Sitting of 6 December 1999

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

    Racism
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: If he will make a statement on progress made in combating racism in the police force. [99676]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Many recommendations of the Macpherson report about racism in the police service have already been implemented, in line with the action plan that I published in March. The promised Bill to extend the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976 in respect of the police and other public authorities was published last Friday. New disciplinary procedures and a code of conduct came into effect in April, making racist language or behaviour a breach of the code. Also in April, I set targets for the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic police officers. In addition, a nationally co-ordinated and funded programme of race awareness training is now under way in police forces.
    Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that response. Will he say how many prosecutions for racially motivated offences have been commenced under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998?
    Mr. Straw: The latest provisional information shows that there have been 99 convictions for the racially aggravated offences provided for under the 1998 Act. Although that is 99 offences too many, in one sense the fact that the prosecutions have taken place shows the importance of making such offences subject to the law.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Home Secretary recall that, in one of his first speeches after his appointment as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Paul Condon condemned racism outright? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the almost seven years that he has been Commissioner, Sir Paul has put that approach into practice, with the result that there is now far less racism in the Metropolitan police
    540
    than formerly? As Sir Paul nears retirement, would not this be a good opportunity to congratulate him on what he has done to improve race relations in the metropolis?
    Mr. Straw: I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in extending those congratulations to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, whose record on tackling racism is consistent with his broader record of reducing crime in London very significantly during his period in office. It should also be put on record that, even before I introduced the targets for improving the recruitment and retention of black and Asian officers in the police, the Metropolitan police service under Sir Paul's stewardship had made considerable progress in that direction.

    Electoral Reform
    Mr. Martin Salter: If he will make a statement about reform of electoral procedure and voting systems. [99677]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Representation of the People Bill, which will modernise our electoral procedures, received its Second Reading last Tuesday.
    Mr. Salter: Does my hon. Friend recall the representations that I made to him earlier this year, in which I drew attention to the fact that the British National party had submitted false European election nomination forms? In that way, because it could claim that it was fielding the requisite number of candidates, it was able to ensure that its disgusting and racist views could be broadcast on national television. How will the newly published Representation of the People Bill deal with that tactic? Does my hon. Friend plan to allow a longer period in which nomination papers can be checked to prevent such abuses?
    Mr. O'Brien: We want to ensure that those who nominate candidates for electoral office are properly registered on the electoral register. The Representation of the People Bill will help in that regard. We also want to ensure that people who have the opportunity to use valuable national television and media time to put forward their political views comply properly with the law, and that they are not among those who incite racial hatred.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the Minister name another democratic country in which the electoral procedure and voting system in the second Chamber is effectively the patronage of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. O'Brien: In asking about another country, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is implying that that is what happens here. It is not quite like that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs a lesson on the British constitution: the procedure does not work as he described.
    Mr. Martin Linton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the provisions in the Representation of the People Bill for a rolling register and postal voting on demand amount to a huge step forward? However, will he

    541
    give further consideration to the suggestion that people who are vulnerable to domestic violence should be able to register anonymously on all published registers?
    Mr. O'Brien: One of our concerns has been that the addresses of victims of domestic violence, and others, are widely available because they are on the electoral register. We are examining ways in which we can enable such people to be properly registered to vote, while ensuring that their names and addresses cannot be sold without their consent. In the past, such information has been disseminated by means of a CD-ROM given away free with a magazine, which meant that anyone wanting to find out where another person was could do so easily. The concerns expressed by my hon. Friend are very real, and I hope that we will be able to discuss them when the Bill is considered in Committee. In due course, I hope that the legislation will offer at least some protection for people in those circumstances.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), the Minister said "It is not quite like that". If so, can he confirm that the millennium peers of whom we have heard will be appointed by the Appointments Commission, and will not be personally appointed by the Prime Minister?
    Mr. O'Brien: For 18 years, the hon. Gentleman and his Conservative colleagues were quite happy to appoint various people to the House of Lords with no complaint about the process. By raising the matter only when a Labour Government are committed to modernising the constitution, they merely draw attention to their failure to do anything during those 18 years.

    Prisoner Regimes
    Jane Griffiths: How much the Government are investing in programmes to provide constructive regimes for prisoners. [99678]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government have a clear commitment to develop constructive regimes that reduce the risk of reoffending. The comprehensive spending review settlement included an additional £660 million for the Prison Service, a substantial part of which—£226 million—is for such regimes, including drugs, education and offending behaviour programmes.
    Jane Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome reply. He will be aware that Reading young offenders institution was recently commended by the inspectorate for its work in education and for having a midwife on site to assist young male inmates with parenting education. Will he join me in congratulating the YOI on that work?
    Mr. Boateng: I certainly congratulate Reading YOI on its work, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the care and attention that she has given to it. The CSR allocated £200,000 to the budget in her area, and that will allow the introduction over the next year of expanded educational provision, an enhanced thinking skills course, counselling, advice, referral, assessment and throughcare support—or CARATS counselling—and a detox unit as part of a
    542
    drugs strategy. The appointment of a voluntary drugs testing officer, increased time for probation bail information and capital funding for two safe cells to help to reduce suicides in custody will also make an appreciable difference to the safety of those held at Reading. Importantly, all that will also contribute to reducing the risk of reoffending. Protecting the public is what our policy is all about.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the Minister acknowledge that, according to the most recent Prison Service annual report, purposeful activity has declined to less than 23 hours a week on average, the lowest level since 1991?
    Mr. Boateng: I can assure the right hon. Lady that we have put in place a target for 1999–2000 of 24 hours a prisoner a week, and we are well on the way to achieving that goal. This Government, rather than her own, have put moneys into constructive activity in prisons. This Government, rather than hers, have placed a real emphasis on protecting the public. We shall be remembered for that, rather than for justifying chaining pregnant women to their beds.
    Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has a target of 24 hours a week, which may be some improvement on the current 22.8 hours a week. Will he acknowledge, however, that it does not begin to match the 26 hours a week that we achieved in 1994–95?
    Mr. Boateng: Year in and year out, the provision made for prisoners held under the Conservative Government failed to address the basic levels of numeracy and literacy that determine whether prisoners get jobs when they are released. We inherited a situation in which the literacy and numeracy skills of 60 per cent. of prisoners disqualified them from more than 90 per cent. of all jobs. We intend to address that situation. The Conservatives had 18 years in which do so. They did not do it, but we will.
    Miss Widdecombe: May I therefore deduce from the Minister's two answers that, yes, purposeful activity is indeed at its lowest level since 1991, and that, yes, the target is two hours lower than the one we achieved during our term in Government?
    Mr. Boateng rose—
    Miss Widdecombe: I am glad of the Minister's eagerness, but would he answer one more question? If purposeful activity currently fills 22.8 hours a week, it follows that most prisoners spend an average of only four hours a day in purposeful activity. This is not a trick question, and I do not require an answer to the decimal point, but can the Minister tell me roughly what percentage of the convicted population manages more than six hours a day?
    Mr. Boateng: If the right hon. Lady wants an accurate answer, she will understand that I shall write to her and give her an accurate answer—to the lowest percentage decimal point. However, in the meantime, she will understand, from my answers to her questions, that we are

    543
    on the job that she palpably failed to address. Labour is delivering; she failed to do so. The public were put at risk; we are protecting the public.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Although I recognise the importance that my right hon. Friend puts on numeracy and literacy, will he undertake to review the fact that arrangements are currently not in place so that the relatively small number of long-term prisoners who have passed Open university degrees in prison can pursue postgraduate studies? They are unable to do so not through lack of facilities, but because of the lack of financial resources available to each governor. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those prisoners who can show the way in such study will not only benefit themselves, but will offer an example of leadership to many other prisoners? Will he consider the matter as there is currently a deficiency?
    Mr. Boateng: I would be only too happy to look at the matter and, indeed, to meet my hon. Friend if that would be of assistance.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given the revelation by the former Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, now the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), in a written answer in July 1999 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), that prisoners will have manufactured 260,000 pairs of slippers between March 1997 and March 2000, will the Minister tell the House what assessment he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have made of the job opportunities to which that collective manufacture has led, or will lead?
    Mr. Boateng: Two hundred and sixty thousand pairs of slippers, but not one of them fitted the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: How much money the Government are investing nationally in CCTV systems. [99679]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Under the crime reduction programme closed circuit television initiative, we are investing £153 million over three years in new or extended CCTV systems in England and Wales. A further £13 million has been allocated to Scotland and £4 million to Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, we expect to allocate about £68 million to schemes during the current financial year, with the balance to be allocated in years two and three.
    The first 35 successful bids were announced last week. They were awarded £3.9 million of this year's planned £68 million. Further awards will be announced in the middle of January.
    Mr. Henderson: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that, under the crime and disorder partnership, Tendring district council has put in a bid for a self-contained mobile CCTV scheme. If the bid is successful, the council expects to reduce repeat victimisation by 30 per cent., by reducing criminal damage
    544
    by 100 incidents a year, and car crime by 80 incidents a year. The scheme would then be extended from towns to rural areas. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will give the scheme his personal careful consideration? Will he also tell the House when he expects to announce further successful bids for such schemes?
    Mr. Clarke: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will give the matter my close personal attention. I congratulate the Tendring crime and disorder partnership on its bid for £36,000 and the potential total capital of about £120,000. That application was one of 373 bids shortlisted to prepare final proposals. As I said earlier, the results are due to be announced in mid-January.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the great success of the CCTV scheme in cutting both crime and vandalism in the centre of Bromsgrove. Of course, we have the previous Conservative Government to thank for their generosity in promoting that scheme. May I implore the Labour Government to be equally generous to the people of Bromsgrove? The district council has proposed the extension of the scheme to the shopping and village areas; that would enhance the benefits of the scheme—lowering vandalism and making Bromsgrove a safer place. I implore the Minister to consider that—especially in the light of the West Mercia police force budget and the reduction in the number of constables on the streets. If we cannot have constables to police our streets, perhaps we can have CCTV instead.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have allocated £170 million to CCTV compared with less than £39 million invested under the previous Government. I shall carefully consider the Bromsgrove scheme. I am not sure whether it is one of the 373 bids made so far, but it will be closely considered.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that that valuable capital programme is backed by current spending? There is a growing suspicion that, in many cases, CCTV systems do not contain film, are not continually monitored and that the deterrent effect on vandals and graffiti artists is being dissipated.
    Mr. Clarke: I should be interested to hear specific examples of that. The schemes that I have seen have been very successful. They have demonstrated substantial revenue savings—for example, on insurance and maintenance—and they have deterred crime in the way with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar. I am not aware of general unreadiness to put revenue funding into such schemes, but, if the hon. Gentleman has specific examples of that, I shall be glad to consider them.

    Norwich Prison
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What assessment he has made of the level of overcrowding in Norwich prison. [99680]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The operational capacity for Norwich prison is 744. The highest population at Norwich over the last

    545
    six months was on 19 September, when 725 prisoners were in custody. The average population at Norwich during the current financial year has been 698.
    Dr. Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a good general definition of overcrowding in prisons would be two prisoners in a cell designed for one? Would he further correlate the figures for overcrowding with the high suicide rates in prisons—for example, there have been 19 suicides in Norwich in the past few years? Finally, has he plans to emulate the judge in North Carolina who paraded prisoners down Main street with a placard round their necks stating what their indiscretions had been? We can think of some people in this country who might fall into that category.
    Mr. Boateng: That is a very interesting suggestion and one that I should be only too happy to discuss with my hon. Friend if he wishes to introduce the North Carolina example in Norwich. It is important to recognise that prison governors have a responsibility to assess what is a safe number to hold in a particular jail and they do that by considering issues such as ventilation, light and space as well as design. In Norwich, that number has been assessed as 744 and the prison population is currently below that capacity.
    It is important to ensure that we take steps within the prison population to detain prisoners in safe and decent environments, and that means giving the problems of suicide and self-harm a proper degree of priority. I do that and I know that the Attorney-General, when he was the Minister responsible for prisons, met my hon. Friend to discuss it. I continue to keep the position at Norwich under review and I pay particular tribute to the Samaritans in Norwich and to the prisoners who participate in the listeners scheme, which has shown itself able to produce positive results in reducing the impact of suicide and self-harm.

    Special Constables
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make it his policy to increase the number of special constables. [99681]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Yes, it is. Special constables are an excellent example of the police and the public working together to tackle crime. The Government strongly support the efforts of police forces to recruit more special constables. A special constables week was held in January 1999 during which many events were held by forces around the country.
    In addition, the Home Office provided £500,000 worth of local press and radio advertising for 12 forces. It has also produced a recruitment video, a series of posters and a recruitment brochure for forces.
    Mr. Leigh: If all that is true, why has the number of special constables decreased by 3,000 since the general election? If the Minister wants to avoid the charge that he is simply tough on crime-fighters rather than tough on crime, will he think of some truly imaginative ways of
    546
    increasing recruitment—for example, by giving special constables the same terms, conditions and pay that people in the Territorial Army receive?
    Mr. Clarke: We believe that the main reason for the decline in numbers has been the higher recruiting standards that are now used for special constables. Those higher standards reflect the fact that special constables are being trained and deployed in a wider variety of duties than before, including more so-called front-line duties. The recruiting criteria are now very similar to those used for regular officers, so many applicants who previously would have been accepted in the special constabulary are now being rejected.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was the previous Government who handed over responsibility for police figures to chief constables, and that no Government, not even a Conservative Government, could at this time guarantee the numbers of police available and operative in any town or city?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, which is entirely accurate. Legislation passed in 1994 by the previous Government removed from the Home Secretary the power to specify police numbers throughout the country.
    Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): The Conservative party applauds the excellent work of special constables, but does not the Minister recognise that any extra help from specials will not plug the massive hole in front-line policing, which as today's BBC survey has revealed, consists of 3,000 unfilled posts? The pattern across the country is becoming depressingly familiar: retired officers are not replaced; vacant posts are unfilled; and recruitment plans are postponed or frozen—all to save money from overstretched budgets. What a contrast that is to the 16,000 extra police officers recruited under the Conservatives. When will the Minister face up to what everyone else in the police service can see is the worst crisis in police manpower since Labour was last in office?
    Mr. Clarke: The most significant event to address that issue in recent months was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement that we would be providing 5,000 extra police officers over and above the levels previously indicated. As the hon. Gentleman will know, last Thursday, we published guidance on that in which we specifically state the means by which police authorities can apply for those resources and ensure, as they could not under the previous Government's proposals, that they are used for police numbers. That is action that the Government are taking to address those issues.

    Racism
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: What steps his Department is taking to combat racism in the public sector. [99683]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We have now published a Bill to bring all the public sector, including the police, within race relations legislation. Last week,

    547
    we also published an equality statement that set race equality within a wider strategy to ensure that the public sector promotes equality and leads by example.
    Mrs. Brinton: I thank the Minister for that welcome reply. As he will know, the case of a constituent of mine has recently given me cause to look in depth at the role of race and racism in our mental health service. I was shocked to discover that everything from the first diagnosis to drug administration and the control and restraint methods employed can be directly or indirectly affected by racism. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give to the thousands of black and Asian men and women in the mental health system that racism will be tackled by the race relations Bill, which was recently announced in the Queen's Speech?
    Mr. O'Brien: The Bill covers mental health patients in the same way that it covers others. Direct discrimination and victimisation of a mentally ill patient by any specified public authority in the performance of its functions, which are currently covered by the Race Relations Act 1976, will become unlawful. Discrimination against mentally ill patients in sectors already covered by the Act, such as the provision of goods, facilities and services, will of course remain unlawful.
    Mr. David Lidington: Have the Government reached a final conclusion on the proposal from the Commission for Racial Equality that the burden of proof should be reversed in cases of alleged racial discrimination? Does not the Minister agree that to implement such a proposal would risk severely damaging, not improving, race relations in this country?
    Mr. O'Brien: We will obviously take account of what the hon. Gentleman has said in reaching our conclusions. We have considered the third review of race relations legislation by the Commission for Racial Equality. It contains several proposals that we strongly support, and we are still considering other proposals, including the one referred to by the hon. Gentleman. In due course, we shall introduce our proposals on how to proceed. The key point is that the House should take a lead, both with the Bill that will shortly come before the House and with later legislation, to ensure that we create a successful, multi-racial society in Britain.
    Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): Is the Minister aware that, although welcome, the Bill's limited proposals will not necessarily tackle institutionalised racism—so powerfully identified by the Macpherson report—in some of our public services, especially the police? Has he considered whether ensuring that public services generally have the duty to promote good race relations which we have already given to the Greater London Authority might result in a better piece of legislation?
    Mr. O'Brien: I do not agree that the Bill will not tackle some of the issues of institutional racism identified by the Macpherson report: the Bill is a direct response to it. However, I agree that we should consider imposing a statutory duty on public authorities to promote race equality. Indeed, last week, we announced that, in due
    548
    course and when parliamentary time allows, we shall ensure that public authorities have a duty to promote race equality.

    Lancashire Constabulary
    Mr. Michael Jack: What assessment he has made of the impact on police numbers in Lancashire of his projected financial allocations to the county's force for 2000–01. [99684]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The provisional funding allocation for the Lancashire police authority for 2000–01 is £185.3 million. That is an increase of 3.9 per cent., which is more than the average increase for England and Wales of 2.8 per cent. Within the overall budget set by the police authority, it is for the chief officer to determine staffing levels.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his response, as is the Lancashire force for the additional money it is to receive for next year. However, as a Lancashire Member of Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the additional money will barely cover the additional costs—increases in pay, prices and the police pension fund—that the force has to bear. There is no guarantee that the crime-fighting fund will provide Lancashire with guaranteed extra resources to expand the force and recruit new officers. In the light of that financial position, will the right hon. Gentleman spell out to his home force how it is to recruit additional police officers to carry out its duties?
    Mr. Straw: I will take lectures on resources for the police service from almost anyone other than those who supported the previous Administration and who now support the current Opposition Front-Bench team. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot say one thing in Lancashire and another down here. He and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have criticised and damned our spending as reckless, but they speak with a forked tongue on the issue of police funding.
    Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the good news regarding Lancashire police spending. First, figures with which I was provided before coming into the Chamber state that officer numbers in Lancashire are now at an all-time record level. Secondly, thanks to excellent work by the chief constable and her colleagues, crime in the area fell by 10.1 per cent. compared with a national average of 1.4 per cent.—a record that many forces would do well to emulate. Thirdly, to answer the right hon. Gentleman, I can do no better than quote the chief constable, Mrs. Pauline Clare, who said:
    "An increase of 4 per cent. is more than we expected and should be sufficient to match anticipated increases in pay and inflation. It should also help us to maintain police officer numbers."
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Although the figures show a small real-terms cash increase for Lancashire police, next year, the people of London and of Gloucestershire face a cut for the fourth year in a row—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I respectfully draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the question is about police numbers in Lancashire. Therefore, he must speak only about Lancashire, not about other areas.
    Mr. Hughes: It was just how I started. Although there is to be an increase for Lancashire police for the coming year, there are many other forces that will not receive that increase and, indeed, some that will experience a fourth cut in four years. Given that the Police Federation estimates that the crime-fighting fund will not even replace countrywide—
    Madam Speaker: In Lancashire.
    Mr. Hughes: In Lancashire and countrywide, those who are retiring will not be replaced. Will the Home Secretary make sure that the Government concentrate less on ending the north-south divide and more on ending the divide between what they promise and what they do?
    Madam Speaker: I do not require the Home Secretary to answer a question which is not related to the Question on the Order Paper. The Question is about Lancashire. We shall move on.

    Crime and Disorder Act 1998
    Siobhain McDonagh: What consultations he has held with the Magistrates Association on the implementation of the orders made available by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [99685]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): We have consulted extensively with the Magistrates Association and individual magistrates on the implementation, in particular, of the youth justice provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Courts are participating in the pilots of the Act's new measures, to identify effective practice ahead of national implementation. As at 31 October, mainly but not exclusively in the pilot areas, I am pleased to tell the House that there have been 5,000 reprimands issued, 2,500 final warnings, 900 reparation orders, 533 action plan orders, 178 parenting orders, 10 anti-social behaviour orders and two child safety orders.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with me that it is essential that we encourage magistrates, the police and local authorities to consider making anti-social behaviour orders, as they provide one of the only ways of solving many of the problems that my constituents face in areas such as Pollards Hill?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders was not only widely welcomed but widely requested by the police and by local authorities of all political persuasions. The effectiveness of the orders, where they have been used, is striking. I quote:
    "We should not underestimate too the deterrent effect of the new powers on the behaviour of others, and their potential to develop safer communities."
    550
    That was the view of Chief Inspector Royston Smith, of Derbyshire police, after he had successfully secured an anti-social behaviour order against appalling behaviour in his area.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Given that the Crime and Disorder Act was one of the Government's flagship Bills, will the Home Secretary tell us why, on the Jimmy Young show recently, he was forced to admit that he might have to consider amendments to the Act because only 10 anti-social behaviour orders and two child curfew orders have been made? Is that an example of an Act working properly to reduce crime?
    Mr. Straw: The Act is indeed one of the Government's major flagships. I repeatedly meet police officers of every rank who say of the Act that it is the most welcome piece of legislation that they have been asked to implement in the whole of their careers.
    The record of anti-social behaviour orders needs to be set against the outstanding success of the Act overall, including 900 reparation orders, 533 action plan orders and 178 parenting orders. The hon. Gentleman needs to explain to his constituents whether or not he is in favour of, or against, taking tough action of this kind against anti-social neighbours. If the former, he should be doing what many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are doing and asking the authorities behind the action to come forward and seek orders against the sort of appalling anti-social behaviour about which the previous Administration did nothing.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency so far one anti-social behaviour order has been implemented? When I first discovered that, I was somewhat disappointed that more use had not been made of a very important measure. However, wider research, confirmed by my right hon. Friend's answer, shows that my constituency is somewhat in the vanguard. When I discussed the matter with my local police and the local authority, I found that they were keen to use the orders but had not always found the other bodies and agencies involved as helpful as they might have been. Will my right hon. Friend pursue that with those other bodies? The one order that has been implemented is extremely successful and is widely supported by the public. That is the way people want us to go.
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are doing everything that we can to encourage local authorities, magistrates and the police service to follow the example of the authorities in my hon. Friend's constituency in Derbyshire—and in Blackburn as well—where the obtaining of anti-social behaviour orders has proved extremely effective. I have asked my noble Friend Lord Warner, who is also chair of the Youth Justice Board, to take a particular interest in the problems faced by some authorities in seeking such orders.
    Before Opposition Members sneer and get on the wrong side of the argument about dealing with anti-social behaviour, I should remind them of a number of the new offences that they trumpeted at the time the relevant legislation was going through Parliament, including the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; however, 13 years and five years

    551
    later, respectively, the number of such convictions has been fewer than five, despite all the Conservatives' bluster at the time.
    What we see now, on the part of Government and of the police forces and local authorities that are in the vanguard, is a determination properly to use all the orders in the Crime and Disorder Act. The overall figures show already that the Act has been an outstanding success.

    Child Curfew Orders
    Mr. Tim Loughton: How many local child curfew orders have been issued under the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [99686]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): None yet. It is for local authorities to decide whether to apply for confirmation of a local child curfew scheme, in the light of their work on wider crime and disorder strategies.
    Mr. Loughton: Does the Minister agree that the Government's child curfew orders have been exposed as a gimmick? They did nothing in my constituency, in Shoreham and Worthing, to counter 13, 14 or 15-year-old hooligans spraying graffiti and smashing up town centres, especially following the reduction of police numbers in the county by 161. If it is true that the Home Secretary is to have another go less than a year on, and that he plans to amend the Crime and Disorder Act, will the Minister acknowledge that getting tough on youth crime requires more than soundbites and pledge cards?
    Mr. Clarke: That was a fine soundbite. I do not accept that the orders are a gimmick. I must put the hon. Gentleman straight. Local child curfew orders were an additional measure to counteract public misbehaviour by children under 10, not to deal with the 13, 14 and 15-year-olds to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. Child curfew orders are one of the range of measures available to crime reduction partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act. The range of orders being taken up and used, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined, demonstrates that the partnerships have been a tremendous success in achieving co-ordination and in deterring people from activities in which they might otherwise have engaged. The hon. Gentleman should sort out whether he is for or against legislating to prevent anti-social behaviour.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: The provision for child curfews under the Crime and Disorder Act has been warmly welcomed by both police and constituents in my area. The curfews depend, of course, on successful partnerships being built up. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to initiatives to find out whether problems are occurring in partnerships, but could not a more proactive approach be taken to circulate local authorities and perhaps Members of Parliament with examples of the successful working of partnerships, so that we can take forward such measures in our areas?
    Mr. Clarke: What my hon. Friend suggests is welcome and correct. That was one of the proposals that we set out in our crime reduction paper, published last week. We
    552
    acknowledged the truth of what my hon. Friend says: we need to do more proactively in relation to local partnerships, and give examples of draft protocols, guidelines, training, best practice and so on, to ensure that the measures available are taken up in the most effective way.

    Sex Offenders
    Ms Margaret Moran: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that (a) children and (b) other members of the public are protected from sex offenders. [99687]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government are committed to protecting children and others from sex offenders. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 contained strong additional safeguards in the new sex offender orders and extended supervision provisions. This Session, as part of the crime and public protection Bill, we are bringing forward proposals for a scheme to prevent unsuitable people, including sex offenders, from working with children.
    Ms Moran: I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend outlined to give priority to public protection from sex offenders—in sharp contrast to the Opposition, who did not consider the issue sufficiently serious to include it among their so-called guarantees. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still considerable concern about the low number of prosecutions of sex offenders in cases in which the victims are children of five and under or adults with mental incapacities? What additional protections does he propose to introduce to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has a track record of concern and action in relation to the protection of very young children from such sex predators. We look to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to provide a range of additional safeguards for children and young people, to ensure that the court has the opportunity to receive the best evidence from them. It is vital that the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and Victim Support work together to ensure that those wicked people are brought to justice and that our children are properly protected.

    Rural Policing
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What measures he is taking to reduce police response times in rural areas. [99688]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government place great emphasis on improving police response times to emergency calls. At present, individual forces set their targets. The Association of Chief Police Officers is considering whether to move to a maximum 20-minute target time for all rural forces across the country. The current target time in Cheshire is 15 minutes, which is already ahead of that target. We intend to drive down the response time through the use of improved technology and more police officers, as we have already outlined.
    Mr. O'Brien: As the Minister knows, police response times take, on average, twice as long in rural areas as in

    553
    urban areas. That, coupled with the closure of police stations in rural areas, exacerbates rural dwellers' increasing sense of insecurity and desperation. Why do not the Home Secretary and the Minister implement the recommendations of the Home Office report on rural police funding? Does the Minister agree that his decision is yet another example of the Government's antagonism towards those who live in rural areas?
    Mr. Clarke: That is nonsense, although I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first contribution to Home Office questions. The facts for the Cheshire police are clear: they received an increase of £4.7 million—a 4.1 per cent. increase, which is well above the national average—and 28 extra officers. The force numbers are therefore increasing.
    The Government are strongly committed to dealing with rural crime. We have established a series of measures, including those on reducing response times, which, I acknowledge to the hon. Gentleman, are an important aspect of community confidence in rural areas. We shall continue to drive forward the changes, which, I further acknowledge, are very necessary.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend may not be aware that there has been a sudden spate in rural areas of thefts of such expensive items as 4x4s and tractors. That causes alarm. However, my hon. Friend may also like to acknowledge that those in the rural area around Nantwich, especially the officers at Nantwich police station, are doing a tremendous job which is greatly appreciated by those who are most affected. When I accidentally set off the alarms in a Cheshire county council library on Saturday, the police responded at twice the speed of the relevant private security firm.
    Mr. Clarke: I might have known that my hon. Friend was precisely the sort of dangerous, anti-social element that the Government are trying to tackle—in several different contexts. I am grateful for her contribution. In many parts of the country, the farm watch initiatives, which cover some of the farm equipment that my hon. Friend mentioned, have been effective. They are another consequence of effective local crime reduction partnerships.
    Mr. David Heath: Is not the problem the fact that patrolling in rural areas is virtually non-existent, and that the thin blue line has become extremely thin in much of rural Britain? Given the problems that we have already discussed, such as difficulties in recruiting, training, equipping and retaining special constables, would it not be an idea to examine the policy on fire brigades, which is covered by the other half of the Home Office operation, and consider retained constables?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not accept for a moment what the hon. Gentleman says about patrolling in rural areas, but I accept that there is a lot of interest in rural neighbourhood special constables or retained constables, and those issues are worth pursuing. Some rural forces have a strong local special constable presence, which is an example that we are looking at carefully across the country; and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and I are carefully considering
    554
    ways in which not only the fire service but the ambulance service can work with the police to ensure that there is a strong community safety element in rural areas.

    Anti-social Behaviour Orders
    Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will list the anti-social behaviour orders (a) granted by the courts and (b) currently applied for. [99689]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Information on the number of anti-social behaviour orders granted or in progress is not held centrally, but I am aware of 10 ASBOs made to date. Orders have been granted in north Somerset—which my hon. Friends will be grateful to hear is a Conservative council area—Liverpool, Derbyshire, Redditch, Camden, Blackburn, Coventry and Waveney. They are a new weapon to help the police and local authorities to tackle anti-social behaviour in the community. We are giving more impetus to that work, and are setting up an action group to achieve that and to ensure that the police and local authorities have the confidence to take action quickly and efficiently.
    Mr. Beard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that some of the delay involved in serving anti-social behaviour orders arises from difficulties with establishing the requisite evidence, either because the complaints are not sufficiently specific or because of intimidation or improvements in behaviour when inquiries are known to be afoot? Will he consider ways in which those difficulties might be overcome?
    Mr. Clarke: Certainly I will. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, we are learning how best to address the evidential issues. We are considering ideas such as the use of portable videos in particular areas to strengthen the evidential basis of action, and we are talking to local authorities and police across the country to learn from their experience how we can give better guidance to ensure that there is much higher take-up of ASBOs. I hope that all Members of the House will encourage their local authorities and police to take up ASBOs in the most effective way.
    Mr. James Clappison: The Minister may read out a list of individual local authorities that have made orders, but is not the reality that pitifully few have been issued? Does he not recall that the Government promised that this measure was their way of addressing disorder in estates up and down the country? Should he not accept that the courts, the police and the local authorities have found the orders difficult to operate? Would not it be sensible to invite Lord Warner, as part of the review that the Home Secretary has announced, to consider the legal character of the orders? Instead of blaming civil rights lawyers, local authorities and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, the Government should look at the nature of the orders, because that is where the defects arise. They will have to accept responsibility for that deficiency.
    Mr. Clarke: I have already said, as has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that we intend to provide much stronger guidance, stronger guidelines and better protocols to address those issues. I am acutely conscious that Hertsmere is not one of the authorities that have so far

    555
    issued an ASBO, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been doing his best to persuade it and local police to use one in his constituency.

