 or 20 floors; the stairwells, stairways and walkways which provide places for drug dealers and muggers respectively. I walked with a class of primary school children through an estate to see the tower blocks in which they lived being demolished.

967
Simple solutions are easy to sell. If adults are prone to panaceas, I feel that children are even more so, especially when they deal with matters outside their experience. The report alludes to Third World debt and European monetary union. That is something with which one must temper discussions of this sort.
When children come into Parliament and talk about their locked play areas, their local police station being closed, litter and abandoned cars in their streets, I am moved and incensed. When they explain about their experience of homelessness, they often speak far better than the chief executive of the charity which is supposed to be their advocate and to speak for them.
In conclusion, I suggest that lowering the voting age to 16, in the light of what I have said, would not be appropriate. The authors of the report might take some comfort from the lowering of class sizes in primary schools. Surely if teachers are more able to give attention to their pupils, those pupils have more chance to influence their environment. Indeed, if the Government are successful in delivering more teachers who are not over-burdened with regulation, then that may work through the whole system. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the debate.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, one of the great assets of being one of the last speakers is that all wise words have been spoken. That leaves me nicely to talk about my own backwater of Tower Hamlets. Before I do so, I thank my noble friend Lady Massey for bringing this report to our attention. I am sure she does so with every knowledge that our Labour Government introduced firm citizenship education, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, assumed. I just want to place that on record on behalf of my comrade.
For a good 20 years when I was young I was involved in trying to promote the notion of good citizenship in places like Tower Hamlets. We involved young people in various ways, from taking them on holidays, involving them in youth parliaments to trying to entice them into attending after-school clubs. All that was done in the belief that not only would that make them good citizens, but that it would also improve their lives in an area where the problems may be overwhelming.
Over the past 20 years remarkable progress has been made in some of the great initiatives, such as youth parliaments, summer university and schemes for students. Various projects involving young people in bettering their educational opportunities have all been taken as good examples and have been effective throughout the country. So I am delighted to see some of those initiatives mentioned in this clear and concise report.
I apologise that I have not yet read the report in detail, as many other noble Lords confessed to doing. But I shall make sure that I do so at my leisure.
968
However, from what I read, all the schemes that it mentions are things in which our young people are already involved in various ways.
I want to make a number of comments about some of the other issues raised. From everything that has been said, it occurred to me that the killing of James Bulger and Stephen Lawrence, the maiming of Mukhtar Miah and the disablement of Kuddus Ali were all committed by young people. So what have we achieved over the past 20, 30 or 40 years in legislation to arrive at this point? The streets of Oldham, Blackburn, Burnley and Bradford are inflamed. I believe that at the moment there is enormous potential for further eruption. Essential lessons of citizenship where there has been good practice have not been translated in many of those areas. It is critical therefore to evaluate some of the good practices that have taken place in inner city areas, such as Tower Hamlets, Hackney and other places where young people have been allowed to take leadership within their community; where good citizenship is working.
I propose that we take seriously some of the lessons learnt from the efforts mentioned by my noble friend Lady Andrews in relation to neighbourhood renewal schemes, the education action zones and various other areas. We must look at where there has been good practice that worked and where it has not worked. In my small experience in Tower Hamlets what is sadly lacking is not that young people are not able to participate in local democracy, youth parliaments or all of those things. The frustration arises when there is a lack of employment and education opportunities. Of course, 25 per cent of the children do well, but what about the frustration of the 75 per cent of children in those kinds of areas? Where will they learn about the rationale of democracy? Where will they learn the lessons of how to become good citizens?
The reactions to the events in Oldham have been diverse. Many in other parties have reacted far too quickly and have not made a proper analysis of why disaffected youths have behaved in such a manner. I suggest that such disaffected youths have not necessarily wanted to damage their environment, but they have not been able to avail themselves of good quality education and good housing and they have not been taught how to express their frustrations and anger. I salute my noble friend Lady Howells for calling them "freedom fighters". The Government may like to debate that concept further.
A good start is to consider how to engage the interest of such young people. The notion that young people should be addressed on their own, without the involvement of their families, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, is ludicrous. The idea that no one knows how to engage disaffected youths simply negates the responsibility to assist in building the next generation and in bringing up good citizens.
I hope that the Minister agrees that this report can contribute to creating good citizenship that can be built on. I believe that it will help to engage young people, but he should not exclude all the other issues that we have drawn to his attention today. In assisting

969
a generation of young people to interest themselves in how they are governed and to take part in democracy, it is important that they be involved in leadership and the communities themselves must be allowed to dictate what are good citizens.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, on introducing this debate, particularly at a time when much attention is focused on young people in our society. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has analysed the report and identified the issues that we need to tackle.
Recently the co-author of the report, David Cutler, whom I know, told me that work is taking place on a follow-up to this report to ensure that there is some international comparison available. I hope that at some stage we shall be able to measure what we have achieved and what still needs to be done.
I was delighted by the contributions of a number of noble Lords, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. They all pointed to one clear issue which highlights how important it is for us to be able to look at the whole concept that has been identified in the Carnegie report. I refer to the general election. Only 59 per cent of the population voted and only a quarter of the country actually elected the Government. That clearly demonstrates how the people are cut off from the political process.
Those of us who were involved in doorstep campaigning can confirm that many young people of voting age were simply not interested. If we are not careful, our democracy will be sustained by only a quarter—a minority—of the people in this country. In itself that would be a tragedy. The debate that followed highlighted what we need to do to build a strong civic society. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan.
The Carnegie report has done a public service. It does three things: first, it identifies the need for promoting opportunities for young people so that they can express their opinions; secondly, in consultation with children and youth organisations it has produced sound recommendations, which tell decision-makers why they should listen to young people; and, thirdly, it identifies citizenship education as a means of achieving political and community participation. Any political post-mortem of the recent general election should take those factors into account.
Events in northern towns, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, clearly demonstrate how fragile is the relationship between young people and those who take decisions on their behalf. Too often the temptation for adults is to take decisions because they think that they know what is good for our young people. We often forget that young people are more likely to participate in projects on which they are consulted and of which they have ownership.
970
In the past I have served as a trustee of the Save the Children Fund. Young people were involved in all aspects of project design and its execution. They were not only consulted about the project content, but they were also involved in the interview process when appointments were made. It is a fact that many young people who are eligible to vote are not on the electoral register, especially in inner-city areas. Some young people, particularly black and Asian young people, cannot identify suitable role models because of the extent of the discrimination that they suffer.
While the advancement of some sections of the ethnic minority communities cannot be disputed, we should not forget that the profile of the minority community, and in particular the young people, has been shaped by the economic restructuring and the recession that occurred in Britain in the l 980s, thus providing opportunities for some, while taking them away from others. That is where we find deprivation, particularly among young people of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin, which is far worse than one can imagine. In many cases discrimination persists at a depressingly high level. Such people are still to be found disproportionately among the poor, the unemployed, those who have never worked, those who are stopped and searched, those who are underachievers in schools and those who are victims of racial harassment and violence. Geographically and economically they live in precisely the same place that was allocated to their parents when they came here.
I do not condone violence. The situation is not helped by the poisonous propaganda of the British National Party. All politicians, on the local or national stage, have a personal responsibility. We must demonstrate the leadership that is badly needed to work out local solutions to local problems. There is no excuse for violence in the street. There is no excuse either for segregated housing with fences in between or for segregated schools with only 20 per cent of school leavers achieving any qualifications.
If we want the insight to understand where we have gone wrong, we need to consult and to involve young people. The immediate priority—I stress the word "immediate"—must be to look for short-term solutions to reach young people, to focus them on what they can do for themselves and, more importantly, for each other, and to make regeneration work for young people.
We have to accept that the second and subsequent generations of youngsters no longer accept some of the values to which their parents attach so much importance. In a fast-changing world, there is a change in attitude, a new assertiveness. Youngsters are more questioning of authority than ever before and they are also better informed. We should welcome the healthy tension that exists.
To many of us, particularly to the first generation of settlers, challenge is often frightening, but is it not time to harness the energy of our young people towards diversity, interdependence, self-reliance, liberty and pluralism? We should respect the birth of new values and the Carnegie report points the way. The

971
Government should promote the idea of an interdependent, wholesome and organic community in which diversity is respected and in which there are ways of tackling racial and religious intolerance. There is undoubtedly a conflict between what is appropriate and what is required. Therefore, there is a need to ask some pertinent questions, but young people must be part of that exercise.
What kind of a society do we want to take forward into the next millennium? We need a vision of the kind of future that we want to achieve; we need a vision of how to motivate young people; and we must describe what we want to achieve. The three main ingredients—these have been mentioned by noble Lords—must be, first, to build the confidence of young people from ethnic minorities in the structures which are in place; secondly, to ensure that young people participate from within and communicate with policy makers; and, thirdly, and above all, to identify young people as stakeholders in the process of citizenship.
We require the wisdom to reconnect our communities to a political process which enriches our democracy. Violence will never achieve this. The Carnegie report is a step in the right direction and it should form the backbone of government policies relating to young people. If we develop the concept of good citizenship, the idea of "Britishness" will be secondary.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I welcome the Carnegie report as a most useful contribution to the discussion on these matters and I echo the thanks offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for drawing attention to it. The research and examples add greatly to the debate.
However, like others, I am not enamoured of the firm proposals for legislation and legal rights, primarily because I believe that for young people's involvement to be effective it should build on their own desire to participate. Therefore, it will differ greatly from place to place and from time to time. It is not something which should be imposed from above. It should be stimulated, facilitated, encouraged and paid attention to, but not imposed. The Government should not be looking so much to legislate as to collect and pass on information on what can and is being done and what works.
I am delighted to know how much is going on to involve young people in so many different ways. I support the inclusion of citizenship in the curriculum. However, I confess to a slight distaste at the abuse of the terms "Parliament", "jury" and "grand jury", but let that go.
I want to add to the information by drawing attention to another initiative by a local authority. It is the Bexley Road Safety Action Group set up by the London borough of Bexley. It is open to people between the ages of 14 and 19 and it has taken a whole series of actions to improve road safety. It has received awards from the Prince Michael Road Safety Award
972
System and from the Institution of Highways and Transport/BP Road Safety Awards. The campaign, which began in Bexley, was adopted first in London and later by the National Road Safety Congress. Such changes can flow from the involvement of young people in this specialist area.
I see that the first finding of the MORI research indicates that,
"Young people believe that their views are taken less seriously because of their age".
That was not true when William Hague first spoke to our party conference at a young age. However, the truth is well put in UN Article 12, which mentions the views of the child as,
"being given due weight in accordance with age and maturity".
In practice, the UN resolution is right to have that caveat. If some chosen course of action goes wrong, young people would not in due course think it a sensible excuse to say, "We did what the children asked". That does not mean that we should ignore what young people say; but we adults owe them our judgment and experience as well as our ears.
Looking at elections, which have received much attention, the report proposes voting at 16. But giving the vote to 16 year-olds will not necessarily mean that they vote. We know that many older people with a vote do not use it, as was strongly demonstrated in the recent election.
Furthermore, the involvement of young people in politics is not what it was. I first became involved in politics in the Young Conservatives when we filled the Royal Festival Hall for political conferences. Of course there was a social side, but we attended weekend schools and the party conference in large numbers. Importantly, we formed one-third of the voluntary party's decision-making apparatus at all levels and we were active in elections. We politicians, as a class, have since moved backwards because the number of young people belonging to the youth wing of any party is a tiny fraction of that previous membership.
However, we should not confuse young people's boredom with politics as presently conducted with apathy. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells, made that point. We, the politicians, and the media have downgraded the practice of politics and, with it, government. Television has much to answer for in this, although it is not alone, but the sound-bite rules and most of the sound-bites which are picked up are negative. The image of Parliament is boring and negative—and not just to young people, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and others.
Part of the problem is the complexity of modern government. It is not easy to explain in plain, simple English what is happening and what the choices are and to relate that to the vision which lies behind. But in any event, the report deals not only with politics and government; there are excellent examples of what can be done in schools. Good schools have always fostered responsibility, but perhaps in our day there was a more

973
highly developed system of prefects with real responsibility and power and a few inconsequential privileges.
Such work is carried out not only in schools. We should take a moment to praise the work done for good citizenship by the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, the Scouts, the Guides, the Churches and numerous other youth organisations, clubs and voluntary organisations—everything mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in connection with Tower Hamlets. Those traditional activities can be built on by all the initiatives mentioned in the report, but not replaced by them. Citizenship remains at the core.
However, as was said by my noble friend Lady Young and by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in introduction, in all this we must be careful not to demote the role of parents. Of course there are feckless and idle parents who teach their children nothing of good citizenship. But in attempting to deal with the children of this minority of parents, we must not undermine the majority of parents, uncles, aunts and grandparents—at this point I must declare an interest—who have the biggest single influence.
It has been a useful debate and it is a useful report in drawing attention to the issue. However, I believe that the role of government should not be prescriptive and that the role of legislation in this is limited.
5.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Massey for the opportunity to discuss the report. I must say at the outset that I shall not be able to do justice to the quality of the speeches and comments I have heard in the past hour and a half. However, in future I shall use this debate as an example of the difference between the two Houses in terms of lifetime experiences brought to the issues. I was warned that this would happen but I did not realise it would happen the first time I responded to a short debate. I genuinely mean that.
I can say that overall—and I hope that this will be welcomed—the Government are fully committed to the messages at the heart of the report. We want children and young people to play a full part in public decision-making and be involved in the design, delivery and evaluation of policies.
As regards a theme running throughout the debate, many noble Lords mentioned education and voting. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that there was ignorance about voting, particularly among the women to whom she spoke. When, as an MP, I visited schools, people asked me why I became an MP. I always replied that I became involved because I wanted to change the world. It is very important to engender the idea that one can make a difference. The complexities of modern life and the machinery of government are a "turn off', and we must recharge our batteries and try to do better in future. I believe that reports such as this one, which was published only a few days ago, will provide added ammunition.
974
My noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids referred to school exclusions and those who became guests of Her Majesty. Later this week there will be a short debate on prisons, during which I shall share with noble Lords my experiences at Brinsford Prison on Friday morning when I discussed issues with two 18 year-olds. However, I think that I had better wait until Wednesday.
The Government are already taking a number of steps to implement the recommendations, and it is right to share some of those matters with the House. We are taking action on a number of fronts that chime with the themes and recommendations of the report. It is important to raise the profile by way of new government structures. Last year a new Cabinet committee was announced by the Prime Minister. For the first time we have within the Home Office a Minister for young people, John Denham, who is supported by a young people's advisory forum. In answer to my noble friend Lady Andrews, that forum will have its first meeting later this month. Therefore, action is under way in that respect.
There is also a newly established children and young people's unit. I suggest that noble Lords look at the report published only in March of this year entitled Tomorrow's Future—Building a Strategy for Children and Young People, which was the result of work carried out originally by the Social Exclusion Unit in Whitehall. To that extent, some changes to the machinery of government are already under way. We want to develop a strategy for children and young people all the way through from nought to 19 to ensure that our services are designed around the best interests of children rather than the service provider. The policy objective is not to create work for service providers but to provide the service that young children and young people want; and we must also provide co-ordination and leadership.
To make the practice of the best the norm is always the target in every area of policy, and we seek to do that in involving children and young people. That is a core principle of Connexions, Quality Protects and the NHS Children's Task Force. There is a good deal happening on the ground. There are excellent examples, one of which is in County Durham. (When I first read the brief I thought that it was a misprint.) As part of the initiative Investing in Children, at Crook police station the police services are encouraging a children's perspective in the day-to-day planning of service activity. In Colby primary school in Norwich consultation with pupils and representation at a school governors' meeting led to changes in the catering arrangements of the school. We needed that when I was at school. It is clear that we still need to do work in that area.
Every partnership that develops plans for a roll-out of Children's Fund money needs a robust participation strategy. It is absolutely fundamental that we involve children and young people in setting the priorities for the spending of fund money. For example, the Children's Fund local network will build on the Youthbank scheme which gives young people direct experience of grant-making to support projects