    Stasi Spies
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What steps are being taken to investigate British Stasi spies, information about whom has been discovered in the Berlin Stasi archive. [99692]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As part of its remit under the Security Service Act 1989, the Security Service has investigated, and continues to investigate, British citizens and some others recorded in the East German intelligence service's records as having worked for the Stasi. Those investigations were, and are, handled in the same way as other similar investigations.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply, but unfortunately it does not accord with the information at my disposal on this matter, which I first raised in the House more than a month ago. My information is that the Berlin archive of the Stasi has not been visited by investigators from this country; Dr. Anthony Glees, the senior lecturer who discovered in that archive the detailed material incriminating Dr. Robin Pearson, the would-be university recruiter for the Stasi, has still not been interviewed by the police or the Security Service; and, as far as is known, the material that was given to the BBC, which formed the basis of the programme that brought this matter to public attention, has still not been examined. Is he assuring the House that that material has already been examined? If not, when will it be examined?
    Mr. Straw: The House will understand that I cannot speak about the information available to the hon. Gentleman, but only about that available to me.
    Mr. John Bercow: A poor substitute.
    Mr. Straw: If this will reassure the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am afraid I heard that aside rather later than the rest of the House.
    Mr. Straw: I will not attempt to follow that, Madam Speaker.
    I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the records have revealed many leads in cases involving the investigation of more than 100 individuals.

    Community Sentences
    Maria Eagle: What measures he proposes to increase the confidence of the public and the courts in the use of community sentences. [99693]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The public need to be satisfied that community sentences are effective and properly enforced. We are improving the quality and effectiveness of probation service work through the "what works" initiative, and we are
    556
    tightening enforcement procedures through work with the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and through more rigorous national standards.
    Maria Eagle: Given that reconviction rates following the imposition of custodial sentences are about the same as reconviction rates following the imposition of community sentences, does my right hon. Friend believe that the courts have got the balance of sentencing about right, or does he think that community sentences should be used more regularly by the courts?
    Mr. Boateng: It is important to examine those statistics with great care, because they are compiled on a different basis. We are determined to ensure that community and custodial sentences are better informed as to content, and that the protection of the public lies at the heart of both.

    Crime and Disorder Partnerships
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: If he will make a statement on the level of activity of crime and disorder partnerships. [99694]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The crime and disorder reduction partnerships brought into being by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 published their strategies on 1 April 1999 and are currently implementing them. We recently published a crime reduction strategy, which includes measures to support and develop partnerships' effectiveness.
    Mrs. Heal: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the establishment of many partnerships around the country? That shows the Government's commitment to getting all parts of our communities working together to tackle crime and disorder. Will he congratulate Sandwell metropolitan borough council in my constituency, where two anti-burglary initiatives have produced a significant reduction in domestic burglary rates in recent months? I hope that he and his colleagues will look favourably on a bid by the Halesowen Highfields estate for CCTV, so that it, too, may benefit from a reduction in crime.
    Mr. O'Brien: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the work that is being done in Sandwell. I also agree with her that the work of crime and disorder reduction partnerships is enormously important. It will be one of the most significant contributions that there has been to tackling the problems of crime and disorder in this country. On the CCTV application, she will already have heard in earlier questions that we are putting a considerable amount of funding into that, and all applications will be considered.

    Oakington Detention Centre
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When Oakington detention centre will be opened. [99696]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): We are aiming to open the centre early in the new year, but it is likely to take a few months to build up to full capacity.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for that answer. What details about the administration of the Oakington detention

    557
    centre will be made public, and how many people will be detained in it throughout its life? Does she accept that many people in this country and in other parts of the world find it fundamentally disgraceful that this country still imprisons a large number of asylum seekers? Ours is the only country in Europe routinely to hold asylum seekers in detention.
    Mrs. Roche: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We detain about 1 per cent. of asylum seekers. The centre will have the capacity to take up to 400 people, but we expect to build it up gradually. It will be a reception facility that will process straightforward applications—we are talking about a seven-day period. The question that my hon. Friend must ask himself is how European Union countries deal with unfounded asylum cases, because they all face that problem. We must have this system in place to deal properly with genuine refugees and to progress their cases.

    IT Projects
    Mr. David Heath: How many information technology projects currently being implemented, for which his Department is responsible, are behind schedule. [99697]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The hon. Gentleman has raised an enormously important issue.
    558
    Eleven of the 17 major projects currently under way are expected to complete, or did complete, later than the date originally estimated. Timetables and milestones are kept continually under review. Currently, following updated reviews, all Home Office information technology projects are on target.
    Mr. Heath: I thank the Minister for his answer, but the situation is a bit of a shambles, and it is costing the country a lot of money. In a week during when we shall discuss the Freedom of Information Bill, would it not be appropriate for the Minister to place in the Library the terms of the contracts and the penalties payable by the IT companies, so that we can all see what the Government are doing on our behalf?
    Mr. O'Brien: We have said that we will seek to be as open as possible in regard to the contracts that have already been signed. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, they were signed on the basis of certain conditions and criteria, and obviously we shall be bound by the contracts that currently exist; but as we have said, our policy will be to be as open as we can in making available the contents of future contracts.
    Many private sector projects have experienced some difficulties. The public sector deals with matters on a larger scale; as a result, the opportunities for problems to arise are inevitably greater.

Passports
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement to explain why passport fees are to increase by £7 to £28 for the standard passport, and by £3.80 to £14.80 for the child's passport. I am also publishing the Passport Agency's corporate and business plan for 1999–2002, together with a separate recovery plan. I am placing both documents in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.
As the House is aware, the agency encountered major problems last summer. I greatly regret the severe inconvenience caused to the public, and repeat my apology for what happened. However, the emergency measures that I authorised in the summer have proved effective. Turnround times for passport applications have been within 10 working days since August. Currently, all offices are processing work within a maximum of four working days. The current total backlog is 47,000 applications, which represents about four days' work.
A report from the National Audit Office, published in October, found that £12.6 million had been incurred meeting the exceptional costs involved in remedying the situation that arose in the summer. I think the whole House would accept that it would not be right for those costs to be met by a fee increase, and I have therefore agreed with the agency's new chief executive that they will be met instead by a programme of efficiency savings.
The NAO report also makes it clear that some fundamental changes are necessary to improve the quality and reliability of the agency's service to the public. To effect those changes will require significant investment, and that investment is the reason for the increase in the passport fee, given that successive Governments have rightly determined that the agency must be self-financing.
The passport service became an executive agency in 1991, a change that has undoubtedly delivered improvements. Although the agency has been successful in driving down unit costs, its record for customer service has been less consistent. As the NAO report makes it clear, some of the causes of last summer's problems were deep-rooted. Although the agency has sought to reduce the maximum time taken to process applications from the four-week norm in 1991, it has had problems in consistently delivering the more recent two-week target.
From the early 1990s until last summer, the time taken to process applications has risen significantly above two weeks to a maximum of about four weeks in the busy season each year. As a result, there have been queues at passport offices each summer and increasing problems in responding to a rising volume of telephone inquiries.
Our strategy for the agency takes full account of the NAO report and seeks to deal with those problems. New performance targets are to be set to ensure that the two-week turnround means what it says throughout the year. To ensure that the agency can, in practice, meet those targets, I have agreed to increase its capacity by 25 per cent. to enable it to issue an additional 1.3 million passports each year. That extra capacity will be met by the opening of a new regional office for the north-east of England and by a 30 per cent. expansion of the existing Peterborough office. The new north-east office will
560
create 500 additional jobs and be based in Durham. The Peterborough expansion will mean the creation of an extra 100 jobs.
Other improvements are to be made. From March next year, there will be earlier opening and later closing for all the agency's offices, and Saturday opening as well. That is aimed to deliver a 45-minute maximum waiting target. The renovation of public counter areas in all offices will take place. From next July, a new public counter service will be provided at the new office in Durham. The London passport office will be relocated in spring 2001 to Bridge place, adjacent to Victoria station, where there will be major improvements in facilities for the public. The forms and accompanying notes are to be redesigned to make them more customer-friendly and to reduce error rates. Payment options will be improved and the quality of the telephone inquiry service is being raised.
A new call centre is being established in Bristol involving the creation of a further 60 jobs. The agency is being set a target of answering 90 per cent. of calls within 20 seconds, seven days a week, throughout the year. No more than one call in 50 should receive an engaged tone even at the busiest time of year. Demand forecasting and contingency and manpower planning are being strengthened to ensure that the agency can cope better with unexpected fluctuations of demand and other uncertainties in the process.
Changes have been made to improve the operation of the new computer system, but only when Ministers and the new chief executive are satisfied with the productivity of the new system as implemented at Newport and Liverpool will that system be extended to the other offices, and then only on a phased basis.
Altogether, that investment will cost an estimated £25 million per year. As I have already informed the House, the fee for a standard adult passport with 10-year validity will therefore be increased by £7 to £28. The fee for a child's passport for five years will be increased by £3.80 to £14.80. The fee for amending a passport will be increased by £6 to £17. The additional fee for customers seeking a personal service at the agency's offices will be increased by £2 to £12. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has decided that the higher fees that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office charges for passports issued by its British posts abroad will also increase. All those changes will come into effect on Thursday 16 December.
I naturally understand that fee increases are never popular. However, the increases have been restricted to the minimum that we judge necessary to ensure that the crucial improvements that I have described are delivered. I do not anticipate the need for any further increase in fees for at least two years.
Even with the increase, the fee for a British passport is among the lowest in the world and will remain well below the level of other countries where, like the UK, there is no taxpayer subsidy. For example, the equivalent 10-year adult passport fee is £34.50 in the United States, £46 in Canada, £47.50 in Australia and £74 in France.
The fee increase should ensure that the agency is put on a proper financial footing and is able to put in train the essential improvements to customer service. It will help to ensure that this year's problems do not recur, that the

561
modernisation programme is driven forward and that the agency is able to provide a significantly improved service to the public.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: When will the right hon. Gentleman stop persecuting the ordinary applicant for a British passport? His announcements today, which will come into effect on 16 December, will do nothing other than convince the average applicant that the spirit of Ebenezer Scrooge lives on. Will he confirm that it will now cost a family consisting of mother, father and two children £85 for their passports; that that is an increase of one third, or £21; and that, for those seeking a simple amendment to a passport, the increase is more than 50 per cent?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the new computer system was chosen and signed for by the Under-Secretary of State for Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), and that, according to a National Audit Office report, the new system will deliver no more than the old system was capable of delivering?
Does the right hon. Gentleman to this day take any direct responsibility for the fiasco that arose over the summer, given the decision to implement the new rules on child passports at the same time as the new computer system was being installed? We are now told, moreover, that the new computer system was not really going to do anything more than the old system.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned efficiency savings. Will he confirm that the background papers—which he has given me with the statement, and for which I thank him—suggest that there will be no efficiency savings in the years 2000 or 2001? Are we therefore to believe that none of the fee increase is to pay for the past fiasco, as there will be no efficiency savings for at least two years?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite his own assertion that the Passport Agency's revised business plan was considered on 27 September by his advisory board, two months later, on 23 November, his own Minister in the Lords was claiming not to have seen it? That is of course the same Minister who recently announced in another place a set of police figures which, days earlier, had been repudiated by the Home Secretary.
I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and not for the first time, what is going on in the Home Office. I know that he will tell me, as he has done in the past, that it is business as usual. He will be aware that I have always eschewed the practice of calling for ministerial resignations—[Laughter.] I have. However, in the light of what he has told the House, and the costs to British passport applicants of putting right the results of the fiasco that he—and he alone by his decisions—produced, does he not think that the time has come at least to consider the position of the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Home Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) and Lord Bassam?
Mr. Straw: As I have always explained to the House, I have never suggested that my stewardship of the Department would be perfect. However, my stewardship of the Home Office is different in at least two important respects from that of the previous Administration.
562
The first major difference is that we as Ministers accept responsibility for anything that happens in our Department, including the Department's agencies. That contrasts very starkly with the way in which the right hon. Lady and other Ministers in the previous Government used to try to dance on the head of a pin to distinguish between policy, for which they were responsible, and operations, for which someone else was always to blame.
I have already said that I was responsible for the problems that arose last summer—I told the House that at the end of June. I am very sorry that the problems happened, and we sought immediately to put them right. I will take criticism from a great many people about what happened, but I will not take it from someone who served in the Home Office in the previous Administration.
I remind the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the worst delays last summer—which were totally unacceptable—were 50 working days. That compares favourably with what happened when she and her right hon. Friends introduced a new computer system in 1989–90 when—thanks to industrial action, which they provoked, the delays were not 50 days, but 95 days. It then took four and a half months.
I regret fee increases of this kind, and the fact that holidaymakers will have to pay for them. However, our judgment has been that we must avoid a recurrence of the difficulties which arose last year. The NAO report—for which my colleagues and I were grateful—exposed the fact that, although the Passport Agency had been successful in driving down unit costs, underlying problems were in some ways obscured by that apparent success. We therefore had to increase capacity and ensure that other improvements were made to the standard of service offered to the public.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked about efficiency savings. I hope that she is not challenging my word on this: as I have said, the £12.5 million cost identified as that arising from last summer's problems will be met not from a fee increase but from efficiency savings.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend understand that, although no one likes fee increases, there will be a general welcome if—on the back of the extra investment that he has announced this afternoon—there is an improvement in the efficiency of the service? May I tell him also that he will be judged on the way in which the service is delivered or not? Will he think about a simpler and cheaper system of travel document for those who wish to take holidays only in other European Union countries?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Our judgment—which I hope will be shared by the House, despite the increase—is that what holidaymakers and other travellers want above all is a guarantee that when they apply for a passport, they get one. In addition, to fit in with differences in working times and so on, if someone phones up outside traditional office hours, they will get a proper answer, and a swifter answer than before. I accept that we and the agency will be judged on whether the improvements in service are delivered.
There was a modified and simpler form of travel document, which was withdrawn—I believe correctly—by the previous Administration in 1995 or 1996. That was

563
a British visitor's passport, which was available over the counter in post offices. The difficulty with it was that it was insecure and open to forgery and other fraud. For that reason, it had to be withdrawn.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the proposals for a more customer-friendly system, and I ask the Home Secretary to pass on our thanks to the staff of the Passport Agency, who have recovered speedily from the fiasco of the summer and are now processing passports quickly. Clearly, a one-third increase is not a Christmas present to which anyone will look forward. Has such a large increase ever been announced in the history of passport charges imposed by Government?
How can the Home Secretary say—as he did in a letter the other day—that the National Audit Office has said that in recent years the Passport Agency has achieved great efficiency savings, while at the same time saying that there is scope for further efficiency savings to raise the £12 million-odd with which he says the increased passport fee has nothing to do?
Given that the blessed computer system appears to be two years behind schedule and £20 million overrun in costs and that, according to answers that the Home Secretary gave me, 13 of the 17 Home Office main IT projects are either overrun in cost or behind schedule or both, can the contracts for those 17 systems be put in the public domain—this follows the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—so that there is no secrecy and we can judge whether the blame lies with the Home Office or the IT company or both?
Mr. Straw: I accept that the increases are unpalatable, but they are not dissimilar to increases that took place under the previous Administration. For example, the fee for a driving licence rose in 1996 from £21 to £27. The percentage increase that the previous Administration imposed when they increased the passport fee by £4, from £11 to £15, was bigger than the one that I have just announced.
We are confident that we can meet the demand for efficiency savings over a period—more than one or two years—and that they will be achievable within the business plan, not least because of a high and improved level of service.
The issue of contracts is difficult. I will certainly consider what further information can be provided. When I was in opposition, I took the view that the maximum information about contracts should be provided, and I have not changed that view, but there are issues of commercial confidentiality involved and, understandably, companies signing contracts with public authorities—sometimes for justifiable reasons, but sometimes for unjustifiable reasons—want parts of those contracts to remain confidential. The NAO report gives considerable information about the income forgone that Siemens has had to take, as well as the Passport Agency.
Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend took earlier this year and the confirmation that they have been effective in shifting the backlog, and I am glad that applications now take an average of 10 days, but that is in sharp contrast
564
to the response from the chief executive of the UKPA to correspondence. I wrote to him on 1 November and 35 days later I am still waiting for so much as an acknowledgment. I wrote on behalf of a constituent seeking compensation for a cancelled holiday. How many such cases have been settled and how many remain outstanding? If necessary, will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the process is accelerated?
Mr. Straw: I will follow up the point about correspondence, because letters should be replied to far more promptly than that.
Total compensation paid to members of the public for missed travel dates and other expenses amounted at the end of October to £161,000, but it is likely to rise further as outstanding claims are settled.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and I will welcome the extra jobs in Peterborough. Has the Home Secretary yet written personally to those who work in the Peterborough passport office to apologise for the anger and opprobrium that they had to suffer last summer as a result of his incompetence? Is it not true that that incompetence is in part the reason for the swingeing increases announced today?
Mr. Straw: The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), went one better than simply writing to the staff at Peterborough. He went there and thanked them. I think—I am not absolutely sure, so I will check—that I wrote a message to staff thanking them very much for the unquestionable work that they did and for the fact that, as I observed in passport office front counters in London and Liverpool, they had to deal with a lot of members of the public who were understandably very cross and upset. I thanked them personally and I believe that I did so in writing as well.
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. Does he agree that the 100 welcome new jobs and the drop in unemployment in Peterborough from 11.4 per cent. when we took over in 1997 to only 6.3 per cent. today, after two years of Labour Government, is evidence of the Government's excellent record on getting people back to work? [Interruption.] Opposition Members may jeer and shake their heads, but they cannot deny that under this Government unemployment is at a record low and the country's finances are healthier than they ever were under the Tories. Is it not exactly that economic prosperity and stability that is allowing the sort of investment that my right hon. Friend has just announced?
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. Although in some ways I regret the circumstances, I am delighted that that change in the structure of, and the investment in, the United Kingdom Passport Agency will lead to the creation of an additional 100 jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency and another 500 jobs in Durham city, in County Durham. Of course I accept what my hon. Friend says about the dramatic improvement in prosperity and the reduction in unemployment that has taken place in Peterborough under my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's stewardship of the economy.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Although I welcome the fact that the

565
Passport Agency seems here a painful inch to gain—to misquote Clough—will the Home Secretary turn his mind to the travel section of the immigration and nationality directorate, from which we can get neither particular answers on behalf of constituents nor general answers about the present state of the section?
Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the issue of travel documents for stateless people, I can tell him that as a result of changes that have been made in the production process at Croydon, output of those documents has increased by some 500 per cent. That is a dramatic change. As far as other aspects of the administration of the immigration and nationality directorate are concerned, we are putting extra staff into Croydon. I understand the problems that have arisen, because—like the right hon. Gentleman—I have a large constituency case load of people who have tried to correspond with Croydon. I have asked the office to ensure that I get no better treatment than anyone else, and I can guarantee that I do not.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), the new Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, pointed to difficulties with the British visitor's passport, which led to its withdrawal in 1995. Will my right hon. Friend revisit that decision? Why do not we take a pan-European approach and adopt a national identity card that would include data such as medical data and could then—subject to negotiation—be used throughout the European Union? Such a card is inevitable, so why not grasp the nettle now and seek its early introduction?
Mr. Straw: I fully understand that Members on both sides of the House have varying views on the issue of national identity cards. I have examined the issue with great care, and our view is that a national identity card would not be appropriate. It is a different matter to improve national records, which would be of some assistance. Part of the problem of having a national identity card, if we take the example of member states of the Schengen system, is that it requires a change in the powers of the police in place of border controls, so that they can demand the production of the card without any other cause. That would not be acceptable to British citizens, and our approach of having proper border controls is more effective in many respects. Of course, I am willing to continue to engage in the debate with my hon. Friend.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Would the Home Secretary consider what appears to be an unfair situation? Many thousands of us—I declare an interest—sought to have our passports renewed earlier this year and were given, exceptionally, a two-year extension. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that those people should have to pay the new fee for renewal of their passports instead of the fee they would have paid had they been able to have it renewed earlier?
Mr. Straw: We made that arrangement to relieve the pressure on passport offices, and it was successful.
566
The result for the hon. Gentleman is that he has had two years' free extension of his passport. I do not begrudge him that, but it is not too bad a result.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend exonerate those hundreds of my constituents who work in the Newport passport office from any blame for last summer's chaos? They—and staff in other passport offices elsewhere—faced the brunt of public criticism and responded magnificently, working long hours for little reward. They will be disappointed that their service and loyalty were not recognised today with the announcement that more people would be employed at the office. They will be further disappointed if the promised efficiencies mean that their jobs are under threat.
Does not the passport saga shake my right hon. Friend's faith in the omnipotence of high-tech and in the value of public-private partnerships? We are told that those partnerships represent the way forward, and that many public service activities must be outsourced to the private sector. Could not more efficiencies be gained through insourcing, so that work carried out in the public sector could be enhanced by the taking on of work that is performed less efficiently in the private sector?
Mr. Straw: I want to do far more than exonerate staff in the Newport passport office and elsewhere: I want to praise them for the way in which they dealt with a very difficult problem.
My hon. Friend will know that there is a history of large-scale computer systems not quite working out according to plan, in the private sector as well as in the public sector. At all stages, we have to try and learn from what has happened. I refer my hon. Friend to what happened with the introduction of the new payments system at the stock exchange, which was an entirely private sector operation. I am glad to see wry smiles on the faces of the hon. Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), as hundreds of millions of pounds were wasted when the system at the centre of our economic arrangements almost collapsed.
When it comes to new information technology systems, the precise boundary between private and public sectors can be arguable. However, because the Government are not in the business of computer manufacture and supply and have no plans to go into that business, we must have a relationship with the private sector. The decision to be made has to do with what the best relationship is, and whether it is most likely to ensure that the private sector also bears part of the risk involved with the systems that it supplies.
Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden): I thank the Home Secretary for taking so seriously the work done by the National Audit Office in this matter. I also welcome the fact that the cost of this year's shambles—some £12 million—is to be met out of efficiency savings, rather than by the taxpayer or the holidaymaker. However, I presume that those efficiency savings will be on-going, whereas the cost was a one-off. I also presume that the management of the agency will make further efficiency savings, and that unit costs will fall as volumes increase and capacity use rises. I also believe that, because the volumes involved are higher than when the contract with Siemens was first negotiated, that contract should be

567
renegotiated. Will the Home Secretary undertake to ensure that the Passport Agency pursues all those cost savings, and that it will return the money saved to the holidaymaker in the form of reduced fees in the future?
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. We certainly take the NAO's work seriously, and I am grateful for the insights that it gave me into the working of the Passport Agency and the problems that had to be dealt with to ensure that the agency was put on a proper and sound footing.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Siemens contract. Discussions with that company about the nature of the relationship are continuing, and I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman about that. I have given the best information that I can on the overall cost of the investment, which is running at about £24 million, and have explained the consequent need for a fee increase. Of course it is our hope that we can get unit costs down, but such a reduction will be from a higher level than previously, as we are asking customers to pay for a higher level of service. Whether we can, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, achieve a virtuous circle that would allow us to reduce the fee in future, rather than its rising, is something about which I am a little sceptical, but we live in hope. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more information, I shall be happy to write to him.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I, too, have a vested interest, as my passport appears to have been stolen at Heathrow last Wednesday. I should say how extraordinarily efficient and courteous were both our immigration service and that of the United States of America. Our embassy in Washington was also extremely helpful, as were the staff of British Airways.
Will my right hon. Friend ensure maximum co-operation with the Post Office so that the widest availability of passport application forms can be achieved? That would be a practical way in which to help rural post offices while also providing a better service to constituents in rural areas.
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. Staff in the immigration and nationality directorate, the immigration service and the Passport Agency are more used to receiving brickbats than bouquets, and it is nice to hear hon. Members praise them, entirely justifiably. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's compliments are passed on.
We shall ensure better availability of passport forms. An arrangement with partners of the Passport Agency—principally, though not exclusively, the Post Office—allows customers to pay an additional fee to ensure that their applications are checked for errors before going into the system earlier than would otherwise be the case. The fee is £3.25, and there will be no increase on 16 December, although it may be increased next April.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): Some people will see today's swingeing increase in charges as the imposition of a new tax—an identity tax. The Home Secretary has announced the creation of 600 new jobs at a cost of £250,000 each every year to improve service in the Passport Agency. If the agency's time targets are not met, what compensation will be available to applicants?
Mr. Straw: The Conservatives are a bit like the Bourbons, except that they have forgotten everything and
568
learned nothing. As the right hon. Gentleman is obviously suffering from amnesia, I remind him that he was a Treasury Minister when the Conservatives raised taxes not once or twice but 22 times. One of those taxes was an airport tax—a real tax on travellers. Today's increase is not a tax but a raised fee to provide an improved service.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his use of "investment" must be spurious? The word implies positive anticipated return by efficiency savings or some other means. If there are genuine efficiency savings, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) is right to say that the unit cost of providing the service should come down. The fact that the Home Secretary does not anticipate a reduction in cost means that this measure is not an investment. He is misusing language. Would it not be good for the country if he thought a little more rigorously, which might help him to act more straightforwardly?
Mr. Straw: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's superior business acumen, but there is no question but that this is an investment of £24 million a year to provide an improved level of service. It is there to deal with the underlying problems that were properly identified by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee—I am grateful to them. Although the public will not find the increases especially palatable—neither do I—I think that they would prefer a balance so that, for a relatively higher fee, they are guaranteed a proper service with a swifter response from the agency. Furthermore, they will receive a modern service that takes account of the fact that people no longer work nine to five; they work different hours and they want a different response from public services.
Mr. John Bercow: May I take this opportunity to thank the Home Secretary for his assistance in the eventual processing of passport applications from my constituents Sarah Crisp, Elizabeth Scott and Alice Wright, and, through him, thank the UK Passport Agency? However, in view of the swingeing increases in fees that he has announced, will he give me the assurance, which I have previously sought but which was not forthcoming, that where an individual is obliged to make an initial or an extra visit in person to a passport office as a direct result of the tardiness or incompetence of the UK Passport Agency, that individual's reasonable travel costs will be reimbursed without question?
Angela Smith (Basildon): They are.
Mr. Bercow: They are not.
Mr. Straw: It is my recollection that, during the summer, if individuals who applied for compensation had had to make a second or a third unavoidable journey to a passport office, that was included in the payment that they received. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
We very much hope that the changes will ensure that the turnround is effective even at times of greatly increased demand. I am extremely grateful to the

569
hon. Gentleman not only for his words of thanks to me—I do not deserve them—but to the staff of the agency, who do deserve them.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The Home Secretary's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) was limp-wristed and woolly. If there is major investment in a new system, there must be efficiency savings. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it his job to ensure that savings are passed on to the afflicted members of the public on whom today's huge increase has been imposed?
Mr. Straw: As I pointed out, this increase, proportionately, is marginally less than that imposed by the Conservative Administration in 1983. Although I fully understand that it will not be popular with members of the public, the last people—as ever—who should complain about an increase of that size are members of the Conservative party. If there are savings in the future that can properly be passed on to the members of the public, they will be passed on. My answer to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden was not limp-wristed; it was careful. In the House of Commons it is extremely important that we do not give undertakings that we cannot deliver.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury): As the Government try so readily to borrow management speak and business speak, is the irony lost on the Home Secretary that the Passport Agency holds a monopolistic position—by definition, one cannot obtain a passport from anywhere else—and that an inflationary increase of this size would, by any test, be an abuse of a monopolistic position? If the right hon. Gentleman is to borrow from business speak, perhaps he should now consider that what you measure is what you get. As part of the thanks to the Passport Agency staff—expressed by Members on both sides of the House—perhaps the staff should be given an incentive bonus payment for what they have managed to do. That would also ensure that they are incentivised in future.
Mr. Straw: At the end of this debate on the statement, and after the preceding Home Office Question Time, we shall, as usual, go away and add up the total costs to which Opposition Members have committed themselves—against a background in which they have damned our spending as "reckless".
Let me make two points to the hon. Gentleman. The first is that the staff of the Passport Agency worked extremely hard last summer, and, in recognition of that, they rightly received significant overtime payments. Secondly, in spotting the fact that the issuing of passports is a monopoly, the hon. Gentleman displays those economic insights known only to Conservative Members. The issue of passports is a monopoly; I know of nowhere in the world where it is other than a monopoly exercised by the state.

Points of Order
4.15 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following the serious announcement at the weekend that the World Trade Organisation talks had collapsed in a shambles and today's press announcements that the British Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is to take a lead role in restoring the situation, have you received any request from the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that he wishes to come to the House to share with us and, through us, with British business, the way in which the Government intend to take the lead role in restoring what is now a very serious matter?
Madam Speaker: No. I have not been informed by Ministers that they seek to make a statement. Perhaps I can refer the hon. Lady to the Order Paper for Thursday of this week when, on a motion for the Adjournment, the very subject in which she is interested will be there for debate by the entire House.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that hon. Members from both sides of the House may seek to amend on a non-political basis the Government Resources and Accounts Bill so as to guarantee the rights of the House. You will also know that the Bill's long title says that it will
"Make provision about government resources and accounts … and for connected purposes."
It has been intimated that there is some confusion at an official level and that some officials think that we are circumscribed by the long title. Will you confirm that the reason why the long title is the last part of a Bill to face amendment is to ensure that the long title can be brought into line with amendments that have been made in Committee and on Report?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me a little notice of his point of order. The House knows, however, that the Speaker never gives hypothetical rulings. By inviting me to give a firm ruling at this stage on the technical scope of the Bill, he is effectively inviting me to prejudice decisions that have to be made by the Chairman of the Standing Committee and not by me. I suggest that he uses his skill, his experience and, I know, his ingenuity as well as his knowledge of the Clerks in the Public Bill Office, to secure the objectives that he has in mind.
Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware from reports in the written press and the broadcast media of elderly patients having food and water withheld as a result of the lack of national health service beds. Those reports will have been met with horror and disbelief inside the House and beyond. Given that they have come from eminent consultants and from patients' groups, there needs to be a full inquiry. Should not the Secretary of State for Health ask to make a statement on that matter, and could not time be made available for it during today's proceedings given that people must now wonder what sort of culture we live

571
in when all the stops can be pulled out to provide a dome for our entertainment but when the necessities of life are withheld from our elderly patients?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I shall not comment on the political issue that he has raised, but I can tell him, as I am sure he knows, that no Minister is coming to the House today to make a statement on it. May I respectfully draw his attention and that of his hon. Friends to the fact that, tomorrow, they can table parliamentary questions to the Secretary of State for Health, for answer before the House rises for the Christmas recess?
Mr. Peter Atkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At about half-past 10 this morning, a Cabinet Office report relating to the north-south divide was given to the media. At 4 o'clock this afternoon, it was still not available in the Vote Office, although throughout the day the media have been asking Members with a constituency interest in the north for their comments. Could you in future ensure that the Cabinet Office makes such documents available to Members at the same time as it does to the media?
Madam Speaker: It probably is an important document, and I shall consider the matter. This is the first time I have been made aware of the document, but if the hon. Gentleman leaves the matter with me, I shall make some inquiries.