975
run by and for young people. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said that many of the issues raised in the report could apply equally to adults. The same can be said of grant-making. If young people or adults gain experience of grant-making they will understand that there must be priorities. It is also important to measure and check outcomes. We also want to ensure that there are minimum standards and a consistent approach right across government.
It is self-evident that we shall work with colleagues in the voluntary sector. It is quite clear that we need a cross-Whitehall approach; it cannot be done by one government department, and the Children and Young People's Unit is a classic example of that. There is a Cabinet committee on which many government departments are represented. It is very important that we take a collective view and all pull together to avoid Whitehall turf wars about who is responsible for what. At the end of the day, we are concerned with the interests of young people.
I believe that it is worth commenting on two specific recommendations. I was very conscious of the fact that my noble friends referred to the voting age and the age at which a person can stand for election. Some years ago I carried out research in connection with a Bill to do with electoral reform that I introduced in the other place. I sought to discover where in legislation it was provided that a person could not be a candidate until he or she had reached the age of 21. The Act of Parliament that is still in force—it may be the Parliamentary Elections Act, but I am not sure—dates from 1695. The sidenote to the only section of the old Act of Parliament that is left reads, "Infants shall not be elected". It is that provision which makes specific reference to the age of 21 at which a person can stand for election. It beggars belief that in such a vital area of our life a piece of legislation that is over 300 years old is still current. The Government have not made any decision on the matter, but if ever legislation comes forward noble Lords and Members of another place will see that they are amending legislation that dates from 1695. As a piece of legislative machinery that is not something of which we can be very proud.
Certainly, these areas should be debated. The report is certainly a wake-up call for everyone. We shall consider very carefully what we can do in the near future to make this work. Some noble Lords said that one did not want lots of new legislation. It is true that from 2002 citizenship will be a compulsory part of the education framework under key stage 3. We shall need time for that to bed down. Teachers who are preparing for that now will not thank Parliament for coming forward with fast changes on top of a change that they have been planning for some time. As I said in a speech two weeks ago, we must not overload the legislative system but ensure that what we have already legislated for and decided upon works and is delivered.
The Government will look very closely at what is happening in Wales and Scotland. These matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Assembly for Wales. The introduction of the Children's Commissioner in Wales is important, and the
976
involvement of children in the selection of the individual concerned is something that we ignore at our peril. We take that issue extremely seriously.
In the short time available I cannot do justice to the quality and detail of the contributions. However, the Government welcome this constructive report which includes a good number of important recommendations that we shall consider carefully. As the report says, getting it right will take time, resources and commitment. We do not pretend that securing the changes in the organisational culture across government and Whitehall will always be straightforward, but we shall give it our best endeavours and, as ever, remain accountable to Questions and debates in this House and the other place as appropriate.

Women Members of Parliament
5.59 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend taking in response to the decline in the number of women Members of Parliament in the current Parliament.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I open the debate by welcoming the new Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, who is to reply to the debate. The customs of this House do not permit me to respond to her speech at the end of the debate, but we all look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the Minister and learning about the Government's plans to tackle the continuing problem of the very low number of women MPs. We all look forward to getting to know the noble Baroness better.
My qualification for initiating this debate is that shortly after the foundation of the Liberal Democratic Party I spent a couple of years absorbed in the business of candidate selection in the English party. Both before and after that experience I have spent a good deal of time on and off nagging my party about the subject.
Some people may not agree that the small number of women MPs—only 18 per cent of the total—is a problem. But I suggest that with one of the lowest percentages of women Members of Parliament in the developed world, the mother of Parliaments is hardly in the forefront on this issue. Perhaps that is why it has proved so resistant to change towards family friendly procedures and why its obsessions and activities seem increasingly irrelevant to our citizens. Indeed, the House of Commons is beginning to look increasingly old-fashioned even in the context of the rest of public and corporate life in this country. Could that be why so many people failed to vote at the last general election?
My honourable friend Dr Evan Harris has confirmed our backing in principle for the Government's intention to legislate on this issue. But I shall not treat today's debate as a matter of party politics. None of the main parties has an unblemished record of support for women as parliamentarians, to

977
put it mildly. In 1997, the Labour Party was put off its policy of all women shortlists, although I admire it for trying.
Neither the Conservative Party nor the Liberal Democrat. Party replaced any of their MPs who retired at the last election with a woman candidate. Even the Labour Party, with its requirement of 50/50 men/ women shortlists, only succeeded in selecting four women to replace its 38 MPs who retired.
This is an important point: it is the number of women candidates in winnable seats which is the true measure of a party's determination to increase its number of women MPs. On the other hand, both the Labour Party, with its policy of twin seats in the Welsh Assembly referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and the Liberal Democrat Party, with its zipped list for the Euro elections, have demonstrated that positive action can work.
In other European countries, in and out of the EU, there have been many examples of such positive action bearing fruit. Research carried out by Fawcett and by the EOC suggests that only positive action will have the desired result. It is not enough, for example, although it may be desirable in its own right, simply to call for proportional representation. That will not necessarily solve the problem.
The decisions taken in France are an interesting example. After many years of discussion and failed legislative initiatives, the French Parliament in 1999 finally amended its constitutional Act of 1958 to include the clause:
"Statutes shall promote equal access by men and women to elective office".
That opened the way for a new law in the year 2000 which provides for positive action for both list elections—that is, for local government and the European Parliament—and for single member constituencies: Parliamentary elections. This March under the new law, the percentage of women elected in French towns rose from 22 per cent to 48 per cent as a result of the new requirement for lists to contain equal numbers of men and women.
It is interesting to me at least that the French constitution is based on the concept of free and equal citizens. One goes back to the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. Of course it said "men" or "man", but subsequently that was amended to include women. This idea of citizenship is at the very basis of the French constitution. Maybe we in this country will have to grapple with that thought one day. After all, free and equal citizens, both men and women, irrespective of their colour and ethnic origin, should have equal rights. And all of them have something special and important to bring to the legislative process.
I now turn to my questions for the Minister. The first concerns the timing of this legislation. Last February I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who was then Home Office Minister, when the Home Office intended to publish the results of its study into the legislative options for reducing the gap in numbers between men and women MPs. His
978
response amounted to telling your Lordships that the research project had not even been designed. Now we are told that the Government will "prepare" legislation—I put that in inverted commas—to allow political parties to make positive moves to increase the representation of women in public life. I hope that the phrase "public life" includes "in Parliament" because the Government are already making strenuous, and, I believe, successful efforts to make sure that women and other people are better represented in order to represent the mix of human society in this country on those bodies to which they make appointments.
At the same time, the next round of elections for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will soon be upon us, and, indeed, the round of selections for the next election of MPs will begin in two years it the very latest. Therefore, can the Minister tell us what timetable is envisaged for the legislation?
Secondly, has the Home Office research been completed? As a result of that research, or whether or not it has taken place, will the Government amend electoral rather than employment law? There is an important difference in the approach on those two legal aspects.
Finally, there is the vexed question of what is permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights and European Union treaty law. All the countries covered in a recent Fawcett document as having taken positive action to promote women's access to their Parliaments—Norway, Sweden, Germany and France—are all signatories to the Convention. In addition, France was finally prompted to look at the question by the provision in the Treaty of Amsterdam that proportional positive action was acceptable to secure equal treatment for the underrepresented sex. Is the Minister satisfied, with or without the Home Office research to which I have referred, that positive action is possible under European law, in both its senses, in order to redress the balance of the sexes in Parliament?
I started by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to our deliberations. Looking around the Chamber I am saddened that no men are speaking on behalf of this thesis from the Labour Benches, although I am astonished by the seniority and excellence of the women who will speak later. I am also slightly saddened that so few Conservatives have thought it worth their while to take part in the debate, although again I welcome those who have decided to do so. We look forward to a most interesting debate and I shall take very careful note of what everyone says.
6.8 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for initiating this important debate, not least because of the importance of the subject but also because it gives me the opportunity to welcome the appointment of my noble friend Lady Morgan as Minister for Women. Having worked with the noble Baroness for a number of years, I am aware of the key role that she has played