Orders of the Day

  Government Resources and Accounts Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.19 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is a major milestone on the way to full implementation of the biggest reform and modernisation of the management of the country's public finances since Gladstone's time. Resource accounting and budgeting is a vital part of our modernisation agenda and demonstrates the Government's commitment to introduce best practice accounting methods in line with the code for fiscal stability.
  Before I go into the detail of the Bill, let me say that it is good if we can describe what Parliament does in everyday terms, wherever possible. That is, I have to say, more of a challenge with this Bill than it is with most. We are shifting the focus of how we plan and judge Government spending from looking at the cash that we spend each year to looking at what the public get for their money in that year. We are looking not only at the supermarket receipt, but at what is in the shopping trolley.
  Cash controls will, of course, remain, but we shall also have proper measures of the resources used up, not just of the money spent. The accounts will be more recognisable to those familiar with private sector accounts; for example, the equivalents of profit and loss, cashflow and a balance sheet. One could say that we are putting the Government's accounts on a more business-like footing.
  The Bill delivers four major reforms. First, it introduces resource accounting and budgeting into the Government accounts and modernises the operation of other aspects of the Exchequer and audit Acts. Secondly, it improves the way in which Parliament votes on and scrutinises public spending, with proper measurement of the full economic costs of Government activities, better treatment of capital spending and systematic reporting of the allocation of resources to objectives.
  Thirdly, the Bill provides enabling legislation for the preparation and audit of consolidated accounts for the whole public sector. Fourthly, it enables us to set up Partnerships UK, a new body designed to make the public sector a better client in public finance initiative and public-private partnership deals.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I am having difficulty with the Bill. Having spent 11 years on the Public Accounts Committee—I believe that I left the Committee in 1991—I have taken note of a statement by the National Audit Office, which is headed by an Officer of Parliament, the Comptroller and Auditor General. The statement says that, as currently drafted, the Bill threatens to weaken the Comptroller and Auditor General's independence and his relationship to Parliament. I regard that as a major intervention by the National Audit Office.

  573
  From what I hear from my hon. Friends, who are all in favour of a shift to resource accounting, they, like me—I have spent the weekend reading papers on the subject—are profoundly concerned about the speed with which the Bill is being introduced, given that there are clear reservations throughout the National Audit Office. The NAO is concerned that Departments are not ready to accept the legislation because they have not fulfilled all the requirements placed on them and on which the Comptroller and Auditor General reported to the Public Accounts Committee. What is happening? If the NAO is resisting, why are we proceeding with the Bill in this way?
  Mr. Smith: Obviously, I defer to the experience and knowledge of my hon. Friend and our colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee. They have made an invaluable contribution to the development of the resource accounting and budgeting approach. However, it is important to remember that the whole purpose of the Bill is to place the accounting and budgeting process on a resources basis, not to change the audit arrangements. The aim is broadly to import existing audit arrangements and powers—no more and no less—into the new approach. I am happy to undertake to continue discussion with the Public Accounts Committee and to listen carefully to anything that the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General have to say about the specific points raised by my hon. Friend.
  As my hon. Friend will be aware, the development of resource accounting and budgeting has had to pass through certain trigger points, according to which we are on course. Should any Department not be ready at trigger point 3, which is currently being audited by the NAO, it will have to wait a year before it can have audited resource accounts. However, I have no reason to expect that to happen.

  Work on this approach to accounting and budgeting has a fairly long, bipartisan history. It began in 1994, under the previous Government, and has been taken up with enthusiasm by the current Government. I hope that our proposals to make the change to resource accounting and budgeting will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The House will be glad to hear that implementation is on schedule and that all Departments are on course to prepare audited resource accounts for the current financial year.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given Ministers' enthusiasm for redesignating Government expenditures as tax credits, will the Chief Secretary confirm that the Bill confers on him and his colleagues unfettered discretion in future to fiddle the figures?
  Mr. Smith: Absolutely not. An attack couched in that tone by an Opposition Member is unfortunate in respect of a Bill that has a bipartisan history and gives effect to principles which hon. Members on both sides acknowledge make good sense. The figures produced as we carry out our responsibilities under the Bill will be subject to the normal audit arrangements. The standards to be applied are generally accepted accounting practice and have been informed by the advice of the independent Financial Reporting Advisory Board. That should give the
  574
  hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The Bill is not about fiddling the figures, but about putting our accounts on an accruals, rather than a cash, basis. Cash controls currently in operation will remain, and it will be possible to reconcile the accounts to cash control totals. There is no question of fiddling the figures.
  Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): Clause 5(2) gives the Treasury the power to direct in respect of accounts, and hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the possibility of that discretionary power being used improperly. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider establishing an independent body to set and determine accounting standards?
  Mr. Smith: The Bill confers no direction powers on the Treasury that do not already exist under current legislation; the Bill merely transposes those powers. The powers are subject to all the normal protections and safeguards in the interests of the House, the public and parliamentary scrutiny. The idea that the Treasury will have unfettered discretion is nonsense: if anything, the Bill imposes slightly greater constraints on the Treasury than the existing arrangements.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester): Given that explanation, why does clause 10(2) state:
  "The accounts shall … contain such information in such form as the Treasury thinks fit"?
  Mr. Smith: Again, the Bill simply transposes and updates existing powers to the accruals format.
  The accounts will be scrutinised, undertaken to professional standards and subject to independent oversight. That is accepted not only by Members of Parliament with a knowledge of such matters, but by those who follow such matters closely from outside the House. As I have said, everything in the Bill is in line with generally accepted accounting procedures. That is the basis on which we should proceed. We are mindful of the importance of our accountability to the House and the proper powers of the House over supply.
  I shall say more about how resource accounting works.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to press my right hon. Friend again. He referred to the powers of the House over supply. The National Audit Office has asked that the Bill
  "shall not have legislative effect until the Treasury provides the Committee of Public Accounts with appropriate assurances that all Departments are prepared fully for the change and the Committee has signified that it is content."
  Is that the Government's position as well? Do the Government intend to listen to the Public Accounts Committee on this matter and not proceed with implementation in all Departments before the PAC has signified that it is content?
  Mr. Smith: Yes. As I said earlier, I am ready to discuss these matters with the PAC whenever it sees fit. However, the existing arrangements already provide for the PAC to consider, for example, the Treasury's six-monthly memorandums on progress, and the PAC does so. I would expect the next memorandum, which will appear in January or February of next year, to report to the PAC on

  575
  progress in relation to trigger point 3, which is the readiness of the Departments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) refers.
  Mr. David Davis: I want to make two points to the Chief Secretary. First, it is disappointing that the trigger-point structure is not implicit in the Bill. It is a Treasury decision rather than anybody else's. Secondly—this is not a synthetic intervention—in August 1999, the National Audit Office was expecting 53 dry-run accounts, but received only 22. The Chief Secretary is right to say that this is an important reform, and it would be a disaster if it got off to a broken start.
  Mr. Smith: I acknowledge, as does the right hon. Gentleman—notably in his capacity as Chairman of the PAC—the importance of having a thorough procedure. A thorough procedure is in place and the Government take it extremely seriously, notwithstanding the status of the trigger-point mechanism that he describes. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that while the system is being introduced I shall ensure that the mechanism is adhered to in the interest of proper accountability. The system needs to command the confidence of Parliament as well as the wider public, including people of all political persuasions.
  Resource accounting applies accruals accounting techniques to central Government by focusing on resources consumed rather than cash spent. The main change, therefore, is to the treatment of fixed assets. Resource accounting will reflect the costs of consuming fixed assets and of holding them through a charge for depreciation, and the cost of capital, rather than just the cost of acquisition as under a cash-based system of accounts. As I have said, resource accounting is based on generally accepted accounting practice in the United Kingdom. It reflects the accounting and disclosure requirements issued by the Accounting Standards Board and the Companies Acts to the extent that that is appropriate for central Government.
  Resource accounting will form the basis of resource budgeting so that we can plan and control central Government expenditure on an accruals basis. Subject to parliamentary approval, supply will be voted on an accruals basis under resource accounting and budgeting, and resource accounts will replace appropriation accounts but will fulfil essentially the same function.
  Resource accounting and budgeting applies the private sector's best financial reporting practices to central Government so that, for the first time, we shall produce the equivalent of the main financial statements from commercial accounts. That is, a balance sheet, an operating cost statement, a statement of recognised gains and losses and a cash flow statement.
  Of course, resource accounting and budgeting goes even further than that. Under the new system, there will be a summary of resource outturns reflecting parliamentary control and, critically, a statement of resources by departmental aims and objectives under their public service agreements. That will enable us to focus on outcomes, not just on inputs—on the products of our spending, not just the size of our investment. We can thereby ensure that future public spending is planned and controlled prudently.
  576
  Throughout the life of the resource accounting and budgeting project, there has been regular contact between the Treasury and Parliament. I referred earlier to some of it. It included the publication, under the previous Government, of a Green Paper in July 1994 and a White Paper in 1995, the submission of memorandums to Parliament, parliamentary hearings and subsequent publication by the Public Accounts Committee and Treasury Joint Committee. The matter was also covered in the Procedure Committee.
  All along the way, Parliament has played an important role in the development of this new and important process. I can assure the House that reporting to Parliament will continue throughout the implementation phase. As the availability and relevance of information of interest to Parliament increases, memorandums will be submitted to provide regular updates on policy and implementation.
  I am sorry that timing difficulties denied us the opportunity to consult Parliament on the Bill in advance, as we had intended, but last March the Treasury submitted a memorandum to the Public Accounts, Treasury and Procedure Committees, setting out the Government's intentions for the legislation.
  Resource accounting and budgeting makes two important improvements to the outdated and outmoded present system of cash-based accounting. First, it will ensure that the full economic cost of the Government's activities is measured properly by including costs such as capital consumption, which are not reflected in cash-based accounts. It will also match the costs to the right time period, providing the Government with a better basis for allocating resources. Secondly, it will bring about improvements in the treatment of capital spending, so that instead of simply identifying the cost in full in the year of acquisition, the cost of capital will be spread over its useful life, which is obviously sensible.
  In the longer term, our aim is for resource accounting and budgeting to lead to whole of Government accounts, which are the natural next step. That will enable us to fulfil the commitment given in the code for fiscal stability to produce accounts for the whole public sector on a consolidated basis, if possible.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will that basis extend to defence capital spending?
  Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed, it will.
  That will enable us, as I said, to fulfil our commitments under the code for fiscal stability. Moreover, audited w hole of Government accounts will improve the information available to support the control and monitoring of fiscal policy. The accounts will also improve accountability to Parliament and provide greater transparency to taxpayers. However, to produce whole of Government accounts fully audited, we will need greater conformity of accounting policies, systems and procedures, and those are major challenges.
  The Government have decided to adopt a staged approach. We shall first concentrate on delivering audited accounts covering central Government—Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies—and only then will we be in a position to make a final decision to extend coverage. Incidentally, that staged approach is entirely consistent with what was said by the previous Government and with the 1995 White Paper.

  577
  The purpose of the whole of Government accounts clauses in the Bill is to enable the Treasury to prepare as efficiently as possible by adopting relevant best practice consolidation procedures used in the private sector. In particular, we want to maximise the use of electronic communication and data submission.
  Mr. Davis: We all accept the importance of whole of Government accounts, and the Chief Secretary has made a good case for that. Can he explain, therefore, why for the whole of Government accounts the National Audit Office will not have absolute access to all the component parts, in the same way as it would in consolidating a company in the private sector?
  Mr. Smith: Some of the bodies that are covered by whole of Government accounts have other auditing arrangements, which are set down in statute. Some are covered by the Companies Act 1989 rather than by public audit arrangements. Under the Bill, any payment that is made from the public purse can be scrutinised and followed as it is at present. As I said earlier, in introducing a reform on the scale of the Bill, we must focus on the main objective, which is to shift from cash to resource accounting. The Bill was never intended to overhaul audit arrangements, but I am happy to discuss with the Public Accounts Committee, or anyone who is interested, serious points of interest that arise on auditing.
  Mr. David Davis: I shall not labour the point, but I do not want the Chief Secretary inadvertently to mislead the House. He used the phrase, "scrutinised and followed". In the private sector, a major company's auditor who has to audit the whole company is able to go into any component part. However, the National Audit Office cannot follow public money to any destination. I am sure that we shall debate the point in Committee.
  Mr. Smith: Yes, I, too, am sure that we shall debate the matter in Committee. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General will certify that a true and fair record of expenditure has been kept. Accounts that have been audited—we have no reason to believe that they have been improperly—under other arrangements will be overseen. I am happy to discuss that further with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Can the Chief Secretary confirm that the Comptroller and Auditor General will not certify the regularity of the accounts?
  Mr. Smith: The Comptroller and Auditor General will certify a true and fair record. That is a step beyond the provisions that were envisaged in a White Paper that the previous Conservative Government published in 1995. The presumption in that White Paper was of a fair basis. We have gone further than that in strengthening the certification ability of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I am sorry for the constant interruption, but we are considering important matters that we must clarify now, even though we wish to proceed further. The right hon. Member for
  578
  Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) made the most important point. It is not enough to certify that the money has been spent; we must ascertain how it is spent. In the interest of parliamentary accountability, the Comptroller and Auditor General needs the power to do that. That is crucial, and the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Accounts Commission are unanimous that that must be understood by everyone.
  Mr. Smith: I understand the seriousness with which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues express their anxieties. I stress that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the audit architecture will be just as strong on the resource accounting and budgeting basis to which we are moving as under the current system. The Bill was not intended to overhaul public audit arrangements. I want to be open with the House: proper scrutiny is in the interests of the public and Parliament—Government and Opposition—to ensure value for money, to cut out fraud and to make sure that taxpayers' money is spent wisely and properly. We have a common interest in that, regardless of party affiliation or the issue of the moment. If there are serious grounds for reconsidering some of the audit arrangements, I am happy to discuss them. However, they are not—and were never envisaged to be—the major purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Robert Key: This is a genuine inquiry. Following on from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), can the Chief Secretary explain why the national health service receives special treatment? Why, for example, does clause 12 say that
  "the Secretary of State may give directions—
  (a) specifying uses of resources which are to be, or not to be, taken into account"?
  That does not seem transparent.
  Mr. Smith: It is absolutely transparent, and that is why the references to the NHS are in the Bill. The finances of health authorities and primary care groups come within the central Government accounts covered by the Bill, whereas the health trusts—which have their own auditing arrangements—and local authorities and public corporations will come in during stage 2, as we move towards whole of Government accounts. It is entirely appropriate that the existing arrangements for central Government bodies, including health authorities and primary care groups, have been covered in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes—they are in the Bill.
  I want to progress to the other important provision of the Bill, which paves the way for the establishment of Partnerships UK. That body is central in our drive to modernise key public services. Partnerships UK will provide greater clarity in the way that the Government do business with the private sector and make available to them the key commercial skills needed to deliver better value for money and effective investment in front-line services. It will be a new public-private partnership that will offer a long-term home to the type of deal-making skills that are presently available to the public sector only temporarily in the Treasury taskforce. It will work in the public interest and address the key weaknesses in the current public-private partnership process so that the public sector becomes a more efficient and effective client.

  579
  Over the past two and a half years, the Government have fundamentally reformed the private finance initiative by prioritising projects, ending universal testing, offering a fairer deal to staff and standardising contracts. We have streamlined the PFI and put it on a more sustainable and successful basis and the next step is to use the new PFI to drive forward our programme to modernise public services across the board. That means expanding the PFI, applying it in sectors where it has not been used extensively before and enabling smaller projects to be bundled together so that the PFI is a cost-effective option for carrying them forward. There will be new relationships with the private sector involving local authorities as part of our public-private partnership programme.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Can the Chief Secretary describe precisely what assets the Government expect the PFI to have within its balance sheet when they talk of anticipating one of about £1 billion in due course?
  Mr. Smith: I think I know from where the hon. Gentleman is getting his references to the £1 billion and the idea that the PFI will be some sort of £1 billion bank, but I can assure him that it will not be a bank or a deposit-taking body and it certainly will not start at the scale of £1 billion. We see it working essentially as a co-venturing institution that will bring better facility to the public sector so that it can engage the deal-making skills that are necessary for getting successful PFI projects up and running. It will offer an opportunity to bundle together smaller schemes, which might not be viable on their own under the PFI because of overheads, to enable them to proceed.
  Through the partnerships that Partnerships UK will assist, I believe that we will better harness the skills and resources of the private sector. Partnerships UK will enable the public sector to form partnerships with the private sector on more equal terms. As a public-private partnership—in the private sector, but operating in the interests of the public sector—it will be able to offer a long-term home to the skill base required to support the public sector in the execution of public-private partnership deals.
  The business plan for Partnerships UK is under development. We have consulted widely throughout to ensure that Partnerships UK generates the greatest benefit for all the stakeholders in PFI, public and private alike. It is clear already that those with an interest in PFI and PPPs see an enormous benefit in an initiative that will make the Government a better partner.
  The Bill modernises the public sector and transforms the way in which we plan and account for public spending.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend realises that I am making my peroration. I shall happily give way to him.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I want to clarify a few matters. The Government have established many limited companies over the years, such as the Student Loan
  580
  Company and Remploy. Will the Comptroller and Auditor General have access so as to audit the accounts of such companies, which increasingly carry out the Government's business?
  Mr. Smith: As I said, a number of bodies, including those that my hon. Friend mentioned, are covered by provisions on auditing arrangements in the Companies Acts. That has not prevented the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee from investigating them in the past—I believe that there was an inquiry into Remploy. I can but stress that the same powers as are available now will be available to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee under the new resource accounting and budgeting arrangements.
  I realise that members of the Public Accounts Committee, based I am sure on their experience, will have an appetite for revisiting some of this territory and the rules that are presently in operation. I am prepared to discuss that, but it is not the primary purpose of the Bill. I understand why my hon. Friend raised the issue. I think that I have been as forthcoming and sympathetic as I can be in saying that the Government are open to dialogue on this matter.
  The Bill will give Parliament and the public, as well as government, more and better information on how we secure quality public services and value for money for all our people. I commend it to the House.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill because, although great benefit can be derived from the construction of a proper balance sheet for the public sector and from proper rules for clear, simple and rigorously-defined government accounts, the Bill gives unfettered discretion to the Treasury, establishes no clear principles for the accounting of income or expenditure, will permit the Treasury to continue to omit large public assets and liabilities from the national balance sheet, and hence represents a missed opportunity to make much-needed improvements in the compilation and presentation of government accounts."
  I declare an interest—which lies in the Register—relating to clauses 15, 16 and 17, which is not connected to the reasoned amendment and about which I shall say precisely nothing.
  The Chief Secretary introduced the debate with the utmost reasonableness, for which we are duly grateful, but I fear that, in so doing, he failed to address some of the major issues. Like the poet Ovid, he may later feel that I began better than I ended, because I want to start with some congratulations, proceed to the identification of some shared problems, move on to lament the inadequacy of the solutions in the Bill and end with an indictment.
  Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman is a good supporter.
  Mr. Letwin: Indeed, a good supporter, as the hon. Gentleman says.
  First, the congratulations. The Chief Secretary said that the Bill had a noble lineage, and he was absolutely right. The idea of resource accounting was introduced by my

  581
  right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). Its aim is shared on both sides of the House. The Chief Secretary echoed the somewhat overblown statement of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), when he said that the Bill had a Gladstonian aspect. It is a splendid aim to give the public sector a proper balance sheet and proper accounts. On that we are at one.
  Congratulations are due because people in many Departments have laboured mightily over the past two or three years accumulating a kind of Domesday book of the public sector. That is another fine tradition in the United Kingdom. We must remember that the purpose of the original Domesday book was to maximise the tax take of the then Government. That is something at which the Government have been greatly skilled, so we recognise that they will also have been particularly good at this task. However, in this case the issue is not how much can be taxed, but rather what the taxpayer owns, how it is being used and what is being spent on it. We are agreed that we need better information on that. That need is great: much greater than the Chief Secretary made clear in his remarks.
  First, there is the issue of depreciation. There is a massive problem in our public sector: we have never had a proper sense of the resources that we use up, or of the gradual depreciation, or decline, of assets under public sector control. That has obtained on both sides of the House, regardless of which party has been in power. The water industry, under its nationalised aegis, is a classic case. Year after year, Chancellors of the Exchequer in both parties have found it more immediately necessary to spend on social security, or on whatever else has been at the top of the agenda. Consequently, not enough has been spent on investment in the water industry—although billions have now been spent in the private sector—and as a result we have, to this day, an essentially Victorian sewerage system.
  There are many other examples. As we all know, much of the public dissatisfaction with our hospitals and schools derives from the fact that for years they, too, were depreciating unnoticed—unnoticed not by their users, of course, but by the Treasury in its discussions with the various Departments. We desperately need a proper set of accounts that properly grasps the depreciation of those public assets. Again, the parties are joined in that desire.
  The Chief Secretary said nothing about liability, but I think he will also agree with me—I hope he will—that we are desperately lacking in that regard. We have no proper account of the great and growing liabilities of the public sector in relation to, for example, pensions. I am referring not to the relatively minor, although in itself quite large, problem of the public sector pension schemes which are, to some extent, dealt with in the Bill, but to the public state pension, which represents an enormous and ballooning liability in not just this country but many others. We need clarity in regard to the scope and scale of that liability.
  We need to understand far better than we do at present what are the real liabilities that are totted up each time a project is implemented in the private or public-private sector under the private finance initiative, and the public
  582
  sector establishes a contract that effectively enforces a series of payments over a long period that currently do not appear in the public accounts.
  All that is allied to the enormous need for much greater clarity of presentation. I draw the House's attention to three important statements made in an article. First:
  "Financial reporting in the public sector is a key element in the accountability of public sector bodies."
  I think we would all agree with that. Secondly:
  "While it is recognized that financial reports should be readable and intelligible, improved reader understanding is sometimes felt by those who compile them to be a disadvantage."
  Thirdly:
  "A number of steps can be taken to help the process. For example, the report should … minimise jargon … Have a logical structure … Not be unduly distorted"—
  I draw the House's attention to this—
  "by public relations considerations".
  The importance of those comments lies in the fact that they were made by none other than the current chief adviser to the Chief Secretary on these matters, Professor Likierman—who also said, in a report written with Vass,
  "Those who wish to find out what is going on are faced with major hurdles".
  That is indeed the set of problems that we face in the presentation of public accounts.
  I think—I hope; I trust—that, so far, the Chief Secretary and I are on common ground. Members of the Public Accounts Committee who have already spoken have made it clear that they share many of the concerns that I have mentioned, and it appears that the last Government shared them. We have a substantial problem. The next question is, does the Bill address that problem? It is, I am afraid, abundantly clear that the answer is no: it hardly begins to do so.
  I shall begin with assets. We are told in paragraph 46 of the helpful notes on clauses prepared by the Chief Secretary's officials—this mirrors the Chief Secretary's own statements:
  "It is likely that the first accounts will only cover the central government sector … but that these will be expanded to include all public sector bodies".
  The Chief Secretary began by lamenting the difficulty of discussing such matters in terms that ordinary people would understand. Let me try to do it for him. He was trying to tell us that the Bill had nothing to say about the accounting of schools, hospitals or roads—the three largest public sector assets.
  Mr. Key: Defence.
  Mr. Letwin: As my hon. Friend points out from a sedentary position, there are yet other aspects, but I draw attention to three in my modest way. The Bill leaves out the most important.
  Hon. Members might think that, as the Chief Secretary had not done particularly well on assets, he would have done something on the liability side. We search in vain in the resource accounting manual and we search even more in vain in the Bill for any reference to the state pension and its liabilities—there is not one. There is not even the suggestion that in due course, or at a later stage, there will

  583
  be any proper accounting of the state's massive liabilities—hundreds of billions of pounds worth—for state pensions.
  One might have thought that, as there were going to be clauses about the private finance initiative and the public-private partnerships in the Bill, it would contain something about accounting for the liabilities of the PPP or the PFI. That does not seem an unreasonable request of a so-called resource accounting Bill. Sharing, I trust and hope, the view that something was needed, we might have thought that there would be something in the Bill. There is not—not a word about the liabilities for schools, hospitals or roads that are subject to the PFI.
  It is possible that the minuscule, by comparison, number of PFI and PPP projects conducted by central Government Departments will be covered. I say it is possible because my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have asked a series of written questions about the matter. We have received some answers. For the House's edification, I shall read the totality of the text of one of those answers. The Chief Secretary said:
  "Any liabilities incurred as a result of such transactions will be accounted for in line with the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Resource Accounting Manual. This states that for all complex transactions, the overriding principles of Financial Reporting Standards (FRS) 5 'Reporting the Substance of Transactions' should be followed.
  In particular, an amendment to the version of the Manual published in August 1999, which has been agreed with the Financial Reporting Advisory Board, will make clear that Private Fiance Initiative (PFI) transactions should be accounted for in accordance with the Treasury Taskforce's Technical Note No. 1 (revised) 'How to account for PFI transactions'.
  The Technical Note sets out additional practical guidance on the Accounting Standards Board's Application Note (AN) 'Amendment to FRS"'—[Official Report, 1 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 49.]
  [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that the House does not want to hear the rest of that fascinating explanation in plain English, which the Chief Secretary recommended to the House, of exactly the answer to the simple question: will PFI contracts for central Government Departments be included or excluded? I do not have the foggiest clue. I doubt that the Minister who signed the answer had the foggiest clue. Certainly, the House will not. It is possible that they are included.
  In passing, I should like to mention a noted example of open government. We tried to find out the answer to that question and to others by the simple expedient of trying to talk to the person who actually knows about these things, which, I regret to say, is not ever a Minister in such cases, but his chief adviser. Professor Likierman is one of the world's great experts on public accounting, so one might have thought that one would get an answer from him. I tried to see him. I sent a request and was told that it had been lost. Then I sent a fax request. I was told that it had been received, but that it had to be transported to the Chancellor's private office for reasons that remained obscure. Then I was told that the decision was that I could not see Professor Likierman without a Minister and, unfortunately, no Minister would be available, so I could not see the professor. Therefore, I cannot tell hon. Members whether the answer to the question is yes or no. I am sure that Professor Likierman knows. It would be very nice if, through the Minister at some time, he would tell the House.
  I am clear about one thing: when it comes to presentation, there is nothing in the Bill to clarify definitions and to ensure that accounts for the public
  584
  sector are presented like all private sector accounts have been since about 1300, so that ordinary people can understand them.
  The position is much worse than that.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman suggests that private sector accounts have been easily comprehensible for the past 600 years. I do not remember that always being the case, but is he not letting the best be the enemy of the good? He is saying that, because at the moment we do not account for any of those things—capital expenditure, schools, hospitals and roads—no reform of the accounting system should be countenanced; but reform should cover all those things. Does he agree that logically his position would lead to a delay in the revision of the accounting system until such time as all those elements could be introduced? Another year or two might pass before we reach that point.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman, who is a friend of mine, asks a typically acute question, which I shall answer as best I can. As I was not able to ask Professor Likierman, I cannot give an exact reason—but I have a speculation. I think I know why it is that schools, hospitals and roads, which are usually the first items that one would start with, have been excepted. It is because "Yes Minister" is often less of a parody than a reality.
  I think that what happened, roughly speaking, is that a Minister—probably my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—said, "We ought to have some resource accounts". Subsequently, many permanent secretaries went into a huddle and said, "This is a most frightful thing that is hitting us—we shall for the first time have to put everything down. What can we do? We must find the smallest items—those that will cause the most technical difficulty, but reveal the least—and begin with those. Indeed, we must begin with those items that do not guarantee that we will ever have to move beyond them. We must remember to include such words as 'it is likely that', and assure the House that 'in due course', 'perhaps', 'maybe', 'if', 'sometime', 'never' we shall get to it. Meanwhile, we will have the most enormous resource accounting manual. We will also be able to give the Minister a Bill"—which I shall deal with shortly, as it will make the Chief Secretary one of the most powerful people in the whole world—"so that he will be very, very happy with us. We will get our knighthoods early while having succeeded in not writing down anything that matters two hoots."
  I grant the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Palmer) that company accounts are an imperfect mechanism—as those of us who have been dealing with them for many years in the private sector know all too well—but they have the great advantage of regularity—a term to which I shall return momentarily—and the advantage of relative simplicity. The combination of those two advantages means that people who are skilled with such accounts and the notes accompanying them, because they are composed under standards of accounting practice, have at least a chance of doing the detective work to find out what is really happening. I fear that because the Bill contains no such provisions in the public sector, no such ability will pertain to the public sector. That is my biggest complaint.

  585
  As some of my hon. Friends have already started to explain, the situation is really very bad in one respect. What does clause 5(2) do? Does it say something about establishing an independent watchdog to ensure that there are proper definitions? No, it says:
  "Resource accounts shall be prepared in accordance with directions issued by the Treasury."
  Clause 5(3) states:
  "The Treasury shall exercise the power to issue directions under subsection (2) … subject to such adaptations as are necessary in the context of departmental accounts"—
  which I think should read "as are judged necessary by the Treasury", and "subject to such adaptations as the Treasury chooses".
  In clause 7, we might expect to see mention of an independent body, but not a bit of it. Subsection (1) states:
  "The Treasury may direct a government department to prepare for each financial year accounts in relation to any specified matter".
  Subsection (2) tells us:
  "Accounts under subsection (1) shall be prepared in accordance with directions issued by"—
  you guessed it—
  "the Treasury."
  When we come to the whole of government accounts, in clause 10(2), we are told:
  "The accounts shall—

  (a) contain such information in such form as the Treasury thinks fit, and

  (b) be designed to conform to generally accepted accounting practice subject to—

  our old friend—
  "such adaptations as are necessary",
  as determined by the Treasury.
  I think that we are able to describe the Bill and its provisions on who will define terms and the rules of the game as a Bill that allows the Treasury to do exactly what it chooses. Quite a good first clause in the Bill would be one that said, "Under this Bill, the Treasury may do anything it likes." That is why I said that the Chief Secretary will be a very powerful person.
  Mr. Edward Davey: I have much sympathy for the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, will he tell us where in the previous Government's White Paper, "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money", they proposed an independent body to determine public sector accounting standards?
  Mr. Letwin: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, but am unable to answer it. However, in about two or three minutes, I shall be making an announcement showing that, unlike the current Government—the Liberal Democrats have never had the chance to be in government—some of us learn from our mistakes. Although Liberal Democrat Members never—I have checked the record—mentioned the point at the time, I am grateful for converts at any time. As I shall explain shortly, Conservative Members have been converted on the issue.
  586
  The problem is deeper in two senses—only one of which has been dealt with by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours); by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the current Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee; and by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the former Committee Chairman.
  In clause 11, there is the first glimmer of an independent body. It states:
  "The Treasury shall send accounts under section 10 to the Comptroller and Auditor General."
  Nobody doubts the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General, nor his competence. The problem is that the clause goes on to say that the Comptroller and Auditor General
  "shall examine accounts sent to him under this section with a view to satisfying himself that they present a true and fair view."
  That language has been constructed precisely to limit the scope of his inquiries—with all the impediments that were described as to how he conducts them—to the question of whether something has been taken, stolen or misappropriated.
  We are blessed that British government, under any Administration, is, on the whole, honest. The Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee do good work but, on the whole, they do not have to work very hard because, on the whole, our Administration is honest. Thank goodness for that. The proposal continues that fine tradition—there is no complaint about that—but also prevents the Comptroller and Auditor General from doing more.
  We do not have to look far for the truth of that assertion. In the notes on clauses—which are remarkably open and splendid—we are told:
  "Due to the nature of the accounts … there is no requirement for the C and AG to provide an audit opinion concerning the regularity of the accounts but simply to determine whether, in his opinion, they are true and fair."
  We are dealing here with a clear case. The Bill sets up the Treasury—because the Treasury designed the Bill—as the body which will decide on the definitions, on how accounts are prepared and presented and on whether, in the words of Professor Likierman, they do or do not contain an undue proportion of public relations about them. All these things are to be left to the Treasury. Yes, there is proper regard to whether money has been stolen or misappropriated, but none to having an independent body verify whether the presentation of the accounts is comprehensible, clear or designed to provide a misleading opinion.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on the Treasury prefer the Government to go for the true and fair opinion basis, rather than the proprietary and regulatory basis that the Conservative party has proposed?
  Mr. Letwin: If the body was independent and was setting up standards of accounting practice, I would entirely accept the proposition that true and fair would be the right measure. Alas, there is no such body and no such set of definitions.

  587
  That leads me to the indictment. This Bill—not so surprisingly from the Government—is a triumph of presentation over substance. The Government are saying one thing and doing another. The Bill is an empty box. The most important assets and liabilities are missing; there is total discretion for the Treasury; and there is no independent check on definition or presentation. It is not a resource accounting Bill in anything but name; it is a creative accounting Bill, from a Chancellor who has proved himself to be the most brilliant creative accountant in British political history. [Interruption.] I thought that that was a compliment and I am surprised that the Chief Secretary rejects it. That compliment has been paid to the Chancellor by many external observers, and will continue to be paid as long as he continues on his course.
  To be constructive, I shall make a promise. We are binding ourselves once and for all—because we have learned from our mistakes—to a clear, complete and comprehensible set of public accounts. That is democratically proper, and a matter of common sense. We have announced today that we have asked Sir Bryan Carsberg—the chairman of the International Accounting Standards Committee, and one of Britain's most distinguished accountants—to head a new shadow accounts commission. It will remedy the defects in the Bill by setting out standards of national accounting practice, clear definitions and clear systems of presentation which mirror the statements of standard accounting practice in the private sector, so that no future Chancellor—Labour or Conservative—will ever have the opportunity to mispresent the accounts and mislead the public again. I believe that that is one of the great advances in the conceptualisation of fair and accountable government in this country.
  I will make an offer, beyond that promise, to the Chief Secretary—come with us. Take our shadow accounts commission with its chairman intact and we can set it up as an independent body with cross-party consensus. Then we can take this lamentable empty box of a Bill and turn it into an Act that we can all be proud of and that gives us genuine resource accounts for the whole Government.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) drew attention to clause 11(2) on the restrictions on the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I shall deal with that point, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was right to introduce the Bill because it is an important measure that has been acclaimed by the Public Accounts Committee and various Select Committees.
  Much of my time as Chairman of the Liaison Committee has been spent trying to get Select Committees to examine the expenditure for which they have some responsibility. They have not been able to do it because, frankly, the accounts are impenetrable to the ordinary person. My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on trying to open up this important area.
  The Public Accounts Committee is very much in the shadow of Gladstone. For 14 years, I faced the one word over the door of Room 6A, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) now has the privilege of using: in lettering that is very difficult to decipher, because it was devised by Pugin, it says "Assiduity". That is the Committee's and Parliament's task in examining the accounts.
  588
  For 23 years—14 as Chairman—I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee, whose origins go back to the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts of 1866 and 1921. I took some part in the National Audit Act 1983, which arose from Norman St. John-Stevas's Private Member's Bill, predicated on the understanding that he wanted to be able to follow public money wherever it went.
  The idea came from John Garrett, the Member for Norwich, South from 1974 to 1983 and from 1987 to 1992. I worked with him closely on the Fulton committee on the civil service; he was a management consultant and I was a member of the committee. Norman St. John-Stevas called him the grandfather of the Bill, which looked back to what Gladstone had in mind and to all that he was able to achieve because of the enormous power and influence that he had.
  What was Gladstone's vision? He set up a Public Accounts Committee, chaired by a member of the Opposition, who was to examine the details—not just the broad area—of all Departments' spending. Rarely or never could that power have been given to an Opposition Member under subsequent Administrations. To commit an Opposition Chairman to examining such spending details would have been unthinkable.
  Gladstone's intention was followed up by the 1866 Act. The intentions of that Act are very relevant today, because we live in that shadow and we are trying to retain the kind of parliamentary accountability that was devised by Gladstone and led to the very high standards of public service that we have come to regard as normal. That is what happened then and is still happening.
  What the 1866 Act achieved was begun by the report of the Select Committee on Public Moneys in 1857. There was a huge step forward with the establishment of the Committee of Public Accounts in 1861 and the passing of the 1866 Act, which established the post of Comptroller and Auditor General.
  The key driving principle was the belief that the audit of all the money spent by central Government Departments should be done on behalf of Parliament, and from 1866, that was to be done by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The long title of the 1866 Act noted that its purpose was
  "to regulate the Receipt, Custody, and Issue of Public Moneys and to provide for the audit thereof".
  In 1866, the idea was to bring Government spending—public moneys—under the scrutiny of Parliament, at a time when central government was virtually the only vehicle for public spending. In 1999, when we have a plethora of public service providers, it cannot be argued that public moneys are properly accountable for to Parliament in the way that they were for so long.
  It was necessary for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have access to Departments. When the Public Accounts Committee considered the Exchequer and all the Departments back in 1866, the issue of what constituted public moneys was a matter of concern to several members of that Committee, and they were assured that all aspects of revenue and expenditure were covered. That is not the case today. The Select Committee, in the report that led to the changes made in 1866, said:
  "Your Committee feel assured that whatever new securities may be devised for the faithful appropriation of the public money, they will be incomplete unless they are accompanied by a system of public accounts founded on the principles they have suggested".

  589
  That has manifestly not been the case.
  Many new securities have been devised for spending public moneys, but those have not been matched by a commensurate extension of the rights of Parliament properly to scrutinise that expenditure. That is the difference that we have seen over the years. Gladstone's achievements have been whittled away, as was exposed by John Garrett in a massive amount of research, for which proper tribute should be paid to him. It provided the background for Norman St. John-Stevas's National Audit Office Act 1983. Because of that research, he was fully aware of what had happened over the years, and he wanted to replace that with the original intention.
  I was a member of the Standing Committee that scrutinised the 1983 Act. Leon Brittan was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I was the shadow Chief Secretary. In spring 1983, Leon Brittan introduced in Committee several new clauses and deleted others. With a general election imminent, we reluctantly agreed to those amendments. Before the Bill's consideration had been completed, the general election was called. On the last day of that Parliament, when nearly all the outstanding legislation was lost, my role was to go round the Chamber to inform my parliamentary colleagues on the Opposition Benches not to shout, "Object." I told them that the legislation was important, because we must try to regain parliamentary accountability. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) kept silent on that occasion.
  The National Audit Office Act 1983 did not achieve all that we wanted, and we hoped for subsequent renewal of the original intentions. As so often happens, what was temporary became permanent and stayed in place for 16 years. Meanwhile, I became Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which was what I wanted, as I wished to see the new Act implemented and the position of the National Audit Office established.
  During my 15 years in that post, I tried to pursue the need for greater powers of investigation for the National Audit Office. One occasion on which I received some encouragement was the meeting in October 1994 with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. With Sir Peter Hordern, the then Member of Parliament for Horsham and Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, I pointed out that the National Audit Office did not have the same statutory rights of access as did the European Court of Auditors or the Audit Commission. That is unacceptable. I pointed out to the then Chancellor that I understood the Government's reluctance to concede such rights in the 1983 Act, given the extensive new powers being brought in. However, the standing of the National Audit Office, and the way in which it carries out its work, is an important aspect of the case for extending its powers to something like their original scope, before the Treasury whittled them away over 16 years.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe on that occasion said that he recognised many of the arguments for increased access. He accepted that the issues needed to be re-examined. The discussion was very useful, and some improvements were made. However, although I wanted all non-departmental public bodies to be audited by the National Audit Office, only half of them are so audited.
  590
  In that regard, I must pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. This Government have ensured that all 15 of the new non-departmental bodies are audited by the National Audit Office. That does not mean that private sector auditors are not included in the process, as the NAO makes use of them all the time. The private sector is very valuable, and work is given to accountancy firms with the appropriate expertise. That provides a useful exchange of views about how such matter should be audited.
  Mr. David Davis: The right hon. Gentleman said that all 15 new non-departmental bodies have been opened up to the National Audit Office. Given that the Legal Services Commission and the body that looks after the royal palaces have also been opened up to the NAO, the Government have a very good record in that respect.
  Mr. Sheldon: I pay tribute in turn to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a successor of mine as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I am pleased that he is present today, and I look forward to many more reports from him in the years to come.
  Even when accounts are audited by the private sector, responsibility lies with the National Audit Office. Let me refer now to what the Bill contains, and what it omits.
  The Bill makes no provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be the auditor of all Executive non-departmental public bodies. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for what the Bill covers, but it does not cover what is now called the register of social landlords. It does not cover either the Housing Corporation, the Environment Agency, student loans, or Remploy.
  Although I accept that the NAO can ask for the accounts of those bodies, I had to use a bit of muscle to make sure that it could inspect the accounts of the register of social landlords, as there seemed to be some reluctance about that. Auditors should not have to plead for access. When it comes to the auditing of public money, access ought to be a right.
  The Bill does not make provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be appointed the auditor of limited companies established by central Government. It makes no provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have any access at all to Partnerships UK. I have some nice things to say about Partnerships UK, but I do not like the fact that there is no provision for access to its accounts, even though it will receive public sector funds and will advise on even larger amounts of public expenditure. Clearly, that cannot be right. I hope that that is an oversight that will be corrected in Committee.
  Dr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, where a public body such as a local authority is being audited—in that case it would be by the Audit Commission—it would be unreasonably onerous to expect it to be audited twice? If all public bodies of any type were to be brought under the Comptroller and Auditor General, which I understand to be my right hon. Friend's recommendation, would not the legislation governing the audits for all those bodies have to be amended?
  Mr. Sheldon: The NAO should have access. It has access in certain circumstances at present, but we want to ensure that it is regularised. The NAO should not have to plead for it, but should be able to gain access as of right.

  591
  The Bill makes no provision for the NAO to have access to bodies whose accounts are going to be consolidated into WGA—whole of Government accounts. Instead, it offers the inadequate alternative of access to the auditors of such bodies.
  It is important that the National Audit Office should have access to all bodies, but also that it is able to audit them. It is not enough for auditors simply to have access, because they must then have knowledge that something is wrong or have some other reason for inquiry. There should be a basic right of access. All sorts of important matters have emerged only because of audit. For example, in the Metropolitan police, the person responsible for paying money for secret matters was living like a lord in Scotland, having taken £5 million. He used to return from his weekends there because he had the power to authorise expenditure and to sign cheques under a provision of secrecy. That matter would not have come out without audit. Only when audit occurs do we discover what has happened.
  The Public Accounts Committee and the Public Accounts Commission strongly and unanimously want the changes that I have outlined. What those who drafted the Bill saw as a mainly technical measure did not allow for the important aspects that I have detailed. We are concerned with the accountability of the Executive to Parliament on the most important matters that concern both. I recall a meeting in the Treasury with Denis Healey during which I had occasion to remind him that I was a Minister second and a Member of Parliament first. That is the proper order of priority.
  Let me now refer to the rest of the Bill. The important part relates to work on getting the private finance initiative into better shape, and a new body is being formed. The intention is to make the public sector a more intelligent procurer of PFI projects. Like the taskforce, the new body will advise public sector procurers to help to develop projects to the point at which they can be put to market, and it will help them to choose the best advisers for the project.
  I am in favour of the PFI, but we must be rigorous about the conditions. If the private sector is more efficient in certain areas than the public sector is, that is splendid, and we should ask that sector's advice and have the work undertaken by it. The private sector can overcome the cost of capital, and the public service can have capital at a lower level. The private sector must mount a not unreasonable hurdle, but if it can be more efficient, by all means let us allow it to be so.
  The private sector must also accept risk. Our main tasks are to ensure that it has the right expertise, and that it accepts risk. I see considerable merit in Partnerships UK. To ensure that all that I have said will happen, the Comptroller and Auditor General must have full access to PUK.
  I am delighted about resource accounting in more general terms. It is difficult to understand what the estimates and the appropriation accounts really mean. The headings would put anyone off. As the Chairman of the PAC knows, he must go through the papers and must sign them off, but it is difficult to know exactly where the money is going in the detailed programmes. What he must ensure is regularity. We have long taken regularity for granted, but we must not underestimate it. One of my favourite quotations is that cash is certain while
  592
  everything else is guesswork. There is something in that, but certainty is not enough. We must know how procedures operate.
  We must not go over to resource accounting while losing the advantage of cash accounting during the changeover period. We could fall between two stools in moving from cash accounting to resource accounting. I want parallel operation. Those who work in the area dislike parallel operation because they believe that the work is done twice. But we have seen the consequences of that idea in computerisation projects when the old system has been destroyed but the new system has not worked. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been lost. I always used to ask people whether they had not thought of parallel operation for a reasonable time. They always said yes, but that they were sure that they had got the new system right. I want to ensure that they get it right in this case too.
  The Bill gives us the opportunity to correct what John Garrett described as the hijacking of the Exchequer and audit Departments; it will assert the rights of Parliament that Gladstone intended, which which need to be restored. The full implications of what I have outlined have not been adequately appreciated, and I certainly expect that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, with his concern for the duties of his office and for the rights of Parliament, will accept certain amendments in due course.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. David Davis: I confess to having some sympathy with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who took up his job not six weeks ago and received the beautifully wrapped parcel of this Bill, only to hear an ominous ticking from inside it. Let us hope that we can turn it into an alarm clock.
  As the Chief Secretary implied, the Bill goes right to the heart of the relationship between Government and Parliament. It is seen by some people as a technical measure, but it is a constitutional measure because it is primarily about that relationship between Parliament and Whitehall and the way in which Parliament allows the Government the money that they need to run the country. It is as simple as that.
  Sound and proper finance in the UK is underpinned by the virtuous circle of accountability that has already been referred to by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), my predecessor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and the Bill affects every aspect of that circle. The virtuous circle, outlined by Gladstone, involved, first, the system of supply by Parliament; secondly, proper accounting by Government; thirdly, audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General; and, finally, scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee on behalf of the House of Commons—with, of course, some estimates votes along the way.
  The Bill affects all stages of that cycle, so it is of fundamental importance to the powers and responsibilities of Parliament in general and of the PAC in particular. Despite the measure's critical importance to our work, the PAC was not properly consulted on the draft Bill; the whole Committee is concerned about the content. We were promised a draft Bill in March, but it never arrived. The National Audit Office was given only three weeks between receipt of the draft Bill and publication. That does not represent proper consultation by any stretch of

  593
  the imagination. To give the House some insight into how short that period was, the original memorandum seen by the PAC in March contained no proposals about the CAG's access rights, whereas the Bill repeals section 28 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 and substitutes an inadequate access provision.
  The memorandum contained nothing about WGA—the whole of Government accounts. It contained nothing on Partnerships UK. It stated that section 26 of the 1866 Act might need to be amended, whereas the Bill repeals that section without replacing it. That section requires Departments to explain any excess of expenditure beyond the original estimate—a rather important component of the Act. The memorandum specified an intention to retain the statutory appropriation accounts timetable for resource accounts, whereas the Bill allows the Treasury to change the timetable by statutory instrument, subject only to annulment by either House.
  Those are serious shortfalls in the consultation process. I happily accept that some were caused by problems with the parliamentary draftsmen—I am sure that the Government have hit the timetable problem that occurs every year. None the less, the procedure was inadequate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) referred to the comedy programme "Yes, Minister". My hon. Friend might think that the programme is a comedy, but, after three years as Chairman of the PAC, I know that it is a training film.
  The Bill meddles with the existing legislation governing financial accountability—a process that dates from the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts of 1866 and 1921. It may not have been intended that the Bill should meddle in those procedures—in effect, the Chief Secretary said that—but it does. Perhaps the absence of intent explains the inadequacy of the new wording. For example, the Bill does not modernise the audit process to reflect changes in the delivery of public services. That was the thrust of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne; I shall return to his comments.
  The Bill locks into place weaknesses in accountability that have grown up in the past century or so, and it does nothing to put them right. The public sector financial environment has changed almost beyond recognition since the passage of the first Exchequer and Audit Departments Act in 1866, yet legislation providing a foundation for the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General in examining accounts remains—even in this Bill—largely as framed 130 years ago.
  As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, the Bill provides an historic opportunity to remove obstacles that have hampered the House's ability to scrutinise the work of government. Legislation passed in 1866 appointed a Comptroller and Auditor General to audit all Departments, including automatically any new Departments created. That was clearly intended to cover every piece of Government expenditure. Since then, government has undergone massive reorganisation, putting large amounts of expenditure outside the departmental boundary. It is a dangerous anomaly that those managerial changes should have arbitrarily removed from automatic parliamentary scrutiny a large amount of expenditure. The Bill should correct that.
  594
  I hope that the Government and the House will seize the chance, which is unlikely to return for many decades, to provide a legislative environment that will nurture and foster the highest standards of openness and transparency. The Chief Secretary said—I think in all candour and honesty—that he wanted to make the best of the Bill and to take on board as best he could the proposals and wishes of the Public Accounts Committee. When I referred to the original memorandum, I hope that I pointed out how many aspects of the Bill were unexpected or not as the Committee expected them to be. The Chief Secretary has a major task before him, but I will do my best to facilitate it. However, I shall do that with the single intention of enhancing the effectiveness of Parliament so that it returns to Gladstone's intention and does not apply the letter of the 1866 Act as it is today.
  Mr. Letwin: As one would expect, my right hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he agree that it is essential not only that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have the audit powers to which he referred, but that either the CAG or an independent body, such as that which is being set up in shadow, should establish clear rules on definition and presentation, so that hon. Members and the public are able to understand the accounts presented to them?
  Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, although I shall not major on it in my remarks. There is a serious risk that the information that the Government and the House put into the public domain could be undermined if it is not properly treated on an agreed basis. That could be done either by the Comptroller and Auditor General or by an independent person, such as an independent director of national statistics, who would be appointed in the same way as the CAG. One or other approach would benefit the Government as much as anyone else; I do not make a partisan point.
  My remarks follow closely those of my predecessor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. I make no apology for that, because we are making not party but parliamentary points, which are largely accepted by the Public Accounts Commission and the Public Accounts Committee. The proposal in the Bill to change the basis for supply and the way that Departments are held accountable to Parliament should not be brought into force until it is clear that the new system is better than the one that it is intended to replace. I have already pointed out to the Chief Secretary that the new system is not yet very close to demonstrating that it can do that. Therefore, I seek an undertaking from the Government—I think that I have already got it, but I hope that it will be confirmed when the Economic Secretary winds up—that the relevant clauses will not be implemented until the Public Accounts Committee has signified its satisfaction and that the Government have provided it with assurances that all Departments are fully prepared for the change.
  The Bill must preserve in existing statute the protections that allow the Government to spend only what Parliament authorises and that bring to the House's attention any excess or improper expenditure. That is an essential minimum requirement. We want to move forwards, and, in giving discretion in those matters to the Treasury, the Bill seems to move backwards. That is quite improper, because Parliament is the final arbiter in those matters.

  595
  The Bill must provide the Comptroller and Auditor General with access arrangements that mirror those of the Government. He should therefore automatically have access to third parties contracting with public bodies and organisations carrying out public functions authorised by the Government or Parliament.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which could take evidence on the Bill. He could bring in civil servants, including Treasury officials, and question them on the Bill's implications. Am I correct in recalling that a Treasury official is always in residence in the Committee, representing the seat taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and advising the Committee? If the right hon. Gentleman can take evidence, why does he not do so? We could all attend the sittings to hear the interesting explanations that the Treasury would have to give to justify the way in which the Bill has been framed.
  Mr. Davis: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me or intimidate the officials in the box, but that point will be put to my Committee, and if the members so choose, that is what we shall do.
  I return to the point about outside bodies doing the Government's bidding. I am not seeking a licence for the Comptroller and Auditor General to go on fishing expeditions; I simply want him to be able to verify proper use of public money and proper delivery of public services. That seems to me to be a straightforward point.
  I remind the House that private finance initiative expenditure, for example, is expected to amount to some £70 billion over the next 25 years. We are not talking about small beer. Another example that comes to mind is the computer centres that handle £4 billion a year of civil servants' wages. There are serious potential problems in those areas, and the CAG should therefore have access.
  At the moment Departments regularly secure greater access for themselves than they do for the Comptroller and Auditor General, which seems to be completely the wrong way round. That is not acceptable.
  The Bill must also ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General is automatically the auditor of every non-departmental public body. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made that point clearly. He said also, as I think I told him in the first place, that the Government have appointed the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit every one of the 15 executive NDPBs that they have created and placed the Legal Services Commission, which was the Legal Aid Board, under the NAO's purview. The Government have made sensible, worthwhile and laudable decisions, but I am saying—as is everybody who has knowledge of these matters—that the process should be regularised and systematic.
  The Bill must also enable the CAG to audit limited companies established by central Government Departments. One of the arguments put to us is that it is difficult to do that under European law because a European directive prevents it. If that is the case, I should be interested to hear the Economic Secretary, when she winds up, explain why Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden all have CAGs who can do just that. Presumably, they face the same problems.
  Members of the House may be surprised to learn that more than 200 such companies—the Student Loans Company and Remploy have been mentioned—receive
  596
  between £2 billion and £3 billion of public funding every year. The Minister pointed out that there had been a study on Remploy, and he is perfectly correct—the NAO did a study on Remploy. [Interruption.] However, as a voice from across the Floor is prompting me to point out, that was a value-for-money study, which does not meet the same requirement and does not enable the NAO to check for regularity and propriety. It does not involve the NAO's intelligence-gathering function, which sees what is happening and can start studies that are to the benefit of Parliament as a whole.
  Existing legislation does not permit the CAG to audit companies, which is another dangerous anomaly, but not one for which I will ever again accept the argument about the European directive.
  Most worrying is the fact that those drafting failures leave quangos and publicly owned limited companies as voluntary loopholes in the access rights of Parliament, to be exercised at the whim of the spiritual equivalent of Sir Humphrey Appleby in Whitehall. Civil servants will make the decisions—no doubt, Ministers will ratify them—effectively to have auditors appointed by the Minister and reporting to the Minister. That voluntary exemption from parliamentary scrutiny should not be allowed.
  If whole of Government accounts are to be introduced, the Bill should provide properly for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have access, similar to that contained in companies legislation, to bodies whose accounts are consolidated into the wider whole of Government accounts. That requirement amounts to a matching of that which happens in the private sector. If an auditor audits a large company and is required to give a view on the accounts of that company, no matter that another auditor may audit a subsidiary, the auditor who audits the total is allowed to go in an check for himself. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) said that we do not want double auditing. Of course we do not, but what I describe is a rare occurrence. The fact that the central auditor has that right acts as a check and a deterrent on the operation of the subsidiary auditor.
  Dr. Palmer: To assist the House, will the right hon. Gentleman give a concrete example of the sort of inquiry which he would like the Comptroller and Auditor General to be able to carry out, but which the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot carry out under clause 11(5), under which he can require
  "such information and explanations as he may reasonably require"?
  Mr. Davis: From time to time, the Comptroller and Auditor General should carry out a statistical investigation. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that sometimes, unless one goes inside a subsidiary body, one cannot know precisely what it is. Much of the value-for-money work carried out by the National Audit Office arises in the first instance from the understanding arrived at by taking a direct look. That understanding cannot be obtained at one remove. It would be difficult for the Comptroller and Auditor General to give an unqualified view of the whole of Government accounts unless he was able to do that. The existence of the deterrent effect would, in any event, give him extra confidence.
  Mr. Tyrie: To reinforce my right hon. Friend's point, the subsection to which the hon. Member for Broxtowe

  597
  (Dr. Palmer) referred makes it clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General's access is limited to the work of other auditors.
  Mr. Davis: I had assumed that everyone knew that, but perhaps not everyone has read the Bill as many times as I have.
  The Bill is designed to facilitate public-private partnerships. I approve of that: like the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I think that public-private partnerships offer the Government a good way forward. However, substantial sums will be involved—as I said, £70 billion over 25 years—and it is certain that any body receiving such funds will advise on even larger amounts of expenditure by other public sector bodies. Therefore, it is essential that the Bill gives the Comptroller and Auditor General full access to any body funded with public money to improve the delivery of public-private partnerships.
  The Chief Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that the partnership is not a bank, but a co-sponsoring arrangement, involving far less than the £1 billion that my hon. Friend suggested. However, the leverage of that money is enormous. The effectiveness of the use of public money is enormously important to the public and to the Government, so the National Audit Office and Comptroller and Auditor General should have access. They have access to the current equivalent, so it would be a backward move if the Bill were passed as drafted.
  It is extremely important that the Bill should include provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General to validate the Government's performance measures. The resource accounting reforms are important in terms of reforms to the cost base assessment of the capital base, and all the other measures that the outside world would regard as purely technical. However, the real revolution that they offer—one that will occur in the first part of the next century—lies in the attempt to measure the output of government, as well as its cost. That offers the possibility of massive improvements in public service over time.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) once commented that he could not believe how little there was in the way of management accounts and management information in government. These reforms are the first base for the management information that will allow Ministers to make better decisions, and they will allow the public to understand those decisions—to understand what they are supposed to be getting and what they are getting. It is vital that that information is completely trustworthy and beyond criticism. The only way in which the information can be seen to conform to a gold standard or, in a phrase the Chancellor might prefer, a golden rule, is by the National Audit Office or some other body being the arbiter of its veracity—being the auditor, or the check of last resort.
  In the past few years, under the current Government and previous Governments, we have had arguments about all sorts of policies and measures. I recall employment statistics being the subject of several such arguments. That sort of thing is corrosive of the way in which resource accounting is supposed to work. My view is shared by the Treasury Committee and reflected in the Government's approach to the best value initiative. The Government are
  598
  rightly spending millions of pounds on enabling the Audit Commission to verify the performance measures in local government. National Audit Office validation would strongly reinforce both public acceptance and the effectiveness of the performance measures.
  Mr. Letwin: My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Is he seconding the Treasury Committee's conclusion that
  "it will be crucial that the Head of National Statistics or of any statistical commission decides which statistics are included within the scope of National Statistics rather than Ministers"?
  Mr. Davis: In the last minute of my speech, my hon. Friend raises a crucial point. To answer him, I am 80 per cent. seconding it, but let me draw the dividing line.
  It strikes me as perfectly reasonable for the Government broadly to make a public decision on performance measures. After all, that is what manifestos are about. That is a decision proper to Ministers, not one that can be made by some independent body. However, the Minister having decided the measure, it is vital that those who validate it are entirely independent. The National Audit Office in respect of public service agreements and the director of national statistics, or his equivalent, should be equally independent.
  All that would add up to a truly Gladstonian measure. The Chief Secretary said that the Bill was one of the biggest reforms since Gladstone. If the Government want to be remembered in 100 years as having passed a measure of Gladstonian impact, one of the key tests will be whether they had the courage to say, "Certain matters will be decided by someone other than ourselves." That would be a brave, but correct, decision and it would be in the public interest to make it.
  I regard mine as non-partisan, parliamentary points. I doubt that any member of the PAC would disagree with a word that I have said—I am sure that they will say so later if that is not the case. I understand that, although not long, the Bill is technically complex and that the Economic Secretary will not be able to give me answers today. However, I want an undertaking that the Government will take these points on board and try to incorporate them in the Bill. In so doing, they would make their own reform—which is perhaps one of the most worthwhile reforms in the Treasury's approach in recent years—more than merely worth while; they would make it historic.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I speak as a member of the Public Accounts Committee and also as someone who is on the Public Accounts Commission, but I do not speak because of those facts. I speak because, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is chairman of the commission, I have spent more than 35 years in the House, 22 of them on the Labour Front Bench and too many of them in opposition. I spent nine enjoyable years in government.
  It is becoming increasingly clear to me—I say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), who has been intervening with points that have the fascinating ring of Whitehall concerns—that the longer I spend in the House the more convinced I am that the rights and powers of this place must be protected and must remain supreme.

  599
  I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that twice you have had to endure a hobbyhorse of mine during the past three weeks, but it is a reality that living and working as we do within a representative democracy, we live in a token democracy unless there is continuous parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. We become so used to working within the machine that we fail to see the entire picture. However, without scrutiny we will have tokenism and Executive government. That is why I am speaking in the debate. I am desperately concerned that we may be enshrining certain losses of powers in legislation, which I know my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury would not wish to see happen over the years. I also feel that we are missing an opportunity to make two strides forward in our accounting procedure.
  Every member of the PAC supports resource accounting in the areas where the Government are trying to advance it in the Bill. However, we are more concerned that we should restore what Gladstone thought he had given to the House in 1866—the power of the House to examine and scrutinise all public money for probity, for waste and for accuracy. We on the PAC can only scratch the surface, examining 50 accounts and issues a year.
  The role of the House in scrutinising the Executive is meaningful only while the National Audit Office has the fullest possible access to Government expenditure in all its forms. Back in 1866, it was simple. It was easy to ensure that all cash trails were followed. None of us on the PAC is opposed to structural changes in government. When we talk about such changes we are talking about the effect that they will have on the House, and the need, therefore, to adapt the powers of the House and those of the NAO to match them.
  As my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, have intimated, over the years, changes have taken place but the powers of the PAC and the NAO have not altered accordingly. We find that we have eroded the democratic duty of the House to scrutinise the Executive, especially on the financial front. It is not only the growing sums of money that are moving outside the net of NAO scrutiny with the altering of the structure of government, with agencies and so on. It is not only the volume but the percentage. There is a progressive decline in the proportion of scrutiny which remains with the House. I say to my right hon. Friend, as did the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, that we are delighted that each of the small Executive non-departmental public bodies set up under the Government has been subjected to full NAO scrutiny. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in many other instances.
  We find that £3 billion that previously would have been subject to NAO, PAC and, therefore, detailed parliamentary scrutiny is now spent through 80 NDPBs. They are outside the scrutiny of the PAC and the NAO. This trend is increasing, and more so in the second category, although the level of expenditure has not quite been reached. It is about £2 billion. This is happening in the form of the companies which the Government set up or help to set up, such as the Student Loans Company.
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary cited Remploy. Yes, the NAO can go in and carry out value-for-money exercises and then report, but it can do so only occasionally because it has limited resources. It is
  600
  not the same thing as having permanent as-of-right access to various organisations when it wants it, and that is what we are asking for.
  Dr. Palmer: First, I would like to reassure my right hon. Friend that my interventions are not on behalf of anybody in Whitehall but purely on my own behalf. I ask my right hon. Friend the same question that I put to the chair of the PAC. Let us take the example of Remploy. What type of information does he envisage the Comptroller and Auditor General could obtain by direct access that he could not obtain under clause 11(5)? Would he require a massive reinforcement of the staff and resources of the NAO if he were in practice, as opposed to theory, to intervene to the extent that would be needed to detect new information?
  Mr. Williams: I tell my hon. Friend what he was told before. Until we have been in there, we do not know what might be there. I am not talking in general terms. Recently, if I remember correctly, we directed our attention to the Halton college of further education, to which the outside auditors had given a clean bill of health. I started with my own further education college in Swansea and then Southampton. I referred them to the NAO because I was concerned about information that I was receiving. Halton came on the scene from another source. In each case the NAO went in and carried out its audits. It found things that were missed completely or ignored by the independent auditors, possibly because they did not understand the requirements of the public sector attitude towards monitoring taxpayers' moneys.
  There was one example which was ludicrous, but true. It arose as a result of an NAO auditor observing a display of affection between a chief executive and someone in that executive's outer office. On inquiry it was discovered that the person being so greeted was a close friend of the chief executive and the recipient of contracts in conflict of interest from that executive. That was an accident. Those matters would not have come to light if the NAO auditor had not been present. In the same way, we would not have found out about Halton if the NAO had not been there.
  We would not have found out what was happening in the Swansea college and in Southampton if the NAO had not gone in to look. If the NAO had been there as of right all along, those problems might have been discovered earlier, things might not have got out of hand, money might not have been lost and jobs might have been saved. If my right hon. Friend would like us to prepare a reading list for him of PAC reports that demonstrate the point—I am sure that he is in pursuit of genuine education—we will gladly do it for him.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I point to another case that is of great interest to the House? I refer to what happened in connection with the MI5 and MI6 buildings—a horrible story. Many hon. Members are asking why it was allowed to happen, why money was spent in that way and why we did not find out sooner. Over the years, the PAC has provided many examples of what my right hon. Friend is describing.
  Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend and I have worked together on various investigations of individual cases over the years. I will not bore him with them, but I will gladly tell him in private where he can find the information.