979
in the promotion of women in the Labour Party. I know that my noble friend will continue that work in achieving equality and the advancement of women. I, too, look forward to her maiden speech.
There were many sceptics who incorrectly doubted the Government's commitment to introducing legislation to correct the imbalance in the number of women MPs. It is unfortunate that such legislation is necessary as it seemed that progress was being made by some political parties, principally the Labour Party, in introducing positive action into its selection process. Once the ability to use such action was removed, the number of women MPs declined for the first time since 1979. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was right. It is clear that it is difficult to change entrenched positions and the prejudice ingrained in the culture of our political parties.
I do not know whether it is any consolation, but the political parties in this country are not alone in suffering from the inability to change. For instance, in France, the French Socialist Party has proposed that only women will be selected in electoral areas where women were candidates in 1997 and that in seats where MPs are retiring only women will be eligible to be candidates. In addition to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in respect of France, French parties can also suffer a cut in their state funding if they do not put up equal numbers of female and male candidates. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats will now use that argument in favour of state funding!
The use of positive action by political parties in the EU is now relatively common. About half of all political parties use some system of quotas. At a recent conference, speakers from France, Germany, Sweden and Norway all discussed the different ways of introducing positive action. They showed that it is possible to have different structures. For example, we do not have a written constitution; nor do we have the same electoral system or state aid. The speakers reported on the results of the legislation they had introduced. In Sweden, the constitution forbids discrimination on the ground of sex. In Norway, an equality act enforces 40 per cent quotas in public bodies. It is interesting that in Sweden the Socialist Democratic Party found it necessary to establish what it called its "support stockings" organisation or else it would have formed a women's party. Even in Sweden, there were problems. Germany is probably nearest to our position in that it leaves it up to the political parties to determine how candidates are selected.
I appreciate that there are concerns about any legislation we introduce being compliant with the UK's international obligations. I quote from Commissioner Flynn, who commented in 1998:
"The Commission agrees that Community legislation is not a legal impediment to national measures to improve the representation of women in elected bodies".
We must take him at his word. Unfortunately, in this country, because no positive action is built into the Sex Discrimination Act, there was always the possibility of legal action against any party willing to make positive moves in its selection process. The challenge by two
980
male members of the Labour Party against the party's policy of all-women shortlists was successful on the grounds that the selection of candidates is seen as an employment issue. That is not the position in other EU countries. None regards candidate selection as falling under employment laws. Rather the reverse, they argue that it is an appointment to a position of trust that is not regulated by labour market laws. There is no employer, no employee and no employment contract. It is therefore essential that the proposed legislation makes the break between candidature selection employment. It is, however, important that we do nothing to damage the employment legislation that is already in place.
I look forward to the legislation being enacted in time. I look forward to the legislation being permissive so that each party can choose for itself. But I hope that it comes in time to ensure the selection of many more women candidates for the next general election. To state the obvious, women cannot be elected if they are not selected. We must improve on the current 18 per cent of women MPs.
6.14 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have a certain apprehension about participating in a debate that is principally on women and is conducted principally by women. I nevertheless congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on being prepared to join in the debate. I thought that, as they were going to do so, why not me as well? I thought that would be an advantage.
This subject is a matter of interest to everyone. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on her appointment. I congratulate her in advance of her maiden speech, which I am sure will be very good. We shall listen to it with interest. I hope that she will find her time in this place happy and congenial. I am sure that she will.
The reason for my intervention is that I find the subject of the debate curious. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked what the Government intend to do about the low number of women Members of Parliament. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will say that the Government greatly value women Members of Parliament but that it is not the Government's business to encourage or discourage women—in the same way as it is not the Government's business to encourage men over the height of five foot six or below the height of five foot six. That is not the business of government.
After all, what is government? The Government are drawn from the people who have been elected to Parliament. If not enough women have been elected to Parliament, that is the fault of the constituencies and the people who have selected their prospective Members of Parliament. If there is a failure in that position, it must be for the constituents to say, "We want more women MPs and therefore we must select women candidates". It can be done only in that way. The Government are made up of those who have been elected to the House of Commons. For them to turn

981
round and say, "We are now going to try to influence those constituencies so that a different kind of person should appear in the House of Commons", would be quite wrong.
It is not for the Government to say who should be in Parliament. The position is different from that of a company which prevents women from coming into the boardroom or from having significant places in the operation of the company. There are rules and laws about that. Parliament is made up of those whom the electorate chooses. It is not the Government's business to determine who should make up that electorate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will say that she admires the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for her interest in the subject but that it really is an erroneous one in so far as she is trying to get the Government to do something which the Government should not do.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Thomas for initiating the debate and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to the Government Front Bench.
No legislature can call itself truly democratic if it signally fails properly to include 52 per cent of the population it serves. That is why it is the Government's business. All parties now agree that more women should be in Parliament, so that need no longer be the main focus of our discussion. However, the reasons why we need more women can shed some light on what we need to change in order to achieve it. I therefore intend to start by looking at two of those reasons.
Many people say, "Why do we need more women? Can't men represent them?". Well, yes they can to some extent, but when it comes to establishing a framework of legislation within which we can all live in this country and which is fair to both genders, we need equal input from both genders. So my answer to that question is. "No, not fully". I have two reasons for reaching that conclusion.
My first reason is that the reality of women's lives is different from men's. They see things differently not only because their bodies, brains and personalities are of equal value but different from men's, but because they go through life experiencing work, family and society in a different way. Women therefore desperately need to be represented by people who can understand them, identify with their point of view and make common cause. In particular, we need more women in Parliament because many of the most serious social issues over which the Government can have influence affect women more than men. For example, most women undertake the care of children. One-third of those children live in poverty. Most carers of the old and sick are women. Four out of five poor pensioners are women. On average, women are paid less than men and they still meet with discrimination in the workplace. It is clear from those few facts alone that life experiences are very different for men and women.
982
Secondly, the quality of government is improved by having fairer numbers of women. Research has shown that the beneficial effect does not really come into operation until at least one-third of the members of a legislature are female. Recent successes of campaigning female MPs include the maternity review in 2000, which achieved many things that benefit both other women and men. While there is still a long way to go in the cause of family-friendly working practices and equal pay for women, these advances benefit families and are welcome.
The devolved legislatures have also demonstrated the fact that positive action works and that the resulting legislatures benefit from the presence of more women. Because they are new, they do not have the entrenched male membership, attitudes and practices of the Mother of Parliaments. This place, along with the other place, was devised for men and to work for men. That has to change. With so many women Members in the Welsh Assembly, the modernising culture has affected the style and quality of debate. It is also benefiting men who wish to contribute in a different way.
Women Members of the Scottish Parliament have undertaken excellent work on violence against women. However, this has gone almost unreported. The Fawcett Society believes that the reason for this is that a great deal of co-operation was demonstrated by women Members across the parties and this is not seen as newsworthy by the media in the way that a more masculine, confrontational style of politics is perceived. Perhaps the media will have to change their news values as we move to a more gender-balanced Parliament. Why is it that female politicians attract the most media attention when they behave like men and are confrontational? I contend that it is not necessary to be aggressive in order to get results and that it is not necessary to behave like a man to be successful in a man's world. In any case, we need to turn it into a man's and woman's world.
Both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have proved more attractive to women seeking a political career because they have far more family-friendly working hours and systems. In Scandinavia, where there has been a high proportion of women in the Parliaments for many years, the social problems that concern women have been tackled. High quality nursery education is provided from an early age and child poverty is almost unknown—both of these factors enormously benefiting the whole of society.
I do not say that men are not concerned about issues such as child poverty, but is it a coincidence that it is in those countries where women are properly represented that social problems such as child poverty have been minimised? So better quality government can be achieved by including more women.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, should like to begin by thanking sincerely the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for tabling

983
this Question. For me, this debate is one of the most important that has been held since I came into your Lordships' House in May 2000. Why is that? It is because I believe firmly that women should be given every encouragement to play their full part in society, and that must include their part as Members of Parliament. If they are not, then the nation is the poorer for it.
The Question asks what will the Government do to increase women's participation. I prefer to concentrate on what we can do, together with the Government, and in particular what trade unionists can do. This is one area with which I am very familiar. I worked in the trade union movement for over 30 years and I have been a trade union member for over 40 years.
Women trade unionists' involvement with political parties is not a new phenomenon. Many trade union women were active campaigners for votes for women, believing that if women had the vote, the legislation which Parliament passed would be more sympathetic to and protective of women workers. Margaret Bonfield is perhaps the best known example of the interlink between women in the unions and in Parliament. She was a member of the Shop Assistants Union—which we now know as USDAW—and was one of the first to advocate married couples sharing paid work and household duties. Needless to say, that caused quite a stir at the end of the 19th century. She was the first woman to chair the TUC General Council and Congress, the first woman to enter the House of Commons as a Labour MP for Northampton, and was the first woman to become a Cabinet Minister, becoming Minister of Labour in 1928. The links between trade union women and political women were firmly established many years ago and trade union women have continued to support political parties of all persuasions.
Many trade union men are extremely positive towards and supportive of their female colleagues. But, alas, during my trade union lifetime, I saw far too many capable, intelligent and skilful women trade unionists thwarted in their efforts, both at their workplaces and in their unions—often by men who had half their attributes. Noble Lords may ask why this is important for women's representation in Parliament. I would answer that by saying that it is because unions do have an important influence in the selection of and support for parliamentary candidates, not only in the Labour Party, but primarily so at this point in time.
Trade union women are very well aware of this influence. That is why the proposals for positive action in the Labour Party manifesto are greatly welcomed by trade union women. The TUC Women's Committee has been in favour of positive action for many years and will be pushing the TUC affiliated unions to take positive action swiftly once the legislation is in place. However, we know that there will be opposition from some unions—and I refer here not only to those unions which are male dominated. One has only to look at the current position of women in the higher echelons of the unions to see the uphill struggle which they face. One
984
stark statistic says it all: in the 20 largest trade unions, there are no female general secretaries and only three women deputy general secretaries. I shall not continue with the remainder of the statistics because they are equally disastrous. Women, in particular women officials, are found in the lower echelons of the trade union hierarchy.
The TUC itself has done better than its affiliates in terms of positive action. Out of 46 members of the TUC General Council, 15 are women. That is because, when he was TUC General Secretary, Norman Willis introduced positive action in the form of each union with over 100,000 members having an automatic women's seat on the General Council. That did change the TUC. More recently, the TUC has taken a further important step through the introduction of the TUC Organising Academy, which aims to build a new kind of trade unionism by training a new generation of organisers who will aim in particular at women and younger members. Of course, the more that women organisers are put in place, the more likely it is that they, and the women they work with, may want to become parliamentary candidates.
A recent edition of the Fawcett Society's magazine, Towards Equality, states that:
"Positive action is needed, not because women are not good enough to be selected on merit, but because the discrimination they face means that they often do not get a chance to try".
I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench will do her best to ensure that the unions encourage their women members to become candidates, especially in safe and winnable seats, and take positive action to assist in their endeavours. I believe it to be incumbent on us all to encourage more women into Parliament. Only when the House of Commons has 50 per cent women Members will it truly reflect the nation's needs and aspirations.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I decided to speak in this debate because I believe very strongly that we need more women in Parliament if our Parliament is to fulfil its primary function of representing society. We face twin related problems here: first, how to encourage more women to come forward for selection to Parliament; and, secondly, how to ensure that when they do come forward, they will stand a fair chance of being selected. This latter problem is in some sense rather easier to deal with: it will be the subject of government legislation. As the Labour Party found before the 1997 general election and we found during the last European elections, it is possible to take action which is both acceptable within the party and increases the levels of representation by women.
The first problem—how can we persuade more women to believe that becoming a Member of Parliament is a worthwhile occupation?—is, I believe, much more difficult. It is a problem not only in respect of women, but also more generally. Too often Parliament appears powerless and a deeply conservative place—with a small "c"—with working conditions that make it deeply unattractive, in particular to women. Until Parliament changes, in my

985
view it simply will not attract sufficient high quality women candidates who will want to come forward for selection.
There are three specific problems for which I shall attempt three solutions. The first problem concerns working conditions. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley pointed out, Parliament needs to change its working practices. Where parliaments have changed their working practices—both in terms of childcare provision and working hours—the result has been a greater proportion of women members. Incidentally, in regard to working hours, it is not only mothers who will benefit from being able to get home from time to time in the evening; it will equally benefit fathers.
Whenever I have argued that Parliament should have different working hours, I have been met by two answers—usually from men. The first answer is that other professions require women to work into the evenings. Yes, they do, but not on such a regular basis; and there is much more flexibility for lawyers and accountants, for example, in terms of working later into the evening.
The second point that is often made is that male MPs whose families live some distance from London would not be able to manage in the evenings if they did not have something to do which required them to be in Parliament. This argument is regularly put forward by otherwise quite sensible people. Leaving aside the obvious question of what kind of men are incapable of looking after themselves in the evening in London, they would need to accept only a small fraction of the invitations they receive to evening receptions, talks and dinners, which private and public sector bodies regularly issue to MPs to help to inform them on public policy issues. This would serve two functions: it would make them better legislators and keep them out of harm's way.
The second problem is that the style of Parliament needs to change. It is hardly surprising that many women find the macho, Oxford Union style of debate in the Commons deeply uncongenial. It is perhaps not surprising that many of the women who have succeeded best in the Commons have come from an Oxford background, whether it be the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby or Ann Widdecombe. I do not believe that the style prevalent in the Commons is acceptable for those who want: to debate issues in a rational way. Proportional representation may begin to change that, but there is a problem.
The final, and biggest, problem is what many people see as the pointlessness of Parliament. Many people ask, "What is the point of being an MP with a government majority of 170? Your vote never counts. You cannot get Bills changed in Committee and the Government will ignore many Select Committee reports". In this case, the answer is, in part, relatively straightforward: if we had PR, there would be no huge majorities.
I believe that we need a different style of government in both Houses, one in which Ministers listen to arguments—particularly in regard to Bills—and
986
accept those arguments and amendments which are won on their merits. There needs to be a greater humility on the part of Ministers.
Being a parliamentarian will never be easy. It will always require tremendous hard work and dedication, and it will often be very frustrating. But it would be much more rewarding for the bulk of MPs if they had sensible working practices, less posturing in debate and a willingness on the part of the Government to take them seriously. It would certainly make it more attractive to potential women parliamentarians. All parties need to be involved in bringing about these changes, but the ball is well and truly in the Government's court.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I wish to declare an interest in the debate as chair of the Women National Commission, which has long campaigned for very many more women's voices to be heard in Parliament. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for giving us this early opportunity in the new parliamentary Session to debate this vital matter of women's representation. In doing so, I acknowledge her own tenacious commitment to the cause of women's equality.
Like other noble Lords and Baronesses. l welcome my noble friend the Minister to her first outing at the Dispatch Box and, of course, her maiden speech, From an assessment made over a long and affectionate acquaintance, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, will be an inspiring, energetic and hardworking Minister, who will be determined to put women's equality at the heart of the political agenda.
It was a matter of great celebration to us all that in 1997 the number of women MPs rose to its highest percentage ever. Even more important was the way in which those new voices made a distinct difference to the culture of Parliament. In another place, Mr Eric Forth is always ready with advice. He said:
"We hear from the babes on the Government Benches—and from other honourable Members—that they believe that being detained inconveniently in the House is unacceptable in this modern age".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/01; col. 799.]
To be frank, I cannot blame the "babes", as be calls them. As well as influencing the culture of Parliament, the new women's voices are also important in regard to the legislative agenda and its implementation.
The DTI's maternity review, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would not have reached the conclusions it did without a strong cohort of women MPs pressing for better maternity pay and leave, and the introduction of paternity pay for the first time, as well as the new, very welcome, legal right of women to ask for flexible working arrangements on their return to work after childbirth.
The Sure Start programme would not have been so energetically rolled out across the country without the proactive backing and involvement of so many women MPs who wanted the programme to work in their constituencies. The strengthening of the laws on rape and stalking was, in large part, down to the pressure

987
and presence of women MPs. The list is a long one. Those are but a few examples of the changes that have taken place because of the beginning of the feminisation of Parliament.
The 2001 general election returned a magnificent Labour majority but disappointed in its reduction in the number of women MPs, a reduction for the first time since 1979, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, reminded us. That is because political parties took their eye off the ball of fair and equal representation between men and women, even though the new devolved Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland had pointed the way forward in their progressive stances on the subject.
I know women in all political parties who are fiercely committed to seeing women influence far more the life of this country at all levels, yet there has been, to my mind—with the brave exception of the Labour Party, with its all-women shortlists prior to the 1997 election—an unnecessary hesitation about adopting any processes that have a hint of "positive discrimination" about them. Sometimes that has been on the spurious ground of positive discrimination somehow sapping away merit, and sometimes on the ground of litigation and a fear of a backlash in that sense.
When I saw the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on the List of Speakers, I felt that perhaps he had become a "born-again feminist". But, having heard his contribution, I think we shall have to wait for another day. It may not be that far away, but not today.
We have a government who are committed to bringing forward legislation which will allow political parties to use positive mechanisms to increase the number of women in public life—I, too, hope that that means the number of women candidates in political parties—and for political parties to use those mechanisms should they wish to do so. The following inclusion in the Queen's Speech—that the Government,
"will prepare legislation to allow political parties to make positive moves to increase the representation of women in public life",
was, as the chair of the EOC put it, "a turning point in history". It holds out great hope for us that at last we may catch up with many of our European partners.
The Fawcett Society, the EOC and the Women's National Commission are already beginning to organise support for this new legislation. We want to ensure that the questions many are asking about the timing and content of that legislation will be answered, as far as possible, by our new Minister today.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I, too, join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood on securing this debate. I should like also to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, to her new position.
988
Noble Lords have explained fully the reasons why women should play a full part in public life. I do not want to rehearse the points again. I want to add that that role is equally important at local level. Will the Minister confirm that any new Bill being considered by the Government will apply equally to local government, not merely to MPs?
It is at local government level that many women find their political feet first, including myself and many other speakers in this debate. It is a natural route to the wider political stage. It is also a worthwhile end in itself. Women are very active in schools, as governors and members of PTAs, as they are in local voluntary services. An item in today's edition of the Guardian states that women represent 65 per cent of workers in the voluntary services. Reference has been made to the fact that large numbers of women are carers: they look after children, elderly parents and disabled relatives. However, when it comes to standing for membership of the local authority that awards the grants and devises the social services strategy, women make up only about 25 per cent of candidates. The position has changed little over the past 30 years. The last survey, carried out in 1997, indicated that 73 per cent of all councillors were men and about 25 to 27 per cent were women.
The reasons are possibly even more depressing when it comes to women not being encouraged to stand and not being selected as parliamentary candidates. The problem relates partly to the selection process. At local council level they do not have to spend nights away from their families. However, one factor that stands in their way at local level may be the culture of the local council. If they see Parliament in the same light, it may put them off applying for selection.
Councils with as few as 10 per cent of women members should be encouraged by the Government to reconsider the issue. Such an approach should totally suit the Government's new local government agenda of forging partnerships in community planning. It is hard to see community planning succeeding when so many community activists are excluded from the primary decision-making circuit.
The culture of male-dominated councils also affects council staff. The number of women chief executives stands at less than 10 per cent. Room at the Top, a study published in May this year by the University of the West of England's business school, reveals,
"a discomfiting picture of institutionalised sexism in local government in England and Wales".
It led Julie Mellor, chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, to respond by calling for a new public sector duty to promote gender equality. The Government could help hugely by including local government in any positive action that they are considering.
My experience as a local councillor in Somerset—where we have a decent number of women councillors, chairs and now executive members, and a history of women leaders—is that we are good at developing partnerships and strong policies and services in the areas that are of particular concern to the community.