  601
  The NAO's powers to follow cash, as has been stated, are peculiarly limited. One can understand, perhaps, and regret that the powers of the NAO to follow cash is not equal to that of the Court of Auditors of the European Union, and we all know how deplorable recent events have been in the EU. One is bound to wonder at the duality of standards reflected in the fact that the Audit Commission, which looks into local government, has powers of investigation and inquiry which the NAO is denied.
  I am told that in the erudite discussions in the corridors of the Treasury, the EU eighth directive on company law is quoted as inhibiting the freedom of the Minister to do what he would love to do and I am sure will do in the end, when he has listened to all the arguments. I can reassure him, as the Chairman of the PAC did.
  We have a list of nine European countries whose equivalent to the NAO can carry out inquiries in relation to companies, but our NAO is debarred—not by EU law, but by ours. Our company law is drawn up in a particularly restrictive way, which prevents the national Parliament's auditor going in and auditing companies. The law could easily be amended, possibly in the course of the Bill.
  We understood that there was to have been a draft Bill. I understand that my right hon. Friend is in an even worse position than we are, because the PAC probably saw the Bill before he did. That is the joy of going to a new Department—if a Minister is lucky, he picks up the plums that someone else has prepared, but there is also the danger of picking up what the Chairman of our Committee described as a ticking package.
  Had we had the draft Bill, as we were promised, we could have carried out our own pre-legislative inquiry, as was suggested by one of my hon. Friends in an intervention. We could have gone through it in considerable detail and made our recommendations objectively. If our report was not unanimous—the Committee has never divided politically in its reports; that is a unique record—my right hon. Friend could have chosen to ignore it, but I believe that we would have come to a unanimous conclusion. We still might.
  I am sure that the Chairman will give me a dispensation from parliamentary privilege if I say that I have already proposed to the Committee what was suggested in an intervention—that we should consider running, in tandem with the Bill, our own investigation into the Bill, as we would have carried it out, had we had the Bill in advance. I hope that the Committee may feel able to do that.
  Mr. David Davis: I did not say that because of concern for the right hon. Gentleman's career prospects.
  Mr. Williams: I live in hope—not a great deal. I tell everyone that I do not think my career has peaked yet.
  The Chief Secretary said that the Bill reinforces the powers that were given in 1886. That is partially correct. It reinforces those powers in relation to an organisation that exists only in part. In that respect, the powers are the same, with one exception, with which I shall deal in a moment. However, the Bill does not reflect the spirit and the principle of 1866—the principle, as my right hon. Friend
  602
  said, that all public money should be subject to detailed scrutiny by Parliament's own audit body and by Parliament itself.
  Indeed, the danger of the Bill, and the reason why many of us see it as a mandarin's Bill, is that what is needed could probably have been achieved by a couple of amendments. Other than the changes relating to the PFI, the changes relating to resource accounting did not need an entire Bill. I must be of an unduly suspicious disposition, but I have the feeling that in the Treasury, eyes glistened when they saw the opportunity. Here was the chance to write in tablets of stone the restrictions that have grown by accident of restructuring over the past quarter of a century.
  It is important that we do not pass the Bill in its present form. The Minister knows how difficult it is to get parliamentary time for alterations, once legislation is passed.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is making an interesting point. Partly to correct the record, does he agree that there is another motive at work—the Treasury asserting itself against the spending Ministries? The Treasury sees the spending Ministries as dangerous loci of mis-spending and has given itself huge powers in relation to them. Our problem is that it has not given Parliament powers vis-a-vis the Treasury.
  Mr. Williams: It is dangerous to follow that track. The hon. Gentleman starts me off again. Way back in history, in 1967, I joined a Department called DEA—the Department of Economic Affairs, which was set up to keep an eye on that lot—the unmentionable, to whom we are not allowed to refer, who sit in a little Box at the end of the Chamber.
  The purpose of the DEA was to second-think Treasury. I well remember what went on there. As a mere Parliamentary Secretary, I remember clashes within Government and the attempts of Treasury to get rid of the DEA, which were successful, but that owes more to me, if I may say so, than to anything else. I seem to be a disaster in any Department. I have been in four Departments, and not one has survived my time there.
  In the Bill, we lose some power. I know that that was not the Minister's intention, and perhaps he did not realise it. The existing Treasury PFI taskforce is subject to NAO scrutiny, but Partnerships UK will not be, so the powers of access that we still have will cease to exist with the passage of the Bill.
  Transparency is a current buzzword, and that is what we are asking for. We get rid of incompetence, inefficiency, fraud and corruption only if we have clear access to the information that enables us to discover its existence. That is why I said on a point of order before our discussion on the measure that the scope of the Bill's long title is wide. It states that the Bill's purpose is:
  "To make provision about Government resources and accounts; … and for connected purposes."
  If that does not cover auditing, what on earth does?
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary should take advantage of the inadvertent generosity of those in the Treasury who advised the draftsmen, and double his claim to a role in history by being not only the Minister who introduced resource accounting and transformed the

  603
  method of public sector accounting, but the person who restored to Parliament the rights that it had in 1866 but that were subsequently taken away.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): On the last day of our debate on the Loyal Address, I said that I considered the Bill to be one of the most important measures of the Session. That caused comment and amusement on Conservative Benches, but I still believe that I am right. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said, the reform for which the Bill provides is in the tradition of Gladstone. Some senior Members have made important speeches to point out some of the flaws in the Bill, and I hope that the Government are listening closely.
  Perhaps Parliament's most important function is to hold the Government to account for the way in which they spend our taxes. If the sovereignty of Parliament means anything in the days of global capital markets, it should mean the power of the House to control Government tax and spend. However, the House has not discharged that duty well, if at all. For decades, it has acted like a eunuch towards taxpayers' cash: it has shrieked a lot—its shrill voice has often been heard—but it has not acted. That appalling legacy of parliamentary failure to examine Government accounts in the past 80 years has left those of us who support more investment in our public services with a difficult task: to persuade hard-pressed taxpayers that we will spend their cash much more wisely in future. We can do that, and the Bill goes a short way towards helping the House to achieve that aim. Therefore, we shall support the Bill in the Lobby tonight: it deserves a Second Reading.
  However, Liberal Democrat Members believe that the Bill is timid and that it should constitute simply a first step towards re-empowering the House to do its constitutional job properly. We agree with many of the criticisms of the Bill made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). However, we are more critical, and support greater reform, than the Conservatives. We shall table far-reaching amendments to the Bill in Committee and we expect the Government to take them seriously. We shall demonstrate that those amendments are not only sensible but completely in line with the principles of fiscal prudence and transparency in which the Government claim to believe.
  Earlier, I made what some hon. Members may consider to be an extravagant claim. I said that the House had not done its constitutional duty on Government expenditure for more than 80 years. I shall substantiate that claim. The House has not voted down a Government expenditure proposal for 80 years. Parliament last rejected an estimate that the Executive proposed in 1919. At that time, the House reduced the royal palaces Vote and deleted the provision for an additional bathroom for the Lord Chancellor in the Houses of Parliament. That may appear to be a small matter but, given the shrill voices that were raised early in the Parliament against the current Lord Chancellor's expenditure on wallpaper, we would perhaps have expected a repetition of the 1919 vote. That did not happen. We have indeed allowed ourselves to be castrated.
  Nowadays, a vote to reduce an estimate is viewed as a vote of no confidence in the Government. The last such vote on an estimate that I could find was in 1992, on a
  604
  motion to reduce class XX, vote 1—contributions to the European Community. That was debated as a motion of no confidence. Worse, the House has not even granted itself the procedures that would allow it to scrutinise properly the Government's budget ex ante. As a Member of the Procedure Committee, I was involved in the recent inquiry into the House's financial procedures. I was genuinely shocked to learn the limited nature of the House's procedures to alter Government spending plans. We have allowed the Crown to keep the initiative in all financial matters. I refer hon. Members to Standing Order No. 48, whereby we formally surrender our scrutiny potency to be cut off by the ministerial knife.
  I hope that you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I relate the House's financial impotence to Europe. Many hon. Members, especially on the Conservative Benches, say a lot about the sovereignty of Parliament, especially in the context of the debate on the euro. Most of their comments on that issue are misinformed, and many are simply wrong. Their criticisms would be more powerful if they had allowed the House to exercise its sovereignty properly during their last overlong stay in power. The previous Government did precious little to restore the House to the centre of the debate and decision making about public expenditure. A notable exception was Lord St. John of Fawsley who, as a Member of the House, promoted a private Member's Bill, which led to the National Audit Act 1983.
  The Bill has a lot to do with the excellent proposal that was first mooted by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when he was Chancellor. I want to put on record a comment that I made to him privately. History may regard the reforms that he first proposed on resource accounting and budgeting as placing his Chancellorship on a par with that of Gladstone, because he started the modernisation of the country's public finances. However, it was only a start.
  That the proposals have taken so long to be introduced and that they remain so far from restoring parliamentary power over the purse show the forces that the House is up against. In assessing the Bill, we must return to first principles. We must reconsider the role that we want Parliament to take in budget setting and in scrutinising taxpayers' money.
  We need to consider a simple model of the way in which Parliament can exercise its sovereignty properly and fully. There are three essential requirements for that. First, Parliament needs information about the Government's spending intentions and about the amount that they have spent. It needs a detailed and comprehensible set of spending proposals and a decent set of accounts. The Bill goes some way towards fulfilling the latter requirement.
  Secondly, Parliament needs the capacity and skills to analyse the information. We need to be able to understand the proposals and the accounts that are laid before us. Can any hon. Members say, hand on heart, that they understand the appropriation accounts? Will we have the resources and training to understand the resource accounts?
  There is a third condition, to which I have already alluded, if the House is to regain some control over the public purse. We need the procedures, practices and power to alter the spending proposals that are put before us and to ensure that heads roll when the reports on the spending proposals—the accounts—show that Parliament's will has not been properly done.

  605
  Three missing elements would allow proper parliamentary scrutiny: information, resources and procedure. First, I shall deal with information, the lack of which the Bill starts to rectify. The Bill contains nothing that will radically reform the way in which we vote money. The Government have adopted their predecessors' minimalist plans for involving Parliament ex ante in budget setting. The Bill tries to change the current legislative framework, which dates back to 1866, in the most modest imaginable way. Under the Bill, appropriations will be made much as they were previously.
  The Government could have put the existing non-statutory supply process on a statutory footing. The Bill could have set out proposals for the way in which the Government's spending plans should he put before Parliament, for what they should include and what they should tell the House. That has been done elsewhere, when other Governments have opted for resource accounting techniques.
  Hon. Members will know that New Zealand has led the way in implementing accruals accounting and its Public Finance Act 1989 included a detailed list of the types of appropriation that a Government would have to set before Parliament every year. The New Zealand Parliament receives information on seven types of appropriation—for example, detail on what the money Parliament votes for is intended to achieve, or the output classes of appropriation, as they are called—and the Government's objective for a given sum of money is made transparent. There are other types of appropriation, including that for borrowing expenses and repayment of debt, but the House has no say on Government borrowings—none at all—and will receive none under the Bill.
  Right at the start of the budgeting process, the information given to the House is partial and inadequate for us to see what the Government intend to achieve. The Bill will not change that, and I urge Ministers to consider that seriously. If we want better value for money and if we want to force Whitehall to open its books—not only to Parliament, but to Ministers themselves—why do not the Government force our great Departments of state to set out to Parliament their appropriation requests in far more detail? Resource budgeting means that Ministers and Whitehall will have better information on which to make their decisions. That is fantastic—it is a major benefit of the process—but failure to give Parliament a role at the start of the process will mean that the potential benefits will not be maximised.
  To emphasise that point, I refer Ministers back to the lessons that we can learn from that great reforming Chancellor, William Gladstone. He aimed to improve the social condition of the country, but was reluctant for that to be done at the cost of a much-increased tax burden or a big increase in expenditure, so he devised his reforms over the control of public expenditure to try to square that circle. Much of what we have today in respect of overseeing and auditing expenditure—from the Public Accounts Committee to the Comptroller and Auditor General—goes back to Gladstone. Taxation and expenditure were kept under control during his periods of office, but national income increased enormously—by 20 per cent. between 1853 and 1861. If our prudent Chancellor wants radical efficiency gains in respect of the way in which the public sector uses its resources to meet
  606
  ambitious social and economic objectives, I recommend that he put his trust in the House to assist that drive by giving Parliament the information on spending plans early on.
  The Bill is strong in the provision of more and better information after the event—the financial reporting that will take place as a result of the resource accounting initiative. There will be a quantum leap, and I unreservedly welcome that. In particular, the removal of the bias against capital investment in the public spending process is long overdue, although there are concerns. Members of Parliament and Select Committees will have to get used to a new set of information and learn a new accounting language. We will need much more help than we have had in the past to interpret the extra information that we shall receive. We shall need to check that the extra information that is generated is not simply used for Whitehall's benefit as it goes about its managerial role but helps Parliament in its democratic role as well. The Public Accounts Committee and other Select Committees will have to be extravagant in demanding the information in a format that helps parliamentarians hold the Executive to account. That is the challenge of resource accounting, and we shall have to rise to it.
  Mr. Letwin: How does the hon. Gentleman imagine that what he is seeking can conceivably be achieved unless there is clarity of definition? How does he imagine that there can be such clarity of definition without an independent body setting those definitions?
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am coming to that point and, as he will remember, I intervened on him to make similar points in that vein.
  There are more deep-seated concerns about the accounting information that will be provided and the hon. Gentleman touched on some of them. The first major concern surrounds the fact that accruals accounting is inevitably more subjective than cash accounting. As the private sector continually debates its accounting procedures and has developed generally accepted accounting practice, so, too, have Governments had to tackle difficult issues in respect of valuing assets and liabilities. How does one calculate the asset value of a nuclear missile? How does one decide how to take account of inflation in presenting balance sheets? It is vital for the success of this project that such subjective issues are not used as opportunities for creative accounting. There has to be some way in which the users of the accounts can have faith in the figures as presented.
  The hon. Gentleman made heavy weather of that point at times. I agree with many of his criticisms, but he seemed to forget that the previous Conservative Government, because of the approach that they took to the issue, could have been subject to all the accusations that he made against the current Government. They set up the Financial Reporting Advisory Board to provide the Government with advice on those difficult areas, but allowed it only to proffer advice. At no stage did the Conservatives give it any determining role or establish a statutory independent body that would be responsible to Parliament and allow it to consider those issues, a process that should perhaps be called the governance of public sector accounting.

  607
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in clause 5(2), the Treasury has given itself unfettered discretion to decide on accounting standards and I hope that, in Committee, we can jointly persuade the Government to reconsider. Liberal Democrats believe that we should develop practices similar to those used in New Zealand, the United States, Australia and Canada. New Zealand has its Accounting Standards Review Board and the United States its General Accounting Office. We wish that this country had had such offices at the start of the process, but I hope that we can now achieve them.
  Mr. David Davis: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest and agree with a great deal of what he is saying. I was discussing that matter the other day with Lord Burns, the previous permanent secretary at the Treasury, who offered as a model not the General Accounting Office, but the Congressional Budget Office, which is probably closer to what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve than the GAO.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I shall suggest later that we should have another body that is more like the Congressional Budget Office. I am suggesting here that we need a separate body to focus solely on accounting standards. The CBO does another job and we need a similar body in the House.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman has explained the point, and he and I—and, indeed, his party and my party—concur on it. Does he agree that it merely falls to the Economic Secretary to consent to the Government introducing into the Bill a proposal establishing precisely such a statutory body—something that we both seek?
  Mr. Davey: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that he is right; I fear that he may not be. We await the Economic Secretary's winding-up speech with interest and, if the Government were to give ground on that point, the Bill would make much easier progress through the House.
  I am not an accountant. I confess to having not read the resource accounting manual, which is rather large. I do not know whether the many hundreds and thousands of decisions about new accounting practices made under this initiative are fair and reasonable, but I know that, if those decisions were being taken outside Her Majesty's Treasury by a body that, like the Comptroller and Auditor General, was genuinely independent, I would trust that manual far, far more. Ministers must take that point seriously. Will the Economic Secretary consider amending the Bill so that, rather than the Treasury, the FRAB is responsible for directing accounting practices for public sector Departments and bodies? Perhaps there is a job for a different body—the Public Audit Forum, about whose role the House has heard so little. We should be told more.
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Davey: I may be able to pre-empt the hon. Gentleman's intervention: I suggest that the Chief Secretary is cautious about joining his proposed commission. A shadow accounts commission will not engender much faith outside the House.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he agree that, were he to go
  608
  through the manual to discover the response of Departments, he would see that, on depreciation, for example, they have come up with absurdly differing schedules? Does he also agree that, if we are to have a proper depreciation account that can be consolidated sensibly, single depreciation methods would have to be applied across the Government?
  Mr. Davey: I do not feel qualified to give the hon. Gentleman a full answer. There may be legitimate reasons why there are different types of depreciation for different types of assets. I honestly cannot give the hon. Gentleman a considered reply. I agree with his substantive point that we need an independent body so that we can have faith in whatever accounting standards are applied for depreciation.
  We need reassurances from the Government that the new information and accounts will be constructed on an independent basis. If it is too late to affect the construction stage of the new accounts, the Government could ensure that all future revisions and changes are independently determined, not Treasury directed.
  Resource accounting and budgeting is not just about accruals accounting, but about new information on outputs and performance. Alongside the new balance sheets and schedules, the Government will publish something called an output and performance analysis. That information is to assist the quest for better value for money, and is welcome. However, the Bill makes no provision for auditing that information. The Comptroller and Auditor General will not be able to certify it. There may be good, practical reasons for not auditing it in the first year or two, but the National Audit Office will not even be able to validate it. That is a real concern, which I know is shared by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that we can rectify that during the passage of the Bill.
  If Parliament is to take this new information seriously, a third party must examine those statistics to ensure that they give a true and fair account of what has happened. It is not just the information that we will get, which will have to be monitored carefully, but the information that we will not get that is worrying many. Hon. Members have already expressed concerns about issues such as which public sector bodies will be covered by the new resource accounts and which will not be, and whether the National Audit Office will have jurisdiction over those accounts. The right hon. Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and for Haltemprice and Howden discussed those points in some detail, and I associate the Liberal Democrats with their remarks on extending the institutional jurisdiction of the National Audit Office.
  The Government may say that clauses 10 and 11 on Government accounts will help to bring that about. In the explanatory notes and the code of fiscal stability, the Government say that their intention is to prepare consolidated accounts for all public sector bodies—but when? There is no time scale, and there is certainly no independent body to oversee them: only the Treasury will decide.
  The House has no guarantee that all public sector money will eventually be properly accounted for and audited. That is not good enough. The Government may mean well, but the House should remind them that the

  609
  Comptroller and Auditor General has independence for good reason. The House of Commons and the public need to know that audits of public money are genuinely independent. We will still need to know about the billions of pounds of taxpayers' money that currently falls outside the ambit of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  Whitehall has been preoccupied trying to prepare resource accounts for central Government. Governments can always use the excuse that a narrow focus is the right way to start but, if Ministers do not set ambitious targets for the public sector, they will never meet them. Frankly, the delays and problems in preparing for resource accounting and budgeting suggest that Ministers need a different approach to obtaining whole of Government accounts. Unless the civil service is required by statute to provide Parliament with this information by a certain date, I doubt whether this exercise will be seen in Whitehall to have the priority that it ought to have.
  Before I leave the subject of improving financial information for Parliament, I want to touch on an issue raised by clause 9 on the access rights of the Comptroller and Auditor General to accounting information. Other hon. Members have raised this point, and it goes back to my point about the need to widen the jurisdiction of the CAG. Far too often, the National Audit Office's access rights to information are on the basis of agreement and not on a statutory basis. If the country's top financial watchdog is to have the teeth it needs, it should have the statutory right to examine all papers of any public body. That would surely be the most secure way to ensure that all fraud and malpractice is wiped out. I commend the Government for abolishing the previous Government's practice of allowing civil servants routinely to mark documents "Not for NAO eyes" but, as I have argued, they need to go further.
  Earlier in my remarks, I said that, if we are to re-empower the House to do its job of financial scrutiny properly, we need to go back to first principles. We need to consider the information, resources and procedures that Parliament has at its disposal to examine the Budget. I have spent some time on information aspects, because that is the core of the Bill, but I want to say a few words about the House's resources—individual MPs and Select Committees—and its procedures, because they are crucial to our ability to use this new information productively.
  The vast bulk of the work of the House in analysing the Government's accounts is done by the PAC with the help of the NAO. They consider what has already happened—ex-post analysis of spending and examination of the accounts. Parliament needs to be involved at the start of the public spending process. That would mark a radical departure, but I believe that the House should play a much more active role in scrutinising budgets ex ante.
  I have been very much influenced by the recent inquiry of the Select Committee on Procedure, which led to our sixth report "Procedure for Debate on the Government's Expenditure Plans". Under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the Committee came up with significant proposals in this area. Liberal Democrats would like to go further, but our ideas are very much in the spirit of that report.
  If the House is to become involved in analysing spending proposals ex ante in a thorough and meaningful way, we will need more resources. That point was made
  610
  time and again to the Procedure Committee by witnesses. I am afraid to say that the Committee did not come up with a firm and single conclusion as to what resources should be available and how they should be organised—whether there should be more resources for the Select Committee on the Treasury or a new free-standing body, which the report calls an "estimates office". Liberal Democrats favour the latter proposal. We believe that the House needs a new and authoritative body to assist in the work of scrutinising spending plans. Such a body should, like the NAO, be independent of Government, but, unlike the NAO—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman well knows that this is a Second Reading debate. He is stretching beyond the scope of the debate.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful for your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am about to relate my points to the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was not so much making remarks: it was more of an instruction.
  Mr. Davey: I am grateful for that instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Liberal Democrats believe that such a body would be able to apply the information from resource accounting and budgeting to ensure that the new accounts can be used effectively for the scrutiny of public money. An estimates office could be staffed by experienced accountants and economists, could assist individual MPs and Committees to trawl through the estimates and resource accounts, could model alternative spending proposals, and advise on the practicality of switching expenditures. Such bodies exist in other countries—for example, the Congressional Budget Office in the USA. When the Government get round to replying to the report of the Procedure Committee and to answering questions in the Standing Committee, I hope that they will agree to establishing such a body and ensuring that it is well resourced.
  However, resources alone will not be sufficient to enable the House to use the new resource accounts. We will have to encourage Committees to utilise those new resources. Above all, we will need to change the procedures to enable amendments to be tabled to estimates so that debate can be real.
  The Procedure Committee rightly proposes that it should be a requirement imposed on all departmental Select Committees to report back to the main House, under a set timetable, on the estimates and accounts submitted by their Department. That report should come to the House before the estimates are voted on and the accounts are signed off. It should be able to contain proposals to change the proposed estimates—for example, to switch resources from one area to another. Such a new freedom would encourage Select Committees to scrutinise spending proposals in much greater detail.
  The Procedure Committee made a number of new proposals on how the House could amend or table motions about particular estimates. I should have liked the Committee to go further. It shied away from challenging the principle of the financial initiative of the Crown. It did not seek the right of the House to recommend increases in

  611
  the estimates, and it did not consider some aspects of resource accounting. I understood why colleagues balked at that idea, but I think that we should have been braver.
  Since our report was published, I have been studying the relatively new procedures for resource accounting adopted in the New Zealand Parliament.
  The new procedures give Members an increased role in setting budgets, and provide a control for the Executive when new spending proposals could undermine prudent financial control. As a result of resource accounting, and under new standing orders that have operated since 1996, Members of the New Zealand Parliament can propose not only changes to Votes—including increases—but spending increases in regard to Bills. Individual Members can even propose spending increases by means of an amendment to a Bill, or a motion which, if passed, would become law. That constitutes direct parliamentary involvement, ex ante, in the public-expenditure process.
  Financial anarchy, however, is avoided through a new device called the financial veto certificate. If the New Zealand Government believe that a spending proposal would have more than a minor impact on the Crown's finances, they can veto that proposal, and the veto cannot be voted on or overturned.
  I think that that procedure strikes the right balance between the legislature and the Executive. If adopted here, it would give Members and departmental Select Committees a real incentive to involve themselves in an ex ante scrutiny of the budget, and would re-establish the House's role in public expenditure for the first time for 80 years, ensuring that we could use resource accounting and budgeting to the full extent.
  That major change would then impact on the House's ex-post analysis of the budget when it examined the accounts. I believe that the PAC does a good job at present. I know that its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, is highly regarded by parties on both sides of the House, and I am delighted that he will be helped in future by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), but they have an almost impossible task, and resource accounting will, if anything, set the Committee an even tougher challenge. If more Members became actively involved in analysis of spending plans, and if more resources were generally available to Members through an estimates office, the knock-on effect for the PAC would be significant.
  The National Audit Office serves the PAC well, but I hope that future requests for money made by the Public Accounts Commission will be far more ambitious. Given the many new developments in public sector accounting, the NAO needs extra resources to enable it to help the PAC and departmental Select Committees to scrutinise the audit far more effectively.
  The Bill has several other aspects on which I would have liked to comment at length—for instance, the clauses relating to the Welsh Assembly and the national health service, and the proposal to establish Partnerships UK. Why, for example, is relatively little still known about the proposal to take on the PFI and public-private partnerships? Is it because, as some commentators have suggested, there is a potential conflict of interests? I hope that the Minister will reassure us that, before the Standing Committee deals with clauses 15 to 17, we shall have a much fuller and more detailed report on a proposal that currently strikes many of us as half-baked.
  612
  The Chief Secretary said that the Bill was intended only to transfer current financial and procedural arrangements to a resource accounting framework. He said that it was not intended to reform other aspects of the House's financial procedures, or to reform the auditing process, including the powers and jurisdiction of the NAO. That may be true, but I believe that it is the will of the House and its most senior Committees to use the Bill to tackle just those issues. I urge the right hon. Gentleman, between Second Reading and the Committee stage, to consider all the points that have been raised, and to consider how the Bill's ambitions can be raised to a much higher plain.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I shall speak briefly, because many of my points have already been made. I shall concentrate on a fairly narrow area. If I make the odd error, it is because many years have passed since I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee—I think that I left in 1991—and much of what I shall say will be based on my experience during 11 interesting years.
  After leaving the PAC, I reached the view that anyone who wished to become a Minister should serve an apprenticeship on that Committee. In my opinion, no parliamentary process is more enriching in providing those who want to be Ministers with the information that they need, not only on public accounting, but on how to deal with civil servants—and, indeed, how to understand the way in which civil servants are motivated.
  I may be speaking out of turn, but I asked the National Audit Office for a brief, because I felt that the issue was important. I apologise to the NAO if I am not supposed to quote from the brief directly, but I shall do so because some aspects have caused me concern. Paragraph 17 states:
  "The Government Resources and Accounts Bill as currently drafted threatens to weaken the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his relationship to Parliament."
  That stark statement represents a lost opportunity to bring the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General up to date, and to ensure that he can continue to provide Parliament with effective scrutiny of public expenditure under modern government.
  All this is, of course, in the name of an Officer of Parliament. It is like the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, through her little department, writing a report for Parliament attacking a Government recommendation: in my view, it has the same status. We all forget that the Comptroller and Auditor General is an Officer of Parliament, which is why what is said in the briefing is so important.
  I was somewhat reassured, however, by my right hon. Friend's responses from the Dispatch Box. I hope that the NAO will pore over them. Its representatives, who are present, ought to speak to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about the responses that we have received from a Treasury Minister. We discussed the extent to which those responses met the concerns expressed in the NAO brief. I was satisfied by the Minister's statement that he was prepared to discuss these matters with the Committee. He also said that there would be no change in the nature of access under the new arrangement, in relation to the present position. Although he did not respond on the issue of evidence being taken by the PAC on the new arrangements, I thought I saw him

  613
  nod for a moment. I hope that that is an indication to the Treasury that he, too, would like Treasury officials to give evidence to the PAC on the arrangements that are being made.
  I want to refer specifically to the NAO's power to go in and look for the truth. On a number of occasions when I was a member of the PAC—and, indeed, after I left—I asked the NAO to carry out an investigation. It involved a training company. It went in and did what I can describe only as a bloomin' good job. In many ways, it was acting very much in the public interest. The investigation led, in all cases, to a good deal of publicity—not about me as a Member of Parliament, but about the NAO and the work that it had been doing to establish the truth.
  I go pretty well all over the world nowadays to lecture on constitutional matters—not only matters involving the British constitution—and I always include a section on financial accountability and public accounting. I believe that the NAO's work is critical to the democratic arrangement that exists in the United Kingdom. Paragraph 15 of the NAO briefing states:
  "The Bill to be presented to the House has … no provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have the necessary statutory access to examine the large amounts of public money spent by new forms of service provider including private contractors and voluntary bodies (such as private contractors handling £4 billion of central government pay".
  I find it unimaginable that, although those contractors may well be private limited companies, we do not have the statutory right—given that they are handling Government money—to check their operations to ensure that they are handling that money in the way in which it should be handled.
  The briefing also states that private contractors manage six prisons, including Doncaster and the Wolds. Why should we not have statutory access? Taxpayers' money is being used. In every case, we should have access. The briefing says that those contractors spend
  "£5.2 billion of public money"—
  taxpayers' money—
  "providing New Deal training opportunities".
  How interesting. The Chief Secretary was the Minister responsible for setting up the new deal, which has been very successful. I would have thought that he would be the first to secure access not by way of a nod and a wink—but a statutory right of access to pursue the last penny, wherever it is used in delivering the new deal arrangement, whether it be a private company offering training facilities in Workington, or whatever. The NAO should have a statutory right to go in at every level to check how that resource is used.
  The briefing says that voluntary sector registered social landlords receive
  "about £1 billion annually to provide services locally on behalf of central government".
  Again, I cannot see why a statutory right of access should not be enshrined in legislation. The anger almost in the NAO briefing is over the fact that the Bill does not provide for such access.
  The briefing states that the Bill has
  "no provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be the auditor of all executive non-departmental public bodies (so that he is not the auditor of about eighty such bodies receiving over
  614
  £3 billion annually from Parliamentary grant—these include the Housing Corporation which spends almost a billion and the Environment Agency which spends £150 million)".
  I know that we have a level of access. I know that there is access through VFM—value for money—but I am talking about a statutory right of access with no resistance, no questions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) had to plead for access to the Housing Corporation. He had to plead for access to a number of organisations. There should be no question of pleading; it should be a statutory right.
  The briefing states that the Bill contains
  "no provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be appointed the auditor of limited companies established by central government bodies (there are over 200 of these such as the Student Loans Company and Remploy, spending nearly £3 billion each year from public funds)".
  That is only the beginning. We all know that, increasingly, public administration is being turned over to such private companies. Early on, some of us resisted that move, but benefits have arisen from the shift. If that is the way that public administration is going, with private companies increasingly having a role, surely we must have the right to follow the last copper into the coffers of those companies to ensure that money is spent properly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) intervened to ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), to give examples of what was meant by
  "following public money in all circumstances",
  particularly where the body that was the subject of NAO scrutiny was subcontracting work and where possibly that money was not fully accounted for. I jotted down a few examples.
  I am sure that every hon. Member here would agree that, if the Department for Education and Employment gives money to the Further Education Funding Council, that should be subject to NAO access—a statutory right of access. If the council gives it to a college in my constituency, the NAO should have a statutory right of access to that college as well. I go even further. If the college then hires a catering company to do work within the college in my constituency of Workington, in theory, if it is taxpayers' money, even the catering company potentially should be subject to the NAO's statutory right of access, if such scrutiny were necessary. I am advocating not that the NAO should necessarily exercise that statutory right of access, but that it should have that right to pursue public money wherever it wants.
  I have referred to the new deal. I remember a particularly famous case where I called for a series of inquiries into training companies.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the matter? Is he saying that the NAO should have a statutory right of access to the books of any supplier to the public sector?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Not necessarily to any supplier; it depends on the nature of the supplier. If a bread manufacturer supplies bread to a Government Department, I do not think that the NAO would necessarily want to study that manufacturer's accounts—the contract between the manufacturer and the Department