989
But in the area that we are discussing tonight the Government must ensure that their new Bill includes local government, whose services impact especially on the lives of women.
Critics of positive discrimination—women-only shortlists —will say that able women will make it anyway over time. Of course, some do, and some stick it out. I look forward to the day when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, need not feel the way that he does, when there are enough women at local government level and national level. But in the meantime—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly interrupt the noble Baroness. It is not a question of "feeling the way that I do". All I said was that it was not the Government's business to affect and influence who stands for Parliament.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that when we arrive at a rough parity—around 50 per cent of women and 50 per cent men—it will not be the business of government. But until that day arrives, it remains the business of government. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for raising this matter. It is a subject in which I am particularly interested. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on her appointment as Minister for Women. I worked with the noble Baroness for a number of years. I know of her dedication and her determination in any task that she undertakes. I know that she will bring those same values to her ministerial role. I look forward to hearing her maiden speech.
I was very pleased to see that this topic was to be debated this evening. I was delighted that women's representation was mentioned in the gracious Speech. I believe that it is a shame that we have to resort to such legislation. But I believe also that it is the only way in which we shall see an increase in the number of women Members of Parliament.
The main reason why there are so few women in the House of Commons is that members of political parties consistently refuse to select women candidates in seats which are held by their party or which it is likely to win. There is no evidence to indicate that the electorate is unhappy in voting for women candidates. People neither discriminate nor are they prejudiced against women who stand for Parliament.
Over a period of years some political parties have attempted to address the under-representation of women in political life. I can speak with authority only for my own party, but I am aware that some other parties have made efforts to address the problem. The Labour Party uses quotas at all levels to ensure that women hold office, attend conferences and are allowed to play an equal part with men in the life of the party. This approach has worked and it has given women
990
many opportunities that they would not otherwise have had. Without quotas, party members would generally select men rather than women.
What all political parties have failed to do is to break through the log-jam of selecting women candidates for elected office at all levels, whether it be at local council level, in the House of Commons or at European level—although the Labour Party made a big effort in the run-up to the 1997 general election by using all-women shortlists until it was prevented from doing so under a ruling by an industrial tribunal.
There were no special measures in place in the Labour Party—or, so far as I am aware, in any other party—in the run-up to the last election. As a result. there are fewer women MPs than there were in 1997— proving that without special measures in place women will have great difficulty in being selected in seats held by their party.
During our debate on the gracious Speech I mentioned the fact that in Wales 10 male Members of Parliament had retired: seven from the Labour Party, two from Plaid Cymru and one Liberal Democrat. Male candidates replaced all 10. I know that capable women put themselves forward for selection in the Labour Party, and I am sure that the same happened in the other two parties. But not one was selected, proving that without special measures in place the chances of women being selected in seats that their party can win is zero—at least in Wales.
The gracious Speech mentioned that legislation is being prepared to improve women's representation in public life. I welcome this measure, but in order for it to be effective for the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament elections in 2003 legislation must be brought forward as early as possible. That will allow the political parties which wish to do so to have all women shortlists in seats where they have to find new candidates. Without this, all the good work carried out in the first elections in 1999, where so many women were elected, could be undone.
As far as concerns the Welsh Assembly, women are playing a leading role. I believe that the same can be said for the Scottish Parliament. They achieved so much because the special measures put in place by their party allowed them to be elected. This must not be allowed to dissipate. Prejudice and discrimination against women in political life must end. The proposed legislation will go a long way towards making this possible. After all, this measure is not a giant step forward for womankind, but just a small, albeit welcomed, helping hand.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood deserves our gratitude for introducing this timely debate. I am proud that I was an architect of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and a founding member and trustee of the 300 Group. I am particularly glad to be speaking this evening because the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, is sitting on the Woolsack as Deputy Speaker. She has been an example to all of us in our struggle for equality for women.

991
I regard this debate, and the legislation, as surely the business of Parliament. I do not understand the objection of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to the idea that Parliament should help to encourage women to become Members of Parliament. However, as a lawyer, I should like to say something by way of a cautionary speech to indicate that even the important end, which I entirely share, of promoting women in Parliament would not justify the use of means if they were rigidly inflexible or disproportionate. That is because European law and international human rights law anchor everything in the principle of proportionality.
A political party is not just a private association. When it selects candidates for public office, it acts as a public authority. It is bound by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to act in a way compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. That convention guarantees the individual's right to stand for election without discrimination, but it recognises an exemption for positive measures if they are proportionate.
In Jepson's case, not to my surprise, an industrial tribunal decided, without relying on the convention, that the Labour Party's policy of all women shortlists constituted unlawful sex discrimination. The Labour Party wisely accepted the verdict without an appeal. I say "wisely" because Jepson was approved in a race case, called Sawyer, by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
If the Government were to introduce a very wide exemption from the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act for the selection of parliamentary candidates, whether in the French or the Scandinavian style—or, indeed, old Labour style—it would remain open to serious challenge under the Human Rights Act, as well as under European Community law, by disaffected, excluded male candidates. Our courts and, if necessary, the European Courts would have to decide whether the measure, as applied, was necessary in a democratic society: was it proportionate to the aim of increasing the representation of women in public life? The courts would have to consider how far positive measures for women were compatible not only under the convention but also under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the equal right and opportunity of individuals to take part in the conduct of public affairs, and everyone's equal right and opportunity to have access to public service. Again, provided that the measure was proportionate, there would be no problem.
Moreover Article 4.1 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women says that only "temporary special measures" can be adopted,
"aimed at accelerating de facto equality between men and women … but shall in no way entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate standards".
I congratulate the Minister on becoming a Member of this House and on her appointment as an equality Minister. I cannot think of a better choice for her
992
maiden speech, to which we all look forward, than the topic of this debate. I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm that, whatever measure the Government introduce, it will not permit political parties to act disproportionately by maintaining unequal or separate standards for would-be parliamentary candidates based upon their sex, because that would lead to the kind of mess illustrated by the Jepson case.
There are difficult political, as well as legal, issues involved here. One has to think, for example, about ethnic minorities and their gross under-representation; and the consequences if one took similar steps to promote ethnic minorities as regards access to Parliament. Indeed, that could be divisive. However, if one did not include ethnic minorities, that might seem to suggest that one values racial and ethnic equality less than sex equality.
Those considerations give rise to difficult issues beyond the scope of this debate. But, in my view, the wisest approach would involve, first, applying the full force of the sex and race discrimination legislation to tackle the existing indirectly discriminatory practices by political parties—that is not being done and should be done for a start; secondly, as my noble friend said, introducing a positive duty on public authorities under the Sex Discrimination Act, as has been done in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; thirdly, introducing a fairer and proportionate system for electing MPs that would encourage greater pluralism and diversity; and, fourthly, introducing a carefully-tailored exemption that would allow positive action that was both necessary and proportionate. Those measures would tackle the under- representation not only of women but also of ethnic minorities. They would tackle the causes of that under-representation in a proportionate way.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for bringing this matter before the House. I also welcome my noble friend Lady Morgan to the Dispatch Box and look forward to hearing her maiden speech. I say this with a song in my heart: many of us dreamt that the day would come when the Labour Party manifesto would state that it was,
"committed through legislation to allow each party to make positive moves to increase the representation of women".
Every one of us involved in that last effort to recruit 101 women to Parliament is relieved at the prospect of this new journey.
The use of all women shortlists in 1997 swelled the ranks of women MPs, but without positive action the past four years will come to be seen as a blip. Labour's selection of fewer women to replace retiring MPs in 2001 is a mockery of modern democracy. The result of this election sadly indicates that point, and the fact that political parties will not select significantly more women candidates without a change in the law to allow them to use positive action.
Nevertheless, with all the will in the world, the number of women MPs still represents only 18 per cent, as compared to the figure 35 per cent in relation