  615
  will be an open-market contract—but, if the Department had to employ the bread contractor to carry out some catering internally within its own organisation and it had to employ people, there may have to be a statutory right of access. If someone is using public money—taxpayers' money—the taxpayer should have a right of access to ensure that the money is spent properly.
  I take the question of the new Learning and Skills Council. Money will be allocated nationally by the Department for Education and Employment to the national council. On the basis of the White Paper "Learning to Succeed", which was published earlier this year, I presume that the council will then allocate money to regional skills and training councils. Those will allocate money to training providers. I understand that money will also be allocated to lifelong learning partnerships. Wherever public money goes, the taxpayer has a right to follow it, through a statutory right of access, to the organisation that is given that money.
  I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the arrangements for Railtrack. I do not know whether the PAC has found some remit—he might be able to tell me—under which it could look at the way in which Railtrack uses money, some of which starts with the taxpayer and passes through train operating companies. I do not know what the arrangements are, but I presume—indeed, I hope—that, under the arrangement, any public subsidy to manage Britain's railway system—any public money—should be traceable. An audit should lead to the area where it is ultimately spent.
  I argue a simple principle, in which I have always believed—if public money is to be spent, the taxpayer should have a right of access to ensure that that money is properly spent.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is an interesting debate. I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is noting, as no doubt the Chief Secretary did, that there is a certain amount of concern about the Bill and criticism of it from hon. Members on both sides and from all political parties in the House.
  I was particularly interested in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). He said that, after 35 years in this place, his career had not yet peaked. It gave me great encouragement. I hope that, after 28 years in this place, my career has not peaked either, although—he is well aware of it—it has not even yet taken off, unlike his. He has held important offices in past Labour Governments.
  The leadership of the Liaison Committee by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is much appreciated. As he will know, the Liaison Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the relationship between Select Committees and the Executive—the Government. Many of the remarks made today by him, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis)—who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—and by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) have served to make the point that Select Committees are able to play a very valuable role in monitoring the Government.
  How right the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was that Select Committees should be able to amend the estimates, to allow for virement within total expenditure
  616
  of a particular Department, to highlight the Committee's interests and priorities. I think that, if that became the House's order of procedure, the role of Select Committees—which are vital—would carry much more weight, many more hon. Members would want to serve on Select Committees, and Select Committee reports would be much more meaningful. I hope that not only will my Committee continue to make recommendations in that sphere, but that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden will ensure that the need for such change is taken on board by the Government.
  I should like today to make only a short speech, in my capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I do not intend to examine in detail the Bill's provisions, as that is a matter for those who know far more about the subject than I do, and is also the responsibility of the Standing Committee. However, I should like to put down two markers arising out of the Procedure Committee's recent work—one is an expression of dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government have handled the Bill's introduction, and the other is an aspiration of how the Government should proceed in future.
  As the House will know, the Procedure Committee has taken a very close interest in proposals to introduce resource accounting and budgeting into the public service. On that, we have worked in close liaison with the Treasury Committee and with the Public Accounts Committee.
  We have also produced two reports of relevance to the Bill. In March 1998, the Committee's report entitled, "Resource Accounting and Budgeting" appeared and, in July 1999, we published a connected report, "Procedure for Debate on the Government's Expenditure Plans". We have received a Government reply to the first of the two reports, but not, as yet, to the second.
  I am happy to say that, broadly speaking, the Committee has welcomed the proposed shift from cash-based to accruals-based accounting within government. In March 1998, the Committee commented that
  "resource accounting and budgeting should not be oversold as a miracle cure but can be viewed as a useful contribution both in terms of improving value for money from public expenditure and of enhancing accountability to Parliament".
  The report "Resource Accounting and Budgeting" contained a recommendation to which the Committee attached very great importance. It was that
  "the most extensive version of the amendments which might be made to the Exchequer and Audit Acts should be published in draft as soon as possible".
  I direct that quote to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
  The Government reply to that report, published in June 1998, was quite unequivocal on that point, stating:
  "The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation. The Government agrees that there are advantages in publishing the suggested amendments to the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts in draft to enable Parliament to give the proposed legislation thorough consideration, and will publish its proposals as soon as possible".
  In March 1999—nine months later—we received a short memorandum from the Treasury, setting out
  "the Government's policy proposals for the legislative changes needed to implement Resource Accounting and Budgeting".
  Although useful in itself, that very modest paper was only six pages long.

  617
  The paper certainly did not amount to the "most extensive version" of the draft legislation which the Procedure Committee had asked for and the Government had undertaken to provide. Indeed, the Treasury itself described its paper as
  "an initial basis for considering the legislative proposals for RAB in advance of publication of"—
  and I emphasis this—
  "the draft Bill".
  It is therefore clear that, in March 1999, the Government still intended to introduce the Bill in Parliament in draft form. That commitment was repeated as recently as July 1999, in a report by the Treasury to the Procedure, Treasury and Public Accounts Committees, which stated:
  "a draft Bill will be published later in the current session".
  After that date, however, we heard nothing until two weeks ago, when the Clerks of the three Committees that I mentioned received a letter from Mr. John Breckenridge, of the Treasury's RAB legislation team, stating:
  "I am afraid that it took much longer than expected to draft the Bill and a complete version only became available shortly before introduction. I apologise for not having been able to send the Committees a draft of the Bill when we had undertaken to do so."
  I wish to put on record my strong disappointment that the Government have not been able to honour their clear undertaking to the Procedure Committee—which is not only a Committee of the House, but an important Committee of the House—that the Bill would be published in draft form.
  The Government have been a strong supporter of the principle of pre-legislative scrutiny. In evidence to the Modernisation Committee, the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wrote:
  "the Government firmly believes that the quality of legislation can often be improved by consultation with informed opinion on both the substance and the drafting of legislative proposals, before the introduction of a bill into Parliament or at a stage in its passage through Parliament".
  In the present case, with a Bill that is both important and highly technical, surely the most appropriate form of scrutiny would have been at the pre-legislative stage. The accumulated expertise of three Select Committees could then have been brought to bear. Instead, it seems that the interests of Whitehall have prevailed over those of Parliament, and Committees of the House are effectively being sidelined in consideration of the Bill's contents.
  How right the right hon. Member for Swansea, West was when he said that, when he was a Minister, his priority was still to act as a Member of Parliament. He also talked about the primacy of the House of Commons and the important role that we play in holding to account the Government of the day. How better could the House do that than through control of the vote of Supply? That is the way that it should be done. I hope that, in reply to the debate, the Economic Secretary will be able to give the House a fuller explanation than that in Mr. Breckenridge's letter of why the Government have failed to honour their clear undertaking.
  Given that the Government have failed to allow Parliament—in the words of the former Leader of the House—to "consult with informed opinion" at the
  618
  pre-legislative stage, is there not a strong case for such an opportunity to be given during the Bill's passage? As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I propose to the Government that the Bill should be referred to a Special Standing Committee, as that would enable the Committee to hold Select Committee-style evidence sittings before considering the Bill clause by clause. It would be up to the Committee to decide which witnesses to invite, but I should have thought that evidence from Treasury civil servants—who have come in for some remarks and even criticism in this debate—from the Comptroller and Auditor General and from appropriate outside experts on financial procedure would help to inform the Committee's deliberation.
  Those three evidence sessions would not add hugely to the timetable for enacting the Bill. Under Standing Orders, the Select Committee stage must be completed within
  "a period not exceeding 28 days".
  The Bill has been introduced at an early stage in this Session, so it certainly cannot be argued that there is not enough parliamentary time for the procedure to be activated.
  I draw the Economic Secretary's attention to the fact that a motion to commit a Bill to a Special Standing Committee can be moved without notice, immediately after Second Reading. I very much hope that she, or the Chief Secretary, will move such a motion. That would be appropriate for a Bill which is technical and important, and about which it ought in principle to be possible to achieve cross-party consensus.
  Mr. Letwin: When I saw my hon. Friend's name on the Annunciator, I swallowed my meal with great haste and came into the Chamber. I am glad that I did so. Is not what he is saying an assertion of parliamentary sovereignty that would have far wider implications than this Bill, and would be welcome on both fronts?
  Mr. Winterton: I hope that it would, and I believe that I am making this request of the Government with a great deal of cross-party support. The Government have stated time and again that they are in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny. Here is an opportunity for them to show whether they mean it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: If the Opposition had not sought to divide the House this evening, we may have been nearer to securing that objective. If I remember rightly, when the National Audit Act went through the House in 1983, we did not have any Divisions because the House saw it as a House issue. I cannot understand why the Opposition have decided to turn this issue into a political football. I am not making a political point—I am being serious. Why have they done it? It is quite unnecessary. If they had not done so, they might have secured a more sympathetic hearing from Ministers.
  Mr. Winterton: I am speaking as the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and I am not seeking to be party political in any way. I am seeking to represent the interests of this House. That is why I have made this request, although I have done so at 7.22 pm, when there is a vote at 10 pm. Despite that, I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to it.
  Mr. Key: I think that I am right in saying that I am the only Member tonight, on either side of the House, who

  619
  has served on such a Committee—on the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill. I can vouch for the value of that procedure, which is a huge improvement on most of the legislative steps we take in this House. I hope that the Government will take up my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for my proposal.
  Above all, reference to a Special Standing Committee would do something to make amends for the Government's failure to consult at the drafting stage. I give full credit to them—they have apologised for that. It would enable the Committee to give balanced consideration to some of the major issues that the Bill raises.
  One of those issues is whether the Bill, as drafted, gives too much unfettered discretion to the Treasury to regulate the operation of resource accounting. This was referred to by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, a past Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee; my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, the current Chairman of the PAC; the right hon. Member for Swansea, West; and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Clearly, it does raise some concerns.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I see that the shadow deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), is in his place. This has been virtually a unanimous debate so far, and has been listened to seriously by Ministers because, clearly, it is a House of Commons debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said. Can I appeal to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire? I know that there is limited time, so perhaps the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will endorse this suggestion. Between now and 10 o'clock, would the hon. Member for South Staffordshire take party politics out of this matter, in the hope that we can get a meaningful and positive reply from the Government?
  Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that constructive and rational proposal, which I hope was heard by my hon. Friends.
  Mr. David Davis: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend agrees. Clearly, there is a great deal of common ground across the House.
  The creation of the financial reporting advisory body is a welcome development, but there is a strong argument for augmenting the board's independence from the Treasury by putting it on a statutory basis and giving it its own independent secretariat. That would increase the public credibility of the RAB process.
  I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on the trigger points outlined in the Treasury's 1998 memorandum. The Treasury stated that these were intended
  "to provide Parliament with reassurance during the transitional period leading to full implementation of RAB that satisfactory progress is being made."
  620
  This matter has been raised during the debate. Trigger point 3 was the audit by the NAO of Departments' dry-run 1998–99 resource accounts. That was due to be completed during the autumn of this year. The Treasury has described trigger point 3 as
  "the final, and most important phase of the process of implementing resource accounting, since it will determine whether all departments are on track to implement RAB successfully".
  It would be helpful if the Economic Secretary could report to the House this evening on the progress on this trigger point. Have all Departments submitted their dry-run resource accounts to the NAO? If not, which Departments have failed to do so? Has the Government had any preliminary feedback from the NAO on the quality of the dry-run accounts?
  I wish to refer to the Procedure Committee's report on parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's expenditure plans. In the Committee's view, there is a clear link between the proposed introduction of resource accounting and the need to reform the current arrangements for such scrutiny. The report stated that
  "resource accounting and budgeting should result in more, and better, information being presented in Estimates and annual reports".
  The Leader of the House has said that all will be much more transparent to Members of Parliament in assessing the decisions which the Government are making, and that can only be a good thing. We concluded that our proposals for reform of expenditure scrutiny
  "are a logical extension of the Government's policies"
  on resource accounting. There are no party politics here. We are seeking to improve the information coming to this House to enable it to debate and consider these matters more sensibly.
  Mr. Drew: I apologise to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for missing the start of his speech, but I am glad that he made that point. Does he agree that the key to parliamentary scrutiny is how we encourage Select Committees to take up the proper examination through the new methodology?
  Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is right, and he has picked up a matter that was raised with great emphasis by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Clearly, it is important that Select Committees should find time to look at the estimates, and I have indicated that they should be able to amend the estimates. That would give them a real job to do in dealing with a particular Department, and would make the reports more meaningful. I hope that, with the advent of sittings in Westminster Hall, there will be greater opportunity for debating Select Committee reports.
  This is not the time to set out the Procedure Committee's proposals in detail—you would rightly rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but hon. Members can read and assess them in our report, which is available in the Vote Office. I simply urge the Government to give us a speedy and sympathetic response to those proposals and to bear in mind that we regard them as the integral link between the changes set out in the Bill and the opportunity to reform and improve the capacity of the House to scrutinise Government legislation. This is clearly a matter to which the Procedure Committee will return.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that the Bill is the biggest reform since the era of Gladstone. The need for reform is underlined by the fact that the legislation with which we are dealing dates back to 1866 and 1921. When we consider how the world, and especially Government expenditure and programmes, have changed since then, it is clear that the accounting rules by which we operate need to change too.
  There is cross-party consensus on the issue. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), introducing his 1993 Budget, said that Government accounting for public spending had become archaic, and that the time had come to move to a system of accounting that identified more clearly the costs of resources. The Government are implementing that. I hazard a guess that, had the Conservative party won the 1997 general election, a broadly similar Bill would eventually have been introduced.
  The case for change is very strong. The changes to resource accounting will mean that Departments produce accounts in a form broadly consistent with United Kingdom commercial practice. That has not been emphasised so far, but it is welcome. There is a consensus that the private sector should be involved in developing public services, so it does not make sense to have a different set of accounting procedures across the sectors, especially if we want to transfer staffing and experience between them. We do not want to encourage people with financial or strategic experience to spend their whole working lives in only one sector.
  I have never understood the treatment of capital expenditure in Government accounts. When one spends money on a capital asset, the benefit that accrues from that asset clearly lasts for a significant period, and certainly longer than one year, so it is entirely right for capital expenditure to be spread over the depreciation period. As long as an eye is kept on the balance sheet and the cash flow to ensure that the overall level of activity is financeable, that proposition in the Bill makes sense.
  I was attracted by what the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said about the change making clear to the Treasury the degree to which public assets are depreciating. Under the current system, that is not always the case. The change should also lead to more informed decision making on capital expenditure. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) highlighted the fact that there is a significant bias against capital spending in the current rules, with all the costs hitting the income and expenditure account in full in the first year of acquisition.
  Hon. Members might respond to that by asking whether it makes a difference. I have been struck over the years by the fact that the public sector in its spending decisions does not appear to have as much understanding as the private sector of the need for capital investment. It cannot be denied that the current construction of the rules has an influence on that.
  The changes will have a positive impact on the output side, with resource accounting for the first time requiring Departments to report systematically on how their resources are allocated in accordance with their aims and objectives and on what is achieved as a result. That is entirely right and proper.
  622
  We have tended over the years to have a fairly polarised debate between those who say that the solution to everything is more money and those who say that it is a question not of the amount but of the way in which the money is used. I believe that in order to improve our public services we need to spend more, but it should certainly be an imperative to analyse critically how we can get the best results with the amount that we put in. We should welcome the requirement in the Bill that the resources allocated should be in accordance with the aims and objectives.
  Mr. Letwin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive the fact that this intervention has relatively little to do with his speech. The House may want to know that the Opposition will be more than happy not to divide the House if the Economic Secretary promises to follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee.
  Mr. Rammell: I am not sure whether I should give a response to that. It is a welcome suggestion. The criticism that has been made time and again of the Bill concerns the extent of the NAO's scrutiny powers, but that is not addressed in the reasoned amendment, so the Opposition's offer is a welcome, non-partisan move.
  The changes will improve transparency and make it clearer what benefit the public are getting for the money raised through taxation. I hope and believe that that will inform future spending decisions and allocations.
  The Public Accounts Committee has picked up the point that, once the changes are made, it is crucial that significant training and development are provided for both civil servants and Members of Parliament on the way in which the new rules operate. If we want everyone to understand the overall objectives, and to have an informed debate, it is crucial to ensure that everyone is up to speed.
  I was particularly struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who expressed concern that the Bill as drafted would weaken the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office. Given my hon. Friend's experience and expertise, we should all take that criticism seriously, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that there is no change in the Bill to the role, power and responsibilities of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That gives some reassurance. The matter will certainly be taken up in Committee.
  Concern has been expressed that the role of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General does not go far enough, in that there is no power to examine organisations that involve substantial sums of public money, such as the Student Loans Company and Remploy. I have much sympathy with that view, but that is the situation that obtains now. Nothing in the Bill would make that situation worse. A powerful case can be made for changing the auditing procedures, but that is not what the Bill is about. It is about the change to resource accounting, and that is one of the issues that should be picked up in Committee.
  Another criticism was put forward by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is no longer in his place, about the working families tax credit and the overall argument that the Government can designate

  623
  particular items as taxation or public spending, according to their will—that the WFTC, by being designated as a tax cut as opposed to Government spending, artificially reduces taxation as a proportion of national income. The degree of concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members is undermined by the fact that for two thirds of the time in office of the previous Government mortgage tax relief was categorised in the same way, as were private medical insurance relief and life assurance premium relief. I hope that we can now put that issue to bed.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset called for an independent accounts commission to bring clarity to the issue, reach agreed accounting standards and provide a firm statistical base on which to measure any changes the Government wish to make. That is an important issue, when one recalls how often the calculation of the unemployment figures was changed by the previous Government. However, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is committing his party to accepting in full the recommendations of such an independent commission. If not, I suggest that the novelty of his request is not what it might seem at first glance.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman may be sad to hear it, but the answer is yes. We commit ourselves lock, stock and barrel to the acceptance of the propositions put forward by Sir Bryan Carsberg and his colleagues on the committee, and to enacting those recommendations when we return to power in the next Parliament.
  Mr. Rammell: I would be interested to learn the terms of reference of that committee and its membership, to ensure that it genuinely is independent rather than something set up to achieve a specific purpose.
  Mr. Letwin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not calling into question the bona fides of the chairman of the International Committee for Accounting Standards, who is also probably Britain's most distinguished living accountant. He will be accompanied by senior partners from major accounting firms and others whose integrity is unimpeachable.
  Mr. Rammell: I do not question the committee's integrity, but the terms of reference and the overall membership could affect the outcome. The hon. Gentleman will need to convince us that the terms of reference and the membership were structured so that an objective outcome would result.
  It has been said that the Bill would have been an ideal subject for pre-legislative scrutiny and I agree, especially as there is a cross-party consensus on it. That is when we are most in danger of allowing things to slip through. The Child Support Agency is one example of that happening, as we have learned to our cost. I understand the time constraints under which the Government have operated, but it would have been better if we could have created an opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said that it was more than 80 years since a Government had been defeated on a budgetary measure. That statistic demonstrates the power of the Executive over the legislature, and in response we need an honest and grown-up debate. One of the problems is that every
  624
  party in opposition calls for better scrutiny and suggests that it would be a good idea for the Government to be defeated on a financial measure, but every party takes a different view when in government. It would be a brave Government who said that they were relaxed about their estimates being defeated. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is concerned. I do not suggest that this Government need necessarily be that brave Government.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton also raised the issue of the allocation of proper resources for effective parliamentary scrutiny of accounting and financial issues, and that point is well made. He argued the case for increased resources for the Select Committee on the Treasury or the estimates office. One could also make the case for additional resources for Members of Parliament—in office costs allowance rather than salaries—to enable them to perform the job of scrutiny on those issues. We get the parliamentary scrutiny that we pay for and, at the moment, it is inadequately resourced.
  I welcome the establishment and funding of Partnerships UK. The private finance initiative is here to stay and can make a significant contribution to funding public sector projects. However, it must be done in the right way. There will always be a trade off between the cost of doing something through the private sector and the speed at which change can be achieved. The hospital building programme underlines that point. We must expand the knowledge and skills that are available to support PFIs. We often miss opportunities because the skills, experience and expertise are lacking. We also need a clear set of criteria for the way in which Partnerships UK will support PFI on the ground. A limited sum will be available—£170 million has been suggested—and it is therefore crucial that the projects that are supported are those with the greatest applicability and the most ground-breaking.
  The Government propose introducing resource accounting to local authority housing finance and, as part of that process, removing rent rebates from housing revenue accounts. I am conscious that that is not specifically within the remit of the Bill, but as it establishes the principle of resource accounting, it will affect that initiative. It was announced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions last week that proposals would be published in line with the Bill. I strongly support the principle behind the proposed changes, because it is indefensible that under the current system rent payers—instead of the whole community through the general fund—bear the responsibility for funding rent rebates. The Government's proposals will address that issue, but in some local authorities—I declare an interest, because my local authority in Harlow is one of them—negative subsidy is transferred from the housing revenue account to the general fund and that transfer will cease. The process is an historical anomaly, and has been going on for nine years. It has been recognised and supported both by the previous Government and this Government. It affects a small number of local authorities—23 in total—but it has an enormous impact on them—in my local authority, £3.4 million out of a total annual budget of £13.5 million.
  The Government have announced that there will be transitional measures to ease that transfer, but those measures will have to last for a very long time. There is a case for the Government dealing with the matter by

  625
  making available additional subsidy for what is an historical quirk that affects only a handful of opportunities. I realise that that point is a slight diversion from the main issues being debated this evening, but I wanted to put it on the record.
  The Bill is an important first step. The principles are right for what is a long overdue modernisation, and there is consensus on many matters. I hope that we can build on that in Committee and in future legislation. The Bill underlines the extent to which the Government are introducing changes that will give confidence in the structure of our accounting procedures.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: This has been one of those rare non-partisan debates in the House of Commons, and I hope that the Government will agree to the proposition advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), which has enjoyed wide support around the Chamber. It would be a milestone if that could be achieved.
  The Bill will affect all our constituents. I should like to break with the tradition of the speeches made so far and deliver a constituency speech. I want to describe how the Bill will affect my constituents, and to set out what worries me about it. If some criticism of a certain Department should creep into my remarks, I hope that it will be taken in the spirit that I intend.
  By far the largest employer in my constituency is the Ministry of Defence. It employs well over 11,000 people there: about half are scientific or industrial civil servants, and the other half are uniformed members of Her Majesty's forces. The Army's Land Command headquarters is in my constituency. The Land Command—the biggest budget holder in the Army—is responsible for implementing the strategic defence review as it affects the Army. It is also responsible for all Army training and therefore for the management of thousands of acres of training ranges. The Defence Estates organisation is responsible for ensuring that the ranges are usable throughout the year.
  The whole of the Salisbury Plain training area, which is run from West Down camp at Tilshead, falls within my constituency. The Royal Regiment of Artillery is based at Larkhill, and its procurement processes cover shells, artillery and transport. The nuclear, biological and chemical defence establishment at Winterbourne Gunner is responsible for all the nuclear, biological and chemical training for all three services. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has two crucially important establishments in my area—the defence evaluation and testing organisation at Boscombe Down, and the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down. In addition, there is the Territorial Army base at Old Sarum, with which there is also the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire regiment and B Squadron of the Wiltshire Yeomanry. There is also the large and thriving Sea Cadet branch in Harnham—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems well endowed with armed forces in his constituency, but I suggest that that is not what the Bill is all about. He should move on to the Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Key: I am grateful for your confirmation that I have succeeded in making my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  626
  It is now three and half years since we had any defence estimates. The 1996 defence estimates were the last to be produced by the Ministry of Defence. Since then, there has been no proper basis for scrutiny by the House of the estimates of the Ministry of Defence. There has been no proper budget scrutiny of any aspect of how that Department spends £22 billion of taxpayers' money.
  The Ministry of Defence has had good reason to claim that the manpower needs of producing such estimates are a problem. Not only has it had to cope with the strategic defence review and the comprehensive spending review, but it has also been to war and had problems of overstretch and increased commitments in all three forces to contend with.
  The Bill's proposals to introduce resource accounting with five major statements are very welcome. The statement of outturn will show actual outturn against the estimate, while the statement of operating costs will be analogous to the profit and loss report in company accounts. There will be statements about the balance sheet and the cash flow, and there will also be a statement relating costs to objectives. As a consequence of all that, the budget of the Ministry of Defence will increase from £22 billion to £66 billion. That represents a remarkable impact.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend has said something so astonishing that I hope that he will repeat it. Is he really saying that the total budget outturn of the Ministry of Defence will be closer to £66 billion than £22 billion because of depreciation?
  Mr. Key: It will be quicker if my hon. Friend waits until I get to that point in my speech. He knows the problems caused by fumbling through papers, and he has the advantage of the Dispatch Box.
  In the previous Parliament, the Select Committee on the Treasury reported on the resource accounting principle. It drew the House's attention to the particular problems of the Ministry of Defence. It stated that each Department would have only one parliamentary Vote, whereas the Ministry of Defence at present has four; that Departments would be able to produce shadow or illustrative resource-based expenditure plans from 1998, even though the full system would not be introduced until 2001; that information on what had been achieved with Ministry of Defence spending—that is, the outputs—and how that compared with expectations—that is, the performance— would be available several months earlier each year than the current departmental reports; and that the documents submitted to the House for financial approval should contain plans and targets for what the spending would achieve.
  I was a member of the Select Committee on Defence which reported in the 1996–97 Session that we expected to consider the shadow resource budgets in the next Parliament. We recommended that the Ministry of Defence should publish shadow resource-based estimates in 1998 and every year thereafter. Sadly, that is not going to happen. I regret that very much.
  When the proposal was first brought to the attention of the House in 1994 by the then Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the Ministry of Defence immediately went into overdrive. I want to congratulate all the officials in

  627
  that Ministry who have worked so hard over the years. An astonishing number of staff have been through a massive training exercise in accounting to prepare for what is a substantial task. However, it was clear by 1996 that there were huge problems to be tackled. I regret that the shadow departmental resource account for 1998–99 will not be published. That is an error, as publication would have been helpful for everyone.
  The Ministry of Defence has another problem, and I hope that the Economic Secretary will offer some help on it. The resource accounting manual states:
  "The normal basis of valuation may not be appropriate if a modern substitute is markedly different in its cost, life or output, or where technological advances have resulted in likely replacements having significantly improved quality or quantity of outputs. Under such circumstances, it will be necessary to undertake a 'modern equivalent asset' calculation to arrive at a replacement cost for the asset."
  I am not an accountant, but I understand that that is a perfectly acceptable accounting principle. The problem with the assets of the Ministry of Defence is that modern substitutes for many items of equipment have the potential to vary enormously in nature and costs, depending on the defence needs of the country at the time and on the military capabilities of potential aggressors. In other words, a hugely expensive equipment programme costing many billions of pounds may be rendered obsolete.
  Eurofighter will be obsolete in 20 or 30 years' time, of course, but it is only a platform for the weapons systems and electronic systems that will be mounted on it. How will all that be accounted for under the new systems? It is clear neither from the Bill nor from the resource accounting manual how such massive changes in the value of assets, which theoretically change the financial viability of the Ministry, should be treated.
  There is a huge problem with the valuation of intellectual property rights under the new system. It may be said that the answer is simply the market value of IP rights, but if there is no market value because rights are not for sale, but are secret defence systems obtained on particular terms involving intelligence from the United States, how will intellectual property be valued? How can we value the assets of an establishment such as Porton Down chemical and biological defence?
  How do we value deterrence? We have moved away from the cold war, and we must ask from where come the massive new threats facing our country. How can we account for those threats? The defence budget is decreasing. Last week, the French also announced that their defence budget would decrease. Some of the money that the Treasury will regain from defence comes from rationalisation and management of the defence estate, but the Ministry has problems regarding historic buildings or large military bases in the middle of nowhere that have married quarters that could be sold but for the fact that no one wants to live in such remote places. How can we judge their market value? I should be grateful for guidance on that huge problem.
  We have had precious little guidance on the sums faced by the Ministry of Defence. In the Ministry's 1997–98 performance report, there were just five lines on resource accounting, under the heading "Project CAPITAL" at paragraph 804. "Modernising Defence", the annual report of defence activity for 1998–99 contains five lines of text, three pie charts, one bar chart and a table. None of it is helpful if one is trying to fathom what is being attempted.
  628
  However, I can now answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, because that report states:
  "From next year, the £22 billion cash budget of the Ministry of Defence will be calculated in a different way, bringing us into line with the best accounting practices of the business world. In preparation for this we have, for the first time, assessed the value of our assets—£66 billion. We will now be able to identify the full (rather than just cash) cost of what we do, a great step forward in helping us to manage our resources more effectively."
  The figure of £66 billion is the value of assets, not the increase in defence budget. Would that it were the latter.
  The strategic defence review contained five lines of financial text and a pie chart. I thought that the comprehensive spending review would surely let me know what was going on and how the House could scrutinise the Ministry's budget, but it contains even less financial information than the SDR document did.
  We should have received a White Paper on defence estimates that would have enabled us to discuss the Bill more satisfactorily. Such a White Paper was promised for last summer. It would still have been three years since the previous one. We were later promised that the White Paper would be produced before Christmas, but it will not be. The traditional two-day defence debate is being slipped into the new year because it cannot be held until the Government have received the report of the Select Committee on Defence on the estimates, which will not be published until early next year. I regret that matters have slipped further and further back.
  My final point bears on the accounting that the Bill introduces. Today, the Defence Committee's report on the OCCAR convention was published. OCCAR is the organisation for joint armament co-operation, which was established in November 1996. The acronym stands for the French title, the organisation conjointe de coopèration en matière d'armaments, but OCCAR is shorter.
  The report points out the difficulty of achieving resource accounting—any accounting—if we stray across joint procurement with other Governments who use completely different systems. The juste retour system has operated previously, meaning a carve-up between the Governments who put money into a project. I am glad that that system is being abandoned, but no satisfactory accounting procedure has been produced under the OCCAR convention that would match the system proposed in the Bill. The Government must address that point.
  If we are to move towards having a European aerospace and defence company or joint Government procurement projects—the common new generation frigate system that was recently cancelled is an example of where we are not going—we must ensure proper scrutiny and accountability of extra-territorial systems. There will be more co-operation, and, in defence, that means Government-to-Government deals, rather than deals involving the private sector, but I see no mention in the Bill of such systems of scrutiny.
  I am glad to have been able to put those points on a matter that will affect my constituency hugely. All hon. Members could offer similar stories. I support the principle of the Bill, but I hope that the Government will make sensible arrangements that allow us to proceed.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury set the welcome tone of the debate by his willingness to take interventions from both sides and by his commitment to listen and to enter into dialogue with the Public Accounts Committee and other bodies so that we may work through the perceived criticisms of the Bill as it stands.
  Resource-based accountancy and budgeting will bring enormous benefits that will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides. It will ensure that the full economic costs of Government activities are properly measured, improve the way in which capital spending is treated in Government accounts, and explicitly link departmental goals to departmental spending.
  However, parts of the Bill have given hon. Members pause for thought. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) spoke eloquently of the need for parallel operation. Part of the process of building towards resource accounting and budgeting has been the trigger points.
  Trigger point 2 said that Departments should provide opening balance sheets for the 1999–2000 financial year on a resource basis. That was due to be implemented by June. In July, however, the Treasury did not report that all Departments had met that trigger by providing resource-based opening balance sheets. Instead, it said that all Departments were on track to produce auditable resource accounts for 1999–2000. The clear implication was that trigger point 2 had not been met. Will my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary clarify exactly how many Departments succeeded in preparing resource-based opening balance sheets by June? If she cannot, will she write to me?
  Trigger point 3 said that all Departments should prepare dry-run resource accounts for 1998–99 by autumn this year. The Treasury was due to report on progress by the turn of the year, but the Chief Secretary said that he believed that report would be forthcoming in February. As the current Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), pointed out earlier in the debate, the NAO expected 53 dry-run accounts by mid-August, but, by the beginning of November, only 22 had been received. Will the Economic Secretary advise the House how many Departments, at today's date, still have not supplied the NAO with the dry-run accounts that were due earlier this year? If she cannot give us that information this evening, perhaps she could send it to me.
  Will the Economic Secretary confirm whether every branch of the Treasury itself has supplied the dry-run resource-based accounts for 1998–99? If, as I believe, there are significant delays, I have two further questions: why has the Treasury not exercised better oversight of Departments in maintaining the timetable that was set, and on what basis does the Treasury request that the House proceed with the introduction of resource-based accounts when we have not had the opportunity to see a draft set of resource-based accounts for every Department against a cash-based set?
  The Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), alluded to the Committee's second report, on resource accounting and budgeting, published in June 1998. The report concluded:
  "We are unwilling to give the plans our unqualified approval until we are sure the timetable will allow outstanding problems to be identified and resolved before the new system is introduced. It is
  630
  important that the Treasury reports progress against the 'trigger points' to Parliament, and that any delay is explained promptly. The decision as to whether the target date for implementation is still viable must not be taken on the basis of information available to the Treasury alone."
  Have dry-run resource accounts automatically been made available to the relevant departmental Select Committees, as the Procedure Committee requested?
  In his opening remarks, the Chief Secretary said that he continued to regard the triggers as extremely important. Will the Economic Secretary assure us that implementation of resource accounting and budgeting will not occur until all those important trigger points have been met? Will she confirm that the Bill, which contains no mention of trigger points, overrides the commitments given by the Treasury on the series of trigger points? I urge my hon. Friend to adopt the old Latin motto "festina lente" as her guide; let us make haste slowly on this matter, lest we make no progress at all.

  The Government want to stop cash-based accounting from April 2001. The Chief Secretary must reassure the House that Departments will be ready to go live at that time. The only way to do that properly will be to have parallel accounts from April 2000. The Bill not only gives the Treasury the power to vary the date of implementation of resource accounting, but, in clause 18, it provides the Treasury with the power to specify different dates for the production of accounts. Those powers should be vested not in the Treasury but in Parliament.
  If the Treasury were given such power, it would be equivalent to a company, under the Companies Acts, being able to produce its accounts at any time of the year that it chose—any time that it deemed suitable and found convenient. We would not accept that as a way of regulating companies; we should not accept it as a way of regulating Government affairs. I trust that the Economic Secretary will consider such a clause from the perspective that Labour Members retain from opposition—not simply from the perspective of Government.
  Other right hon. and hon. Members have made much of the fact that the Bill honours the letter, but not the principle, of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts of 1866 and 1921. I disagree; there has been a fundamental change to the letter of the law. In the 1866 Act, the Comptroller and Auditor General is given a right of access. It says:
  "In order that such examination may as far as possible proceed pari passu with the … transactions of the several accounting departments, the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have free access, at all convenient times, to the books of account and other documents".
  The Bill says not that the CAG "shall have" but that
  "A department shall … allow … access at all reasonable times to any record relating to the department's accounts and"—
  a Department shall provide—
  "explanations of the department's transactions to the Comptroller on request."
  That is the difference between access as a right of the Comptroller and access as an obligation on a Department. To give someone a right to access and to put a Department under an obligation to provide that person with access are very different beasts indeed. The legislation has not merely been updated; the burden of legislation has shifted.
  I believe that the Government have no intention of changing the effect of legislation in this matter, but they cannot vouchsafe the same good intentions for future

  631
  Governments. Many Members have pointed out that changes in the organisation of government have led to Governments spending money in ways other than simply through Departments. Currently, we have executive agencies, executive non-departmental bodies, national health service bodies, local spending bodies and contractors. They all spend money to which the CAG has no statutory right of access. The Housing Corporation spends £1 billion of public funds each year; English Partnerships spends £250,000 million, and the Environment Agency spends £300 million. There are NHS bodies, housing associations and training and enterprise councils. The private sector prisons contract alone is for £4 billion. The NAO has a statutory right of access to none of those; access must be negotiated through Departments.
  It has already been pointed out that the Bill does not change that situation—that is absolutely correct. However, is it right that the Bill does not change the situation? I urge the Government to consider whether this would be a convenient and proper time to introduce right to roam legislation to give the CAG an unfettered right to roam wherever public money is being spent—to give him the right to pursue and to scrutinise those funds wherever they are spent and by whom. By extending the scope of the Bill in that way, the Government would reduce problems for themselves in the future. I remind the Economic Secretary that, for every new executive non-departmental body set up since May 1997—from the Commission for Health Improvement and the Competition Commission to the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts and the eight Regional Development Agencies—the Government have asked the CAG to be the auditor and have laid the accounts before the House of Commons. The Government's practice has, therefore, been absolutely unimpeachable. However, Labour Members ask the Government to set in statute what they already grant in practice and what we commend them for.
  I remind the House that, on occasions, the Comptroller and Auditor General has not had such access to bodies set up by the previous Administration. When it came to investigating the national lottery, the Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said that access should be provided. However, Camelot and its private auditors refused to provide that access. Fortunately, the National Lottery Act 1998 was before the House at that time and it was possible to incorporate into it a provision to give the Comptroller and Auditor General access to the national lottery. Such a convenient and easy remedy will not always be before the House to provide the Comptroller and Auditor General with access to any organisation to which he does not have a statutory right of access. Given the enormous sums of public money that are spent through such organisations, it is vital that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have such access.
  Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend refers to a most important matter. The regulator of the national lottery gave the contract to Camelot after one its directors had given certain advantages to the regulator himself. That was a major scandal, and it was only because the National Audit Office was able to investigate that we knew about it.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks, which have clarified the point that I
  632
  was trying to make. I am a relatively new Member and it is always difficult to know quite how to approach one's colleagues on the Front Bench when one believes that they could improve a Bill. To do that with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is, I trust, one way of approaching them with impunity.
  I was disappointed when I read the Opposition amendment; I thought that it was disgraceful. This subject has been handled quite properly through the Select Committee procedure of the House and by discussions between the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and Ministers. The Government have shown their openness and their willingness to engage in dialogue on these important matters, but the Opposition amendment sought to make cheap party political capital. Therefore, I was delighted when the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) agreed not to press the amendment to a Division on condition that a Special Standing Committee is set up. Such an approach is far more in keeping with the way in which the House has sought to tackle this subject and with the great consensus that has been apparent on both sides of the House.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for the tone that he set for the debate, which has been one of dialogue and openness to the points that have been made and that will continue to be made. I hope that, in Committee, we can achieve progress on the Bill, because it is fundamentally important. The Gladstonian principle, which was set in 1866 to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General the right to follow public funds wherever they go, is one that the House should hold dear and cling on to.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I agree with much, if not all, of what the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said. He and I heard the same briefing in the Public Accounts Committee last week and I shall voice some of the concerns that he has already expressed. However, it has become increasingly clear from this thoroughly interesting debate that the Bill is half-baked and that right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House seem to have come to that conclusion.
  The Bill is unlikely to attract popular media attention if for no other reason than its dry-as-dust title. Government resources and accounts is not a subject likely to pack the House. Nevertheless, it is fundamentally important to the machinery of government as we have seen from the quality of the contributions that have already been made. The Bill will change the basis on which Parliament funds Whitehall and the way in which the users of the funds then account for their performance. I intend to spend a few minutes enthusing about the principle of resource accounting before discussing what I and others see as flaws in the Bill. I am deeply encouraged by the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) about how the Bill should proceed after this debate.
  After years of prodding and cajoling by the City and industry, as well as by those Members from both sides who have experience of the commercial world, the business of government is at last switching from cash accounting to resource accounting. It is not so long ago that Departments were unable to distinguish between capital account and current account expenditure.

  633
  Now they will enter the next century with profit and loss—or, at any rate, income and expenditure— statements, balance sheets, depreciation and cash-flow analysis. They will be able, if they mean business, to define their operational plans in terms of budgetary projections against which they will be able to measure their own performance by means of management accounts that will highlight favourable or adverse variances against the budgets that they have agreed and to which they are committed.
  Performance-related pay will emerge from the shadows as a realistic incentive because performance will be measurable. Better still, the preparations of plans and budgets and management accounts will enable senior officials, if they so choose, to assign measurable targets, goals and objectives down the management line to individual middle-ranking civil servants who will have an opportunity to own the tasks delegated to them and to see for themselves the results of their efforts.
  For years, the best-run private sector businesses have empowered middle management within their organisation with real responsibility and an awareness of their employees' contribution to the larger enterprise. Resource accounting should open the same door to junior grades of the civil service, who have hitherto worked loyally and conscientiously but without any means of measuring and accounting for their own efforts.
  If all that works as it should, I predict that Whitehall management will discover a new flexibility and informality, and whole tiers of high-ranking officials may find it increasingly difficult to justify their old-style roles. Mandarins who have demanded, and got, salaries comparable with those paid by moderately successful private sector companies will find that the competition for top jobs hots up as more company executives are head-hunted into a public service where the business systems will no longer be regarded as quaint and incompatible.
  The scope for public-private partnership enterprise should become much more meaningful because the City will be able to assess and review, on a basis comparable with the private sector, the accounts and financial track record of those parts of the public sector being injected into such partnerships.
  There is little doubt that the whole process of privatisation over the past 10 or 15 years would have delivered higher proceeds for the taxpayer if the public sector businesses being sold had regularly produced their accounts on an accruals basis before privatisation, because that would have given institutional investors a clearer idea of what they were bidding for. Equally, it must be said that without the impetus of privatisation, Whitehall would probably still be resisting resource accounting.
  A better-run Whitehall is, at least, the theory of the changes presaged by the Bill, which could and should deliver better standards of management performance. That is why I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the switch to resource accounting, but there are already a number of danger signals concerning the Bill which have been touched on in today's debate and which the House simply cannot ignore.
  I shall focus briefly on just three of those dangers. The first is that the pace at which resource accounting has developed means that Whitehall is already in peril of
  634
  trying to run before it can walk. It is only in the past couple of years that Departments, most of which have precious little in-house accounting and information technology skills, have begun to grapple with the changeover from cash accounting to a resource-based system.
  It is therefore essential that Parliament is given clear evidence that resource accounting is adequately tested and up and running in Whitehall before the Bill takes effect, as several right hon. and hon. Members have said. That is crucial because the Bill repeals the existing audit powers that flow from the Exchequer and Audit Departments Acts of 1866 and 1921. Since the statutory authority for the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the function performed by the Public Accounts Committee on Parliament's behalf will in future be contained in the new legislation, it would be disastrous if resource accounting were not working smoothly by the time that the Bill reached the statute book.
  As the House has been told, two and a half years ago, the Treasury gave the Public Accounts Committee a specific assurance that the date for the changeover in accounting systems would be decided in the light of progress, which would be judged against a number of yardsticks. The Treasury gave a clear undertaking that the two systems would be run side by side to ensure that the changeover went according to plan.
  If, however, the transfer is not done efficiently, and the Treasury persists with its intention to discard the old cash system by April 2001, there will be a risk that Parliament will be unable to hold the Executive accountable for the money that they have been voted. As it stands, the Treasury is saying about the Bill, "Trust us. We'll get it right." One has only to recall the plans and promises made over the past decade in advance of new IT systems installation in Whitehall, which subsequently came to grief, to appreciate that we shall all have to keep our fingers crossed and hope that the Treasury is up to the task.
  The second danger concerns the missed opportunity or, dare I say, plain refusal by the Treasury, to take advantage of the first major public accounts legislation since 1983 to extend the scope and powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General. If anything, the Bill is more restrictive of the CAG's audit powers. It does not put right the glaring anomaly whereby the CAG is at present unable to follow the audit path of public funds made over to new forms of service providers such as private companies working under contract to the Government, or voluntary bodies that are allocated large sums of taxpayers' money to carry out programmes approved by Government.
  Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman is going even further than previous speakers in seeking to include voluntary bodies in the Bill. Is he suggesting that anyone who receives a lottery grant should suddenly be subject to investigation by the National Audit Office?
  Mr. Wardle: No, that is not what I am suggesting, but where there is a contract between the Government and another body which involves taxpayers' money, the audit path should be clear and unfettered, and the CAG should be able to proceed, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) have said.

  635
  As we have heard, there is no provision for the CAG to be the auditor of all non-departmental public bodies, as he should be, or of limited companies set up by central Government bodies.
  Most controversially, the Bill provides for large-scale financial assistance to be made available to the body to be established to carry on public-private partnerships, without giving the CAG access of his own to that body for audit purposes. Yet it is to the Comptroller and Auditor General that Parliament turns, via the Public Accounts Committee, for accountability of the public funds for which it has voted.
  The Bill makes no provision for the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit the operational performance measures that Government Departments will be encouraged to publish, once they have become sufficiently familiar with resource accounting. In that respect, the Bill as it stands is a wasted opportunity. I hope that the Government will consider making suitable amendments in Committee, and that appropriate gestures will be made when the Economic Secretary winds up the debate. If that is not done, it will be difficult to avoid the conclusion that Whitehall is trying to fence out the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office, possibly because they have become too effective at uncovering the management shortcomings of some Departments. That is a cynical view, but one is tempted to draw such a conclusion.
  The third and final danger is the Bill being pushed through without adequate consultation. We must gather the views of as many seasoned financial experts as possible. No doubt, the chief accountancy adviser to the Treasury has had his say, but there appears to have been insufficient dialogue with the Comptroller and Auditor General. Moreover, it is, to say the least, careless of the Government business managers to have scheduled Second Reading of this Bill on a day that the Public Accounts Committee has been sitting.
  The Acts of 1866, 1921 and 1983 were all the subject of close prior consultation with the Public Accounts Committee, at a time when that was by no means the norm in respect of other legislation. Yet, at a time when the Government make a virtue of carrying out wider pre-legislative scrutiny and using special Standing Committees, the Treasury appears to be cocking a snook at the Public Accounts Committee—inadvertently, I am sure—and at Parliament.
  Unless attitudes change and the Minister decides to send the Bill to a special Standing Committee, it will be difficult not to conclude that, having been dragged into the 20th century just before that century passes into history, Whitehall is determined not to endure the scrutiny that the proposed accounting changes will allow. That would make a mockery both of the Bill and of the accountability of Government to Parliament.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: I apologise for having missed the beginning of the debate. Most unusually, the Select Committee on the Treasury sat this afternoon, and I had to attend that sitting.
  It is something of an exaggeration to say that, in the pubs and clubs of Stafford, people speak of little else but resource accounting and budgeting. However, I am sure that they will be as impressed as I am if this great project
  636
  is brought in on time, for 2001–02. It is a mammoth task and its being achieved on time will reflect creditably on Parliament, on the Conservative Government that set us on this path, and on the current Government.
  I have listened to the pointed questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) about the Treasury accounting for the performance of Departments against the trigger points so far. I shall be interested to hear the Economic Secretary's responses to those questions.
  The shift from cash-based to accrual-based accounting requires legislation to amend Acts dating from 1866 onwards. We are witnessing a thorough reform of public finances when the resource accounting and budgeting process is seen alongside the new economic and fiscal strategy framework, the new three-year rolling settlements for public services spending, the separation of capital expenditure from revenue expenditure, and the two rules for capital investment: the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule.
  I ask myself, to what end are all those changes being made? The first permissible aim for which we should be aiming is a clearer understanding of public finances— clearer for parliamentarians, for potential partners and for the public at large. The second permissible aim is to improve the performance of "UK plc", especially in the sphere of capital investment. I shall concentrate on two aspects: first, the public process of scrutiny, budgeting and accounting; and, secondly, the effect of the reforms on capital investment.
  As for the public process, I have found useful the Treasury's guide of April 1999, entitled "Resource Accounting and Budgeting. A Short Guide to the Financial Reforms". It suggests that the two great benefits from the process are, first, to improve transparency, making it easier for taxpayers to see what they are getting for their money and, secondly, helping us to improve the process of deciding where to allocate resources to achieve the best results.
  The system of Parliament supplying money to the Government to spend has never been set down in statute. It relies instead on established usage. The Bill sets out no proposals to make any change to that system. In effect, Parliament decides the procedure by which we grant supply and the Treasury decides the definitions and form of that supply.
  Parliament wants very much to retain annual accountability for the resources voted by it to the Government, so it is suggested under resource accounting and budgeting that the first content of the Government's departmental accounts will be a summary of the resource outturn. This will include what remains effectively of the cash requirement from past voting procedures for supply, called now the financial requirement. That is the equivalent of the cash requirement plus the borrowing permissions. That much we will remain familiar with, but because of the change to accrual-based accounting for everything else it will take some time for us as parliamentarians to follow the change from the one system to the other.
  Perhaps we shall be more familiar with the second, third and fourth parts of the content of the new accounts. First, the operating cost statement will look like a profit and loss account. Secondly, the balance sheet will speak for itself. Thirdly, there will be the cash flow forecast.

  637
  These will look very much like the information that is provided in the private sector. That feeling is enhanced by the fact that the resource accounting manual will apply wherever applicable to generally accepted accounting practice, which is the same in private practice. The Comptroller and Auditor General's certificate will give a true and fair view of the accounts, which is the same standard as that which applies to private sector auditors.
  The fifth content of the new accounts will be a statement of resources by departmental objectives. The explanatory notes in the Bill call this a statement relating costs to objectives. The idea is that Departments will match resources to meeting objectives as expressed in their output and performance analyses. These analyses are something new. There were draft ones last year and they will be finalised next year. Then along came the comprehensive spending review with public service agreements. There is a great source of misunderstanding one from the other. It is reassuring that the Treasury guide of April 1999 states:
  "The output and performance analysis will also be consistent with, and complement, departmental public service agreements."
  That is a welcome statement for the future development of two slightly different statements of the same thing.
  As for the avalanche of information coming our way, the same Treasury guide states:
  "This demonstrates the significant increase in the amount of information in Resource Accounts compared with Appropriation Accounts."
  It is true that there will be much more information, but I return to the point that it will still be difficult for us to wrestle with the changes and what I would call the shifting sands. It will involve keeping an eye on resource accounting and remembering the financial requirements that we are voting for each year.
  We shall also be treated to departmental investment strategies, departmental plans in the spring and departmental reports in the autumn. Despite all the additional information, I would like to echo the concerns that some hon. Members have mentioned about the way in which the important output and performance analyses seem to be detached from the rest of the statements which will be properly audited and accounted for.
  On capital investment, the Chancellor has already made welcome changes by separating capital expenditure from revenue expenditure. That protects necessary long-term investment in our infrastructure from short-term pressures on the revenue side. He has also reversed the long-term decline in investment in the country's infrastructure. All that is to the good, even before we come to resource accounting and budgeting.
  Clear accounting, like resource accounting and budgeting, is welcome, but does not in itself cause any more investment to be made in infrastructure; policy decisions do that. In my view—I may be echoing an earlier plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell)—we still need much more capital investment in our infrastructure. I accept that that investment ought to be subject to clear objectives and clear investment appraisal criteria, but the need still exists, as we see every day in our work.
  I welcome public-private partnerships in bringing more private sector investment in our infrastructure, but public sector investment is needed at a faster pace. In local
  638
  authority housing, for example, welcome though the capital receipts initiative has been in allowing councils to invest in the upgrading of their existing housing stock, there is still an urgent need for more social housing. Local government needs more than the one option that it has at present for raising finance—large-scale voluntary transfers of existing housing stock.
  On Partnerships UK, the proposed successor to the Treasury taskforce, it is important to remind ourselves that in its two years of existence, the taskforce has been extremely successful. The number of NHS projects has risen from none in May 1997 to 37 major schemes now. Investment attracted into our infrastructure has risen from virtually nil in May 1997 to more than £4 billion now. The Treasury taskforce was established for a limited lifespan of two years, and its two years are up.
  The proposal for Partnerships UK arises out of the second Bates review of the private finance initiative. There is welcome news in the second review for those Labour sceptics who are not sure about the efficacy of PFI schemes. Bates has led the way in reducing the complexity of PFI contracts and therefore in reducing consultancy costs, and has clarified the use of public sector comparators, so that we can decide which contract ought to attract purely public sector investment, which some still do.
  The Bates review explains the need for protecting the pensions of employees who transfer under TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—and the second review has gone so far as to explain that there is not even a requirement that staff who go with the contract must transfer from their present employers to the new contractor's employment. Those are great benefits from the second Bates review.
  Partnerships UK should continue to build up the body of expertise that the taskforce started to amass. It ought to be able to produce more standardised formats for the contracts for private investment, and tackle politically sensitive big contracts and those that are creating replicable models.
  Concern has been expressed about a possible conflict of interest because of the additional power of Partnerships UK to take an equity stake in the contracts that it promotes. The reason for the conflict of interest is that PUK will be advising a Government Department how to get the best deal for the contract, and also potentially taking an equity share in that contract's benefits. That is one possible criticism of the set-up of Partnerships UK. The reverse of that coin is the danger of cherry picking if Partnerships UK accepts the easiest contracts, which would have attracted private finance anyway. It would thus risk not fulfilling its brief.
  A Library research paper on the Bill explains the way in which Partnerships UK can avoid a conflict of interest. However, it might be best if it concentrates initially on its advice role and on getting contracts to succeed, and leaves the investment role to the private sector when possible.
  The Bill is a modernising, if not earth-shattering measure. Taken with other reforms, it will make public finances more understandable. Clear accounting procedures are desirable, but, in themselves, they do not provide better services, better value for money or more capital investment in our infrastructure. Quality policy making and scrutiny are required to secure those objectives. Those are the challenges for the Government and for Parliament.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. Debates on such subjects tend to attract specialists: members of Select Committees, including the Public Accounts Committee, and people with banking or accountancy experience. I claim no such expertise. My interest in the Bill derives from the specific references to the national health service in clauses 12 and 13. I want to ask one or two simple questions about the way in which the Bill will treat the Department of Health and the NHS.
  I understand the desire for greater openness, authenticity and transparency in public accounts, and especially the importance of having a sense of the way in which we consume the capital that is used in providing public services. That is a laudable objective, and I note the consensus on it. However, we must consider whether the Bill will achieve that objective. There is a danger that the large measure of discretion that the Bill grants the Treasury will create a mere illusion of greater openness, which could lead to a sense of false security.
  The reaction of Departments and parliamentary draftsmen to difficult or seemingly intractable problems is often to grant themselves unfettered discretion. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), whose return to the Chamber is timely, mentioned unfunded state pension liabilities and their exclusion from the Bill. That exclusion highlights the problem of trying to examine the public sector and Government activity as parallel to that of the private sector. The unfunded obligations of the state for future state pensions are unquantifiable because the state reserves, as many pensioners would say that they know to their cost, the right to change its obligations unilaterally and without notice. It would be problematic to quantify those liabilities. That underlines the nature of the state as a contracting party and highlights one of the difficulties of trying to view the state's liabilities as parallel to those of the private sector.
  A major point of having standard and codified accounting practices is to allow continuity and also comparability, both between different systems and across different periods. People who use accounts in the real world will readily acknowledge that that is one of the most important uses to which they put them. I suggest that the discretion that the Treasury will have under the current proposals will undermine the core—the very point—of the exercise. Another important point of producing accounts in a standard and recognisable form is to have clear sight of the assets that are employed and measure their effective use and consumption—the consumption of capital.
  I am not unmindful of the mood of consensus surrounding the debate, but I feel obliged to say that, since May 1997, we have seen a consistent and deplorable manipulation of figures and the presentation of public accounts. The most notorious example is the misclassification of the working families tax credit as a negative tax with flagrant disregard for the Office for National Statistics and all international conventions.
  Mr. Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing the case as outlined in the Opposition amendment, but does he accept that the Government's introduction of resource accounting is consistent with
  640
  generally accepted accounting practices and that they have set up the independent Financial Reporting Advisory Board in order that what he is suggesting will not happen?
  Mr. Hammond: As my hon. Friends have said from the Front Bench, we welcome the principles involved and if we were convinced that what the hon. Gentleman has referred to would be achieved by them we would be very happy indeed. However, the large degree of discretion that the Treasury is retaining for itself gives us cause to doubt that that will be the case.
  On the basis of our experience over the past two and a half years, we have little reason to accept that transparency is the Government's principal objective. The explanatory notes that have been made available with the Bill say that its purpose is to take the focus away from cash and on to resources, but Government announcements, particularly since the completion of the comprehensive spending review, have wilfully and deliberately focused on large sums of cash. They were presented in an extremely misleading way and, on some occasions, there was double or triple counting, which enabled them to magnify in the public eye the significance of what they intended to deliver in terms of public spending. I suggest that they exploited the ignorance of the vast majority of us, who do not understand the complexities of accounting and high finance, and after the comprehensive spending review announcements the early indications were that most of the serious press had been effectively deceived.
  My hon. Friends have said that, on the basis of what is in the Bill and the resource accounting manual, large and important assets, liabilities and activities are to be excluded from this initiative. I intend to focus for a few moments on the Department of Health and how the Bill will affect the role of the national health service in departmental and whole of Government accounts. Obviously, we are considering only a framework and we have to work from the latest version of the resource accounting manual, which tells us that Department of Health accounts will broadly be drawn up on the basis that the purchasers in the NHS will be included within the resource accounting boundary, but the providers will be excluded. That analysis is slightly too simplistic, because clause 12 tells us that health authorities, primary care trusts and special health authorities will be included within the boundary.
  Primary care trusts are both providers and purchasers, and special health authorities are providers of services. It is clear, however, that national health service trusts—the 430 or so bodies that hold and operate hospitals throughout the country—will be beyond the resource accounting boundary. Thus, by what the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) described as "an accident of restructuring", the biggest holders of assets and the biggest spenders in the national health service will be excluded.
  I ask myself whether there has been a genuine decision to exclude bodies that operate at arm's length from the Secretary of State, but that is not the case. The Secretary of State has and uses considerable powers to direct national health service trusts, and the tendency in recent years has been to centralise that power and to bring those trusts increasingly under central direction from Whitehall.
  It could be that there were technical problems in bringing NHS trusts within the scope of resource accounting. I understand that there are genuine technical

  641
  problems in the education sector in relation to schools. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) expressed the concern that the best might become the enemy of the good. That is not the case with NHS trusts, because they produce accounts using standard accounting procedures. They are even aggregated in a document. I am not sure whether they are consolidated in the technical sense of the word, but they are certainly all available in aggregated form. As an outsider on the financial technicalities of the debate, I believe that those accounts could relatively easily be incorporated into the Government's proposals.
  I wonder whether the politics of this is that the Government like to announce revenue and capital spending by Ministers—sometimes two, three or four times—but are less keen to accept that the outturn of those announcements is a direct part of the departmental responsibility for which the Secretary of State for Health answers. By this "accident of restructuring", a significant part of the activity of a major spending Department is to be beyond the boundary of departmental resource accounting and budgeting. That is an incoherent and unjustifiable split of the Department's responsibilities, and an artificial divide that the Government can easily, and should, avoid.
  This matter is of great importance. There are 430 or so national health service trusts with a total spending of about £20 billion, and they hold assets in excess of £20 billion. I am afraid to say that not all those assets are effectively utilised. In 1991, capital charges were introduced into the NHS with the intention of increasing awareness at trust level of the cost of holding assets, especially estate assets. The available evidence to date is that that has not been a particularly effective tool, and there is a strong argument for a greater focus on the assets held within the NHS at national level. I focus my remarks on land and buildings, but I would not like to give the impression that no other classes of assets in the NHS are under-utilised.
  I suggest to the Minister that part of the problem is the concept of ownership. The body on whose balance sheet the asset sits will pay a capital charge. It is often, for historic reasons, a small sum in relation to the current value of the asset. That body will often not stand to gain the benefit of a disposal of that asset. Whereas a private sector holder of an asset will seek to earn a return on it or dispose of it, that is not always the case in the national health service.
  The NHS is Europe's largest landowner, holding some £23 billion-worth of land and building assets. Anything that we can do to focus on the effective use of those assets and to concentrate on the way in which they are used would be greatly to the benefit of the NHS and the nation as a whole.
  I consider it inconsistent and incoherent, in terms of what the Government say they are trying to do, to exclude the provider side of the national health service entirely. There is no good reason for that in principle, and no good reason in practice, as the information is already available in a form that the Government could use. I hope that the Economic Secretary will tell us that she will consider including the entire NHS in resource accounting from the outset, in order to give genuine coherence to what the Government seek to do for the NHS and the Department of Health's resource-based accounts.
  9.6 pm
  Dr. Nick Palmer: In this era of cross-party co-operation, and—who knows—even coalition, it is quite pertinent that we should study the heritage of the Gladstone Government, a Liberal Government whom some would remember as being particularly prominent.
  Although the debate has been interesting, at times I have had the impression that non-members of the relevant Select Committees could speak only on sufferance. I am grateful for the offer of education from my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), but I shall attempt to speak immediately, as best I can.
  The Bill breaks effective new ground in three important ways. As many have pointed out, one relates to capital spending. I think that we all agree that, in that regard, the change is altogether an improvement, as the effect of the current rules has been to depress public spending. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) illustrated, giving the example of the water industry, if spending must be concentrated on one year, there is never a good year in which to do it.
  There is, perhaps, a technical issue here. If we enter a transitional phase, during that phase we may produce a spurious impression of falling investment, because the existing investments have been written off and the new ones will be spread over a number of years. That, however, should not deter us. The prospect of whole of Government accounts is equally welcome to all of us who have worked in the private sector, and we look forward to a similar overview of Government activity.
  Although Partnerships UK seems to be a useful initiative, I hope that the Economic Secretary will tell us whether she is confident that the new body will be given adequate support in all regions. I note that my region, the east midlands, benefits far the least from PFI contracts, notwithstanding two major projects in the Nottingham area—the Nottingham tram system and the Queen's medical centre extension.
  One issue has not been raised so far—I realise that it is linked to traditional accounting theory. The opportunity has not been taken to change the tradition whereby each year's spending is strictly cash-limited, and any money left over at the end of the year must be returned to the Treasury. That is a practice that we have all encountered in the context of our parliamentary office allowances, and that most of us have encountered in either public or private industry. We all know that it results either in underspending, if the budget is not spent by the end of the year—we see that all over Government—or in wasteful spending, following a panicky dash to get rid of the money before it goes away. I hope that the Government will consider whether improvements can be made.
  The main issue that has attracted controversy today is that of direct access by the National Audit Office to a company receiving public funding or working intimately with the Government—or, indeed, any body set up by the Government that is essentially a public body. Several hon. Members have made a distinction between the ability to access those bodies and the ability to get information about them, as set out in clause 11(5). It may be helpful to hon. Members to note that clause 11(5) contains a misprint; the reference should be to clause 10(6)(b).
  As I have said in interventions, the danger in pressing for full direct access is that we will subject those bodies, not all of which are administration rich, to double

  643
  jeopardy in audits—in fact, in certain circumstances, to a full double audit. That is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by local government, which, as we know, is extremely stretched. It is already subject to the Audit Commission. The proposal is that it should also, in principle, be subject to a partial, or even a full revised audit by the NAO, if it saw fit.
  Various possible scenarios have been advanced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West gave some examples. One was of an effective second audit that spotted omissions in the first. It is clear that, every time we do a second audit, we will sometimes spot things that were not spotted the first time round, but we would not necessarily suggest that as a normal process.
  Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Audit Commission and the NAO work together extremely well and take each other's words for the results of their audits, so the problem that he brings up is not likely to arise.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. That covers a wide area of the bodies. If the Audit Commission is essentially considered an extended arm of the NAO, that will lighten the burden. However, that is not invariably the case.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West referred to a case where the NAO had spotted an illicit embrace in the front office of a chief executive. I agree that that was happy serendipity, but it was not due to any particular skill on the part of the NAO.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said that further education councils could be looked at, and that the investigation might lead to a specific college, or to a specific supplier working with the college. Again, I understand the reasoning, but, in principle, it would mean that every body that entered a serious relationship with the public sector would be subject to further intervention. That was expressed most clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who suggested that the NAO should have a right to roam, which we could perhaps also call a right to fish.
  How often would that happen in practice? It could be done frequently. If it is, we should take the example of the Government since the general election and make the NAO the auditor for the body concerned. Where we think that the NAO will often have questions, why not make it the auditor? I encourage the Economic Secretary to say that, as other bodies' audit arrangements come up for review, the Government will look favourably at whether the NAO might be the most appropriate body. In particular, all hon. Members who have spoken would welcome it if Partnerships UK were specifically brought under the NAO's wing.
  The relationship can be more tenuous. The example was given of a company that organises bakery operations for a public body. I think that we would agree that the NAO would study the operation of that bakery infrequently. One might reasonably, then, rely on clause 11(5), which enables the NAO to demand information from whoever is acting as auditor for that body. I think that, to some extent, we should allow the Government to act with some pragmatism in establishing the National Audit Office, when appropriate, as the relevant body.
  644
  The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) effectively suggested kicking the proposals into touch, for examination by a Special Standing Committee. In some circumstances, such examination would be very beneficial. In this case, however, it seems that the issues are fairly clear, and have been fairly well illuminated in this debate. I therefore urge continuation of the process, with the normal Committee, so that we might conclude on time and without further delay in passing an important Bill.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I generally welcome the Bill, which has some good aspects. The new form of accounting for public expenditure introduced by the Bill will undoubtedly give more information to hon. Members, and therefore more and better general control over Government spending. However, I am perhaps a bit more cynical than some hon. Members, as I suspect that the Government are introducing the new form of accounting because it will give them, rather than Parliament, more information and control. Nevertheless, the development is welcome and will give us extra information that we need.
  I welcome the Bill also because it will introduce for the first time proper capital accounting. I—like many hon. Members—was once in local government, and it has always struck me as extraordinary that central Government capital and revenue expenditure were accounted for in exactly the same way, all mixed up in one pot, whereas, in local government, capital and revenue expenditure were differentiated, and the real value of capital expenditure compared with revenue expenditure becomes much more obvious to everyone concerned.
  One of the possible interesting spin-offs of the new form of accounting is that, by showing everyone the real value of long-term capital investment, it may make the private finance initiative rather less attractive than it has been to date. I do not think that that point had been mentioned so far in the debate.
  The real value of the new form of accounting will be to give everyone better control of expenditure. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, I hope that the Government will also see fit to ensure that we shall be able to use that extra information and control by providing, when necessary, training for hon. Members. One of the extraordinary aspects of this place is that, although many of us are elected without any real experience of audit, accounts or business, without relevant training, we are expected to try—in Select Committees and other forums—to control and monitor Government expenditure. I hope that Ministers will take on board my hon. Friend's point on that matter.
  What is wrong with the Bill? As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said time and again today, our main concern is the lack of power provided in the Bill for the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office over expenditure in some spheres of Government accounts. I hope that hon. Members, by repeatedly hammering home that concern, have finally made the point to Ministers—if we had not already done so—that we really are concerned about the issue, which they really have to address quickly.
  Every organisation needs an audit office and some type of external audit function to help it control its expenditure, and the Government need one perhaps more than anyone.

  645
  I was once an internal auditor for Esso Petroleum. This year, on joining the Public Accounts Committee, I was staggered when I discovered that, in contravention of the basic principle of audit, the National Audit Office did not have full access to all Government expenditure whenever it wanted such access. It is quite extraordinary that, over the years, hon. Members have allowed a system to grow that does not allow our auditor to have full access to all Government expenditure.
  I should have liked to have time to make various other points—particularly on Partnerships UK, although the important issue of the possible conflict of interest has already been raised. It is perhaps worth considering one brief example of what might have happened if Partnerships UK had been in charge, for example, of the contract to write a new national insurance recording system.
  There were already many problems with writing a new system. If the whole project had been done at rather greater arm's length, with a body intervening between Parliament and the body writing the system, it would have been much harder for us to detect problems with the system and to report them to Parliament. The dangers of the NAO not having full access to all aspects of public accounts are clear, and should be clear to every hon. Member.
  The Chief Secretary started the debate by saying that the Bill was not supposed to overhaul the whole audit process. I accept that that was not his original intention. Nevertheless, it must be an opportunity to bring back under the auspices of the Comptroller and Auditor General some aspects of Government expenditure which currently are not in his remit. We should be taking this opportunity to make sure that the powers of the CAG are extended as far as possible.
  Even if this Bill cannot now be changed—and even if the Government are unwilling to guarantee tonight that it will be changed to give full access to the CAG in future—I hope that the Economic Secretary will accept the principle that the CAG should in future have access to all Government expenditure whenever he wants it.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: This has been an important and valuable debate—essentially more parliamentary than party political. We hope that our proposal not to vote against the Bill and to see a Special Standing Committee investigate issues raised on both sides of the House will be accepted by the Government, as everyone saw that it was made spontaneously.
  Gladstone has been much cited. He would be turning in his grave if he were here and realised the extent to which his intentions for full accountability for Government expenditure to Parliament had gone off the rails. No one is objecting to resource accounting. Indeed, it is amazing that we are at the end of the 20th century and the Government still have cash accounts. Perhaps that is a comment on our processes, and on some of the things that are wrong with this country.
  There is consensus that the Bill needs changing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) referred to it as half-baked. I would have said simply that Sir Humphrey had had a heavy hand in the drafting of the Bill. There has been consensus that
  646
  there is a problem, in that the NAO and the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot follow public money wherever it goes. Under the Bill, the CAG will not be certifying the regularity of accounts. He will be merely certifying that expenditure has been spent—not how it has been spent.
  On the PFI and Partnerships UK proposals, I congratulate the Treasury taskforce, which has done an excellent job in accelerating the number of PFI deals. The taskforce appears to have cut through a lot of the bureaucratic problems that stood in the way in the past. The proposals for Partnerships UK are, in essence, to say that a talented and skilled team should be put into a majority private sector-owned body and paid commercial salaries. I have grave reservations about whether that will work.
  It seems that the taskforce is doing essentially a public sector job. I suggest that it might be better to have a permanent taskforce whose members are paid private sector salaries within the Treasury. There is no real reason why that is not do-able. I note that the CAG staff earn private sector salaries.
  How is the £1 billion balance sheet going to arise? Ministers have said that they expect one third of PFI projects to be handled under this scheme. Partnerships UK is to put up seedcorn money to local authority projects to finance feasibility studies. It will become impossible to avoid getting caught up in financing syndicates, or even in organising the syndicates that tender for sub-contracted contracts.
  If that happens, there will be an impossible conflict of interests, with a private sector body having privileged access to public sector business. The industry is concerned and the Government have not said as clearly as they might what Partnerships UK's territory will be.
  Mr. Love: Is it not appropriate that the body that deals with public-private partnerships should itself be a public-private partnership?
  Mr. Flight: With respect, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands its role. The Treasury taskforce has been effective in sorting out the public side of the proposals and then going to the marketplace for people to put together the syndicates, make tenders and find the finance. It has a specific role, working with the Departments, local authorities—if relevant—and the Treasury. One of my concerns is that the team will lose the good will of the Treasury and the Departments when it moves to the private sector.
  We certainly do not object in any way to resource accounting—we started it—but there are considerable problems and a lot is missing. Hospitals, schools, roads and defence are excluded on the assets side, and pension and PFI liabilities on the liabilities side. Nothing in the Bill clarifies definitions to make it a little easier for the citizen to understand what is going on.
  Key clauses clearly give the Treasury the power to define whatever it sees fit and produce accounts as it sees fit. There is no independent body to verify that accounts are true and fair. The Bill is a triumph of presentation over substance in that area, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said.
  I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for his contribution. He spoke with many years' experience of the fundamental

  647
  issues and was the first to assert the relevance today of the principles of Gladstonian parliamentary accountability. He made the point that Parliament has less rights than the European Court of Auditors to scrutinise expenditure and that less than half of non-departmental expenditure of Government moneys is scrutinised by the Comptroller and Auditor General. He pointed out the fact that there is no provision in the Bill for the Housing Corporation or the Environment Agency.
  Dr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that as long as those various areas are not included, resource accounting should not be introduced?
  Mr. Flight: Others have given the answer. The Bill as it stands raises a host of issues that it would be better for the Public Accounts Committee to consider before legislation is rushed through. If it is deemed appropriate to start with certain areas, the Bill itself should make it clear to which areas it is intended to extend the provisions and should address the issue of providing proper parliamentary accountability in relation to all expenditure.
  Perhaps the major speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who pointed out that at its heart the Bill is about the constitutional relationship between Parliament and Whitehall and that the proper process is for Departments to supply proper accounting to Parliament and for the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise that accounting.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden also pointed out that the Public Accounts Committee had not been consulted on the legislation and that it meddled with some sound aspects of the current procedures for parliamentary accountability, as well as locking in place some of its weaker aspects. He also appeared to offer, on behalf of the PAC, to take evidence from Treasury Ministers about their intent and to provide a method for scrutinising the proposed legislation. My right hon. Friend also made the important point that no EU problems were associated with extending the powers of the Auditor General and the NAO to cover all areas of Government expenditure.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be worth delaying resource accounting, and all its benefits, for years so that we could provide a broader remit for the Comptroller and Auditor General, or does he accept that it is better to move forward and consider later, bit by bit, the brief for the NAO?
  Mr. Flight: With respect, that question has already been answered. The Opposition have offered the sensible proposal of a Special Standing Committee to address all the problems. The Bill as it stands would introduce resource accounting, but would cause more problems than it solved. That point has been made by almost every right hon. and hon. Member who contributed to the debate.
  The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) broadly supported the main themes, but seemed to suggest that individual Members of Parliament should have rights to propose spending increases. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) best expressed the overall view of the House from his
  648
  considerable experience. He supported the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden that there were no EU problems in limiting the powers of the NAO to all areas of Government expenditure.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) pointed out that a key apprenticeship for anyone seeking Government office should be membership of the PAC. He also made the point that the NAO believes that the Bill threatens to weaken the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his accountability to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will, I hope, make constitutional history in proposing the Special Standing Committee and, importantly, proposing that the Financial Reporting Advisory Board, which is at present a creature of the Treasury, should be put on to an independent statutory basis.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) illustrated how effective the Bill has been in meeting the objective of bypassing difficult areas, including some £22 billion of defence expenditure and problems caused by intellectual rights and sophisticated weaponry. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) supported the proposal for a Special Standing Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) gave a valuable survey of the benefits and case for resource accounting, but stressed that it would be risky to proceed with the Bill without adequate consultation and dialogue with the PAC and the Auditor General.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) highlighted the fact that there is no valid reason for excluding NHS trusts, although there are sound arguments for excluding schools. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) suggested that the power of the National Audit Office should be extended on a voluntary basis rather than on a statutory basis.
  I conclude by repeating and stressing the bona fide commitment, given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, that the Conservative party will put in place an accounts commission to establish statements of national accounting practice for the public sector that will parallel those in the private sector. That commission, to be led by Sir Bryan Carsberg, will be implemented when the next Conservative Government are formed.
  Finally, the Bill seems to smack of "Animal Farm". It is full of good intentions, but goes somewhere else. To misquote the novel, legs are good, but four legs are, apparently, bad.
  9.36 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): Resource accounting and budgeting is right and necessary. It is right because our focus should no longer simply be on how we spend the cash each year, but rather on what we get for our money. We should focus on outputs rather than on inputs, and on delivery of service rather than on process.
  The private sector realised long ago that more comprehensive financial statements were necessary in the modern world. It is time for the Government to recognise that as well, and the reforms in the Bill are the backbone of our modernising agenda. However, resource accounting and budgeting goes further. Under the new system, there

  649
  will be a summary of resource outturns reflecting parliamentary control and, of critical importance, a statement of resources for the aims and objectives of Departments under their public service agreements. With resource accounting and budgeting, there will be only clear and unambiguously prudent planning and control of public expenditure.
  I come now to the extent of parliamentary consultation and involvement in preparing the Bill. That matter has exercised a number of hon. Members—perhaps I should refer to them as hon. Gentlemen, as no hon. Lady has taken part in the debate. Parliament has been involved in the resource accounting and budgeting project from day one. The previous Administration published a Green Paper in July 1994 and a White Paper in 1995. Memorandums on the subject have been submitted to Parliament, and there have been parliamentary hearings and the subsequent publication of reports on resource accounting and budgeting by the Public Accounts Committee and by the Treasury Committee. The Procedure Committee has also covered the project, so it is clear that Parliament has played an important role throughout its development.
  The debate has been worth while, and several hon. Members have noted that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office have been involved at all stages of the Bill's drafting process. They have seen all drafts and have been involved in the process since the earliest days.
  Mr. David Davis: I accept that what the Economic Secretary says is accurate, but two points stand out. First, the memorandum given to the Public Accounts Committee in March differed significantly from the final Bill, as I pointed out in my speech. Secondly, the draft Bill was shown to the National Audit Office only three weeks before its publication date. That does not constitute full consultation.
  Miss Johnson: I did not say that we had consulted as much as we should have liked. I said that the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office had been involved.
  Mr. Davis indicated assent
  Miss Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is not true that those bodies were not involved. I believe that the Government have already apologised for being unable to send a draft of the Bill to the Public Accounts Committee or to other relevant Select Committees. I repeat that apology, but a draft Bill was simply not available in time. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the problems that can arise in that connection. However, as I said, Treasury officials consulted closely with the NAO throughout the process. The Treasury has attempted to keep Committees informed of progress on policy development and the implementation of the resource accounting and budgeting project. It will continue to do so.
  Mr. Letwin: If it was an unfortunate fact of life that, after two and half years of government and five years of implementation of the Labour programme, the
  650
  Government could not make the Bill available in time, will the Minister grant the House the Special Standing Committee that would relieve us of the need to divide?
  Miss Johnson: I shall come to that matter much later.
  We are committed to ensuring that reporting to Parliament will continue throughout the implementation phase. As the availability and relevance of information of interest to Parliament increases, memorandums will be submitted to Parliament to provide regular updates on policy and implementation.
  Resource accounting and budgeting will significantly improve the outdated and outmoded system of cash-based accounting in two distinct ways. First, the full economic cost of Government activities will be capable of proper measurement by the inclusion of costs such as capital consumption that are not reflected in cash-based accounts. It will also match costs to the right time period, providing Government with a better basis for allocating resources. Secondly, there will be improvements in the treatment of capital spending. Instead of simply identifying the full cost in the year of acquisition, the cost of capital will be spread over its useful life.
  The Government have introduced four trigger points, to which several hon. Members have referred. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) that trigger point 2 has been successfully passed by all Departments. There is no problem about that. All Departments have moved on to trigger point 3, which involves the NAO in carrying out an audit of dry-run resource accounts from Departments for 1998–99. The final trigger point is scheduled for next summer, and Departments will make available to Select Committees dry-run, resource-based estimates for 2000–01 as soon as possible after the cash-based 2000–01 main estimates are produced.
  Ms Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend may not be aware that the Agriculture Committee has already been taken through resource-based accounts. There was a great deal of discussion and explanation of them, and the only issue that arose was that some hon. Members, particularly from the Opposition Benches, did not turn up for that.
  Miss Johnson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's knowledge of what has been done on resource accounting and budgeting in the Agriculture Committee. It is disappointing, given the fuss that they have made, that Opposition Members were not present.
  Following the trigger points, we aim that resource accounting and budgeting should lead to whole-of-Government accounts. These will fulfil the commitment given in the code for fiscal stability to produce accounts for the whole public sector, on a consolidated basis if possible. Audited whole-of-Government accounts will improve the information available to support the conduct and monitoring of fiscal policy. Those accounts will also improve accountability to Parliament and provide greater transparency for taxpayers.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the introduction of resource accounting have any effect on the calculations of the golden rule?
  Miss Johnson: I should not imagine that it would.

  651
  To produce full, audited, whole-of-Government accounts, we will need greater conformity of accounting policies, systems and procedures. Those are major challenges. The Government have decided to adopt a staged approach in which we will first concentrate on delivering audited accounts that cover central Government Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. A final decision to extend coverage to the whole public sector will be taken in due course when the outcomes of various possible developments in financial reporting and further development work is clearer. The purpose of the clauses relating to whole-of-Government accounts is to enable the Treasury to prepare as efficiently as possible by adopting relevant best practice consolidation procedures used in the private sector.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned Partnerships UK. As well as covering resource accounting, the Bill puts in place the foundations for another strand of our drive to modernise our key public services—the creation of PUK. That new public-private partnership will operate in the private sector, but with a clear public mission. PUK will offer a long-term home to the type of deal-making skills that are currently temporarily available to the public sector through the Treasury task force. PUK will be instrumental in helping the public sector to address the key weaknesses in the current public-private sector partnership process. In that way, the public sector will become a more effective client. The bottom line is that PUK will help to deliver better value for money and more investment in front-line services.
  Since the Government came to power just two and a half years ago, we have fundamentally reformed the PFI. We have prioritised projects, ended universal testing, offered a fairer deal to staff, and standardised contracts. We have put the PFI on a stable and modern footing. We now need to use the new PFI to drive forward our programme to modernise public services in sectors where it has not worked before; we need to develop new, more collaborative partnerships with the private sector as part of our wider public-private partnership programme.
  PUK will allow the public sector to form partnerships with the private sector on equal terms. As a public-private partnership in the private sector, but operating in the interests of the public sector, PUK will be able to offer a longer-term home to the skill base required to support the public sector in the execution of public-private partnership deals. The business plan for PUK is now under development; we have been consulting widely throughout, so that PUK generates the greatest benefit for all the stakeholders in PFI—public sector and private sector alike.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to the relationship between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the House. I can reassure him that the CAG will remain an Officer of the House of Commons. He will continue to have complete discretion to decide on his work, with the freedom to report exactly as he sees fit.
  Several hon. Members, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis)—both of whom have given distinguished service as Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee—my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, raised issues about National Audit Office
  652
  access. However, the Bill is not about public sector audit; it is intended to be about resource accounting—that is the fundamental point. The Government believe that it is right to focus on that important change without complicating matters.
  Moreover, we are not aware that, in practice, there is a problem with NAO access in any regard. In each of the cases mentioned—contractors, non-departmental public bodies and public sector companies—the NAO has access by agreement. Indeed, hon. Members gave some examples of the NAO gaining access and doing extremely good work. I am not aware of any cases where the NAO has not been able to gain access.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, because she had left the Chamber when I commented on the investigation of the national lottery. Although the Government had allowed access, Camelot had refused access. The Government must address situations similar to that; I trust that they will do so in Committee.
  Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am aware of that issue; it is a legal one and is now close to resolution. I believe that the matter is being dealt with satisfactorily.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. Does she agree that there will be widespread dismay—in accounting and in much wider circles—if the proposals are delayed due to those relatively minor points?
  Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. There would be considerable anxiety.
  Underpinning everything is a strong audit framework in the public sector, which is stronger than that in the private sector. The work of the Audit Commission in local government goes well beyond normal private sector audits. Therefore, I see no circumstances in which the Comptroller and Auditor General would need such access rights and could not rely on the work of other auditors. Indeed, the danger with such suggestions is that some organisations will be audited by two separate bodies, and we would need to be very careful about that. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is addressing the House, so I plead with it to come to order. Private conversations should be held outside the Chamber.
  Miss Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) mentioned the Treasury discretion. The Treasury discretion to set up accounting rules is very far from unfettered. In fact, it will be more circumscribed under the proposed system than it is under the present system. Conservative Members have deliberately avoided that fact. We have tightened up the requirements under which the Treasury and everyone else will operate as a result of the Bill and the requirement to follow the generally accepted accounting practice—GAAP—and the discipline provided by the independent Financial Reporting Advisory Board means that the Treasury discretion to set accounting rules will be very limited under these proposals.

  653
  Several hon. Members referred to what the Bill will cover. It will deliver everything that they say they would like to achieve. Resource accounts will follow generally accepted accounting practice, but they will introduce the best accounting practice to the Government's own accounts. That means that, in the fullness of time when the whole-of-Government accounts are introduced, the points made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will be covered. It is wrong to think that anything will be left outside those arrangements.
  Mr. Letwin: I am sorry to trouble the hon. Lady again, but does she really maintain that schools, hospitals and the great preponderance of roads in this country will not be left out?
  Miss Johnson: They will not be left out when the whole-of-Government accounts system is introduced.
  Mr. Letwin: When will that be?
  Miss Johnson: It will be as progress is made on the other things. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but I have the previous Government's White Paper entitled "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money". It says:
  "the Government will wish to concentrate in the first instance on successful implementation at a departmental level."
  Whole-of-Government accounts will follow. We are doing nothing more than the previous Government recommended in the first place.
  Several hon. Members mentioned the money voted by Parliament and the scrutiny of all expenditure. All the money voted by Parliament will pass through a Department's book and can be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General for accuracy, regularity and propriety. When the money is ultimately spent by another public sector body, it will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, another public sector auditor or possibly by one of its contractors. The Public Audit Forum is playing an increasingly important role in ensuring that all public bodies are audited to the same standards and under the same procedures.
  Mr. Rendel: The Economic Secretary keeps telling us that the Comptroller and Auditor General has all the powers that he needs, but does she accept that he does not believe that he has them?
  Miss Johnson: People have identified an issue that relates to the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office. The fact is that the Bill does not concern those powers or access by the NAO to Government accounts. It concerns resource accounting and budgeting and there are many advantages to that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Johnson: I must make progress, or I will not have the opportunity to deal with points raised by one or two other hon. Members.
  654
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) referred to the audit of departmental resource accounts. That is in progress, and as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said in his opening speech, the next memorandum to Parliament will report on progress and will include any Departments that have not passed trigger point 3. All that information will be forthcoming.
  I come now to the advantages of the Bill and the hon. Member for Macclesfield's suggestion that there should be a Special Standing Committee. There has been a lot of synthetic fuss by Opposition Front-Bench Members. It is staggering that the shadow Chief Secretary has only recently arrived in the Chamber. It is remarkable that the Opposition amendment does not mention audit at all, despite the fact that the amendment was, no doubt, tabled after due consideration by the Opposition. Members of the Public Accounts Committee have, justifiably, been pursuing issues of concern to them, but I do not believe that Opposition Front-Bench Members are doing anything other than latching on to a respectable suggestion being made by those who have a respectable reason to make it.
  As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has said, we have listened very carefully. We have listened to the reasoned points made by right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, but we will not give way to the suggestion that there should be a Special Standing Committee. It is right to pursue the matter, and hon. Members have two vehicles for doing so. First, the Public Accounts Committee will do whatever it wants to do, and Ministers would be very wary of suggesting anything different.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Johnson: No, I regret that because time is short I will not give way.
  Secondly, the Standing Committee will discuss the matter. I understand that no suggestion for a Special Standing Committee has been made through the usual channels.
  Mr. Winterton: I have to say to the Economic Secretary that as the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, which is a Committee of this House, I am not answerable to the Opposition Front Bench, just as I am not answerable to the Government Front Bench. This is a proposal made by a House Committee to the Government because they failed to honour a commitment that they gave earlier in respect of the Bill.
  Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is a difference between the line that Opposition Front-Bench Members are pushing and the respectable suggestion that he has made, albeit during the debate, without thought beforehand and without going through the usual channels.
  I shall now summarise the important aspects of the Bill. It is a very important Bill. It is one of the biggest ever reforms of the management of our country's public services, and I commend it to the House. It is a major milestone; it modernises the public sector and makes sure that we will make better use of the private sector. One of the real revolutions, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden pointed out, is the possibility

  655
  that much more meaningful management information will be available to the public sector and, indeed, to Members of the House who scrutinise these matters.
  The accountability and transparency that will be provided through resource accounting and budgeting are substantial improvements on the existing arrangements. The Bill had solid bipartisan support when it originated and again in the debate today. I hope that the fact that we have said that we are open to dialogue means that the support will continue into the Standing Committee.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 327.

  Division No. 8]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hayes, John

  Amess, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Horam, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bercow, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Boswell, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brady, Graham

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brazier, Julian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cash, William

  Lidington, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Luff, Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Collins, Tim

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Madel, Sir David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Day, Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Faber, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paice, James

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paterson, Owen

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Pickles, Eric

  Fraser, Christopher

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Prior, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence

  Gill, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ruffley, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gray, James

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Green, Damian

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hammond, Philip

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  656

  Spring, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Steen, Anthony

  Whittingdale, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wilkinson, John

  Syms, Robert

  Willetts, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Townend, John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tredinnick, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Walter, Robert

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Wardle, Charles

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cohen, Harry

  Allan, Richard

  Coleman, Iain

  Allen, Graham

  Colman, Tony

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashton, Joe

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cotter, Brian

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cousins, Jim

  Austin, John

  Cox, Tom

  Barnes, Harry

  Crausby, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Battle, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darvill, Keith

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drew, David

  Burden, Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Etherington, Bill

  Cann, Jamie

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fisher, Mark

  Casale, Roger

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flint, Caroline

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clapham, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Goggins, Paul

  657

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martlew, Eric

  Grogan, John

  Maxton, John

  Hain, Peter

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Meale, Alan

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hanson, David

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Miller, Andrew

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mitchell, Austin

  Healey, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Heppell, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mountford, Kali

  Hill, Keith

  Mudie, George

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hope, Phil

  Norris, Dan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Oaten, Mark

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Olner, Bill

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hutton, John

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Raynsford, Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Levitt, Tom

  Rendel, David

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Livsey, Richard

  Rogers, Allan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Roy, Frank

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Salter, Martin

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sanders, Adrian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNulty, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  658

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Tynan, Bill

  Snape, Peter

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Spellar, John

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wareing, Robert N

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Watts, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Stevenson, George

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stringer, Graham

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wills, Michael

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wise, Audrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Mike

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wray, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Todd, Mark

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Touhig, Don

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  GOVERNMENT RESOURCES AND ACCOUNTS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Treasury under the Act;

  (2) refunds of money paid into the Consolidated Fund as the result of an error;

  (3) the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for fulfilling guarantees given by the Treasury;

  (4) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act; and

  (5) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Touhig.]

  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. May I instruct the Serjeant at Arms that I have heard a complaint that no Division bells are ringing? Could that be looked into?
  The House having divided: Ayes 318, Noes 3.

  Division No. 9]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane (Copeland)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Allan, Richard

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Allen, Graham

  Darvill, Keith

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dawson, Hilton

  Austin, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barnes, Harry

  Dismore, Andrew

  Barron, Kevin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Battle, John

  Doran, Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dowd, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Drew, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Efford, Clive

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fisher, Mark

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flynn, Paul

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Browne, Desmond

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burden, Richard

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cann, Jamie

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Casale, Roger

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clelland, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hope, Phil

  Corbett, Robin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cox, Tom

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  660

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Raynsford, Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Levitt, Tom

  Rendel, David

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Livsey, Richard

  Rogers, Allan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Roy, Frank

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruddock, Joan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McDonnell, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Salter, Martin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNulty, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Meale, Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Spellar, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mitchell, Austin

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stringer, Graham

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Norris, Dan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Oaten, Mark

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Todd, Mark

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Touhig, Don

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Trickett, Jon

  Pearson, Ian

  Truswell, Paul

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  661

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Willis, Phil

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wills, Michael

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wilson, Brian

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Winnick, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tynan, Bill

  Wise, Audrey

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wood, Mike

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wray, James

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watts, David

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Gill, Christopher

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. James Gray.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With the permission of the House, I shall take motions 3 and 4 together.
  Mr. Eric Forth: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I shall take them separately.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    AGRICULTURE
    That the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
    The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 2.

    Division No. 10]

    [10.29 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Betts, Clive

    Alexander, Douglas

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Allan, Richard

    Blizzard, Bob

    Allen, Graham

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ashton, Joe

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Browne, Desmond

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Burden, Richard

    Austin, John

    Burgon, Colin

    Barnes, Harry

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Barron, Kevin

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Battle, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Campbell—Savours, Dale

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cann, Jamie

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Caplin, Ivor

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Casale, Roger

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Caton, Martin

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    662

    Chaytor, David

    Heppell, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Hesford, Stephen

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hill, Keith

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hope, Phil

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Clelland, David

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hurst, Alan

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hutton, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Coleman, Iain

    Illsley, Eric

    Colman, Tony

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Corbett, Robin

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cotter, Brian

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cousins, Jim

    Cox, Tom

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Crausby, David

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cummings, John

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Kemp, Fraser

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Darvill, Keith

    Kidney, David

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Dawson, Hilton

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Dismore, Andrew

    Laxton, Bob

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Leslie, Christopher

    Doran, Frank

    Levitt, Tom

    Dowd, Jim

    Linton, Martin

    Drew