993
to senior managers in the public sector. That demonstrates that all of our political parties are well behind the rest of society. Even at this stage of world history, women occupy only approximately 25 per cent of Parliament—the recent respectable appointments of baronesses represent just 15 per cent of these Benches. I believe that the United Kingdom stands at 33rd position in that respect. The proposed Bill is the only credible option and way forward.
The Labour women who have been fortunate to come through to Parliament via all women shortlists have faced enormous criticism. They have been sneered at and accused of asking "patsy" questions and not rebelling enough. Their loyalty has been questioned and, worst of all, they have been accused of lacking sisterhood. Anyone with an idea about politics should know that brotherhood is left at St Stephen's Gate. So I ask: why are there different standards for women?
The concept of "Blair's Babes" has become a casual insult to 101 new British legislators. Noble Lords may have noticed the number of exchanges since 1997, particularly between journalists, about the effectiveness of the new intake, on the presumption that the 101 male legislators they may have replaced were the crème de la crème of British politics. Labour women have been bracketed in this way because other parties did not take part in this exercise. That is why I believe that the obligation for all political parties to act now through the law is critical.
Change through legislation gives us an opportunity to examine how we shall ensure that parliamentary and local democracy is truly representative of British people. No one will have failed to notice that the previous Labour effort on that front produced more than 100 women MPs but failed to produce one single Asian woman on those green Benches. We had to depend on the PM's patronage to make up some of the democratic deficit. I, of course, declare an interest in t hat regard.
This debate will consider issues such as the way in which ethnic minority candidates are treated by their good comrades during selection processes. My experience of some 25 years with my party is perhaps a good example to share with your Lordships' House but time does not allow me to do that. However, my experience is certainly typical of that of many Asian women who have sought parliamentary seats and public office. It seems that as a member of a party one is good enough to knock on doors for one's Member of Parliament, be a councillor or even become a deputy leader, but if the question arises of leadership, control or sharing power a whole host of the usual rank and file discriminatory practices creep in.
Not too long ago in my party good, caring, intelligent comrades were heard to comment that my constituency would not tolerate an Asian woman—even worse, a Muslim woman—as its representative and that such a proposal would jeopardise the seat. As a Muslim Asian woman I should like to see a Bill introduced to rectify the gross injustices of oppression perpetrated by party mechanisms which have
994
prevented many being selected. That applies to all parties. I hope that this debate will be a catalyst for change and will have an impact not only on parliamentary but also on local government selection processes. There is no doubt in my mind that Britain's ethnic minorities feel that they are cut off from the mainstream political process. Asian women have not been a part of that for a long time.
I have talked to friends who aspire to membership of this House. Many will see the current lack of progress in facilitating the aspirations of Asian women as a proof of latent racism within party mechanisms. Others will say that not enough women put themselves forward. I believe that there is truth in both statements. The selection process is besotted with networks which exclude Asian women. Good, active candidates continue to be excluded. I have run out of time. I hope that any proposed legislation will address the fundamental issue I have mentioned as well as the issue of attracting and facilitating women's parliamentary aspirations. Time does not permit me to comment on the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and on the debate of 1957. I hope that all noble Lords will read that debate.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, to her new post in the Cabinet Office as Minister for Women. Given her background in the Prime Minister's Office and in the Labour Party, we look forward to hearing her contribution to this important debate which was introduced by my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood.
It has been a wide-ranging debate. The problem is clear: women are under-represented in our Westminster Parliament and indeed throughout the whole of our political system in the UK. Currently 18.2 per cent of our Members of Parliament in Westminster are women. That figure is extremely low compared with the rest of Europe. We are 20th in the table. Speakers have touched on why we want to increase the representation of women. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that government should not be involved in the selection process. My noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, explained why we should be concerned about the matter. We cannot claim to be an inclusive and universal democracy if we do not have equal representation. Only when women are represented in legislatures in proportion to their presence in society will women share equal citizenship with men.
Opponents of the issue say that women can have equality of representation but only on the same terms as men. However, political recruitment procedures were devised by men to select other men. That lies at the heart of our problem. As we have heard this evening, a system which has as its representa lives mainly men has resulted in women still earning less than men and with poor recognition of their roles as carers and family makers. I refer to the financial

995
rewards they get for those roles. My noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, referred to that matter.
Many have mentioned the reasons why we have fewer women in our Westminster Parliament. There are problems of resources. It costs money to involve women in politics. Lifestyle restraints have been mentioned. There is also the matter of the number of vacancies in Parliament. Sometimes not many people stand down at elections. Women are rarely selected to stand for seats that are winnable. I declare an interest in that I am at present part of a commission of the Electoral Reform Society which considers candidates' selection by the political parties. We have examined masculine selection procedures and selection by people who espouse traditional attitudes with regard to who should be their parliamentary representative. Many people complain that selection procedures are biased.
The main parties—this applies to some more than others but I shall try not to be too political in this matter—have tried to tackle some of those issues. There has been much awareness-raising of the opportunities in public life available to women. My party has instigated special training to try to increase the number of women coming forward. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that part of the problem is that women do not put themselves forward for selection. My noble friend Lord Newby mentioned one of the reasons for that. I refer to my horrible experiences when I first entered another place. I believe that I am the only person taking part in the debate who has been a Member of both Houses.
People have tried to take positive action. We know what happened in the Labour Party with regard to the all-women shortlist. My party tried quotas on shortlists. Under a different electoral system, we had 50 per cent men and 50 per cent women elected in the previous European election. There are legal problems associated with this matter. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill is an absolute expert in this area. I do not beg to differ from him on these matters. I do not believe that the legal problems are insurmountable.
We should consider what has happened in the rest of Europe, as others have mentioned. In Denmark, quotas were examined as early as the 1970s. Women there have 37 per cent representation. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, mentioned what is happening in France. In France some state funding is withheld if women's representation is not facilitated. European political systems tend to comprise a higher proportion of women representatives. However, tonight we are considering how our Government can address the decline in the number of women Members of Parliament. My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood asked about the timing of legislation. My noble friend Lord Lester also made some points in that regard. Someone asked what Home Office research had revealed in this area. The other day someone said to me that women will achieve equality when there are many mediocre women
996
Ministers in Parliament—then women will know that they have achieved equality. I look forward to that day.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, on introducing the debate. I welcome her tenacity on this subject. I also warmly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, to the House. I very much look forward to hearing her maiden speech. I congratulate her on her appointment as Minister for Women. That is a difficult appointment. I say "difficult" because the mere fact that in the 21st century we are even discussing the need to address the imbalance of women in Parliament and all related issues which will occupy the noble Baroness is depressing. Quite frankly, in comparison the Committee stage next week of the Land Registration Bill, a very dry subject, is welcome. Then I and probably the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and other lady Peers will simply get on with the complex task without any thought or mention of our gender or ability. I believe that no one need look further than this House for reassurance that women are more than capable of fulfilling key roles as parliamentarians.
When I became Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party, responsible for women, after the general election of 1997, having fought a seat, I was quite sure that women should make it to Parliament on merit alone. Indeed, while I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor in that role, my noble friend Lady Seccombe, who did so much over a period of 10 years to encourage women, including myself, to stand for Parliament and who gave us that confidence to stand which is so important, I was also determined to change my role from Vice Chairman for Women to Vice Chairman for Party Development. I believed firmly that the way to attract more women to Parliament was not by separating them on the ground of sex and thereby compartmentalising them but by looking for new ways to encourage young men and women to connect with politics—in ways that would appeal to them and through initiatives which are relevant to them and their lives today.
I still believe that I was right to change my role to that of party development. I am pleased to say that we are attracting many more women to our party. However, following my very active term as a vice chairman of our party, and with more experience of the issue under my belt, I changed my view that women can and should succeed on merit alone. With some considerable sadness I and the Conservative Party now believe we cannot continue to hope that in the short term women will make it to Parliament by relying upon traditional routes. That said, I believe that we must be incredibly careful about the way we move forward. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, that any legislation should be permissive. We must all listen with care to and re-read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in particular with regard to the question of proportionality.

997
The concept of all women short lists is tempting. However, it is believed that it does diminish women and we have witnessed, albeit from the sidelines as a party which has not taken part in such an experiment, a serious backlash in some quarters and constituencies where women have been compulsorily imposed as candidates. I recall that my New Labour opponent in Slough was one such candidate and there was a great deal of unhappiness which must have been tough for her. However, I must concede that she is now the honourable Member for Slough and I am not. That said, I am glad to report that the Conservative Party in Slough selected a woman again in preference to a large number of men who applied to fight the recent general election. I wish that I were able to report that she had made it this time on merit.
Indeed, I want to use this opportunity to congratulate all those women who fought in the recent election and in previous general elections. It is a tough, lonely business. The difference for me was that, having failed to secure the seat, my party then gave me the chance to succeed by a different route. While I will not discuss the selection process of our party, I think it is right to say that the biggest stumbling block for us all is prejudice coupled, albeit to a lesser extent, with too few women prepared to make the commitment.
It is now clear that there needs to be a two-pronged approach. First, we need to find a way in the short term of overcoming prejudice and thereby witnessing more able women in Parliament who are already trying to make it i n all our parties. Secondly, we need to encourage many more women with real calibre seriously to consider a life in politics. That brings me back to party development and the need to encourage the new generation into politics and to treat them in the same way as in every other walk of life: that is, with gender a non-issue. I cannot agree with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, MP, when she said in a recent speech to the Fawcett Society commemorating women winning the vote:
"For the 21st Century, I believe that we need to ensure that we achieve a tot ally different kind of politics—a gendered politics".
I cannot think of a faster way to turn both women and men off than that kind of political correctness.
Surely it should be our goal to take gender out of politics. In most other spheres and professions gender is not now an issue. Parliament and those given the important role of choosing our candidates just need to catch up with the rest of life. It was recently suggested that in politics women need more training and mentoring than men. I agree with mentoring perhaps because, as I have already said, politics is a lonely business. But with regard to the idea that women need more training than men for politics, I should love to see the reaction of any women in any other walk of life or vocation accepting such an absurd and insulting suggestion.
There are so many more things that one could say on the subject, but of one thing I am sure. I look forward to a time when we refer to all parliamentarians simply as Members of Parliament and Peers, not women MPs and lady Peers. It is not that we want women in Parliament just to make it look as though there is
998
equality. We believe that it contributes genuinely to the democratic process. In addition, the truth is that women tend to make excellent Members of Parliament. Women are capable of fulfilling a number of roles at the same time. We always have. We are multi skilled. We are also on the whole rather good at listening and, more often than not, possess a natural ability and tendency to show real humility. It was a French woman politician who said not so long ago that men seek power for its own sake, women seek power so that they can get things done. How true.
7.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Morgan of Huyton): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for securing the debate this evening on the subject of women's representation. We have had an excellent debate and, given the constraints of time, I shall endeavour to reply to as many noble Lords as time permits and beyond that, if noble Lords will permit it, I shall write to them.
I take this opportunity to express my thanks for the kindness shown to me by Members and officials of this House since my introduction two-and-a-half weeks ago. It feels like six months! I regard my new post as Minister for Women as a daunting but great challenge and I am proud to have been given the chance to build on the work of my predecessors as Ministers for Women—the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and the right honourable Tessa Dowell, MP.
I also feel privileged to be chairing the new Cabinet sub-committee on equality which will co-ordinate the Government's policies on equality issues and is, I believe, a real step forward. Women's involvement in politics is a subject close to my heart and one with which I have been concerned since I dealt with women's issues as Vice-Chair of the British Youth Council—now 20 years ago—as a former secondary school teacher and throughout my political life, as a local councillor, as an official in the Labour Party and as political secretary to the Prime Minister. I was involved in the introduction of all women short lists and other measures to attempt to increase the representation of women in the Labour Party—not always easy, I have to say. I find the fall in the number of women MPs in the last general election especially depressing. However, we have made real strides. We now have 30 per cent of women Ministers and women comprise 30 per cent of the Cabinet, so all is not lost. But it is clear that we have to move forward.
This Government want to encourage women to take their rightful place in public life and it is clear that many Members of this House share our aspiration that in the 21st century women should have an equal chance to be part of the institutions that govern our country. I know that many noble Lords also share the Government's determination to make sure that our society offers equality of opportunity to everyone, using legislation if necessary, and to make use of the country's full wealth of talent. This is a subject on which Members of this House have often taken a lead.

999
And I am pleased to note the support that the proposed legislation on women's representation is now attracting from all parties, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
It is encouraging that Members of all the main parties in the other place have expressed support for the legislation and that a leading contender in the Conservative leadership debate has also been positive. I welcome the support that has been expressed around the House this evening, particularly the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
The Government have made clear their determination to take action in their election manifesto and in the recent Gracious speech. The reason for the proposed legislation is simple: all-women shortlists, which were introduced by the Labour Party before the general election in 1997, were deemed unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by an employment tribunal. Therefore, any political party that tried to bring in positive measures of any sort to increase women's representation could face a legal challenge.
However, the legislation that we propose will be permissive. Its purpose is to remove the risk of a legal challenge where parties choose to introduce positive measures. It will be up to the parties themselves to decide the best action to take, if any. The Government are not forcing change on anyone.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Gale have explained, we have much to learn on the subject from the experience in Scotland and Wales. Some 37 per cent of Members of the Scottish Parliament and almost 42 per cent of the Members of the Welsh Assembly are women. That compares with only 17 per cent in this House and the other place. The Government will build on and learn from the experiences of the devolved administrations.
Experience in Wales suggests that proportional representation is not necessarily the solution, as some have suggested, because more women were elected in the constituencies on the first-past-the-post system than on the list system. There is scope for further discussion on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked whether the legislation would cover local government elections. That is an important issue. Many women get involved and end their political life at that level. We are looking at details of how our commitment to legislate should be taken forward, including which elections should be covered. We have to consider carefully the implications for devolved administrations.
The legislation is intended to encourage women from a wide range of backgrounds. I share the particular concern expressed by my noble friend Lady Uddin about the representation of black and Asian women. However, the legislation is just part of our package of measures to build an inclusive society and increase opportunity for all. For example, last year the Government introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000—the most radical race
1000
relations legislation in 25 years. The Government have also set up the Disability Rights Commission, which is a major step forward in helping to secure civil rights for disabled people. We also recognise the important role that public bodies and public appointments play. We are taking action to improve the fairness of representation, but we have a long way to go.
We shall all benefit from the increased representation of women, not least because of the experiences that they bring with them and the interests that they have. They are able to bring a different perspective to policy debates. As a wife, and particularly as the mother of two primary school-age boys, I know only too well the everyday challenges of trying to juggle work and home life, especially towards the end of the summer term. Those experiences that women bring to political life will enhance and enrich all our lives.
On a practical level, there are many examples of issues pursued by women Ministers and Back-Bench Members of this House and another place. I shall give two examples in addition to those highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and others this evening. Debra Shipley, a Member of another place, brought forward a Private Member's Bill in the last Parliament which is now the Protection of Children Act 1999. It requires the keeping of a list of people considered unsuitable to work with children. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, brought forward a Private Member's Bill to provide for the licensing and regulation of private hire vehicles in London which is now the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. It helps to provide greater security and reassurance for women travelling alone. If women are excluded from the political process, for whatever reasons, we are less likely to have a full range of needs and interests addressed.
I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about working practices. It is a subject of discussion in this House and the other place. Let us hope that there is progress on that.
I welcome the comments from my noble friend Lady Gibson. I know that my party will need the support of the trade unions to move representation forward. I know of the hard work that she has put in over many years on the subject. I am also delighted that our proposals have attracted such support from a range of women's organisations, including some members of the Women's National Commission, which is so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. I look forward to involving all those organisations further as our work on the legislation progresses.
The Government are keen to maintain the momentum behind the legislation. I know from the debate that many noble Lords want to hear about progress. We have made our commitment clear. The issue is not whether we legislate, but how. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised concerns about timing. We recognise the importance of introducing the legislation as soon as possible, particularly in order to meet the needs of Scotland and Wales as well as of the next general election. However, we also wish to

1001
ensure that it is fair and carefully considered. To that end, we are working hard on the detail now. That includes the question of whether the best way forward is via electoral or employment law. I shall stay in touch with noble Lords on that issue.
My noble friend Lady Gould explained that other countries have already increased women's representation. Some of those measures are covered by EU law. In Sweden, 43 per cent of the national Parliament are now women; in Norway, that figure rises to 48 per cent. In Germany, it is 31 per cent. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others that the Government intend that any measures introduced to promote equality of opportunity between men and women will be compliant with the United Kingdom's EU and human rights international obligations.
There is a wealth of knowledge and expertise in the House on some of those difficult issues. I have heard some of it this evening. The Government are keen to
1002
draw on that expertise. I look forward to the contributions of many noble Lords in developing the legislation, both in the Chamber and in outside discussions.
I thank your Lordships for the courtesy you have shown me and the patience with which you have listened to what I have to say this evening. The Government are confident that, without being prescriptive in any way, the proposed legislation will usher in a more equal society, allowing greater representation of women in Parliament in the future. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to support it.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I appreciate that this is out of order and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, but I wanted to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, on her excellent maiden speech.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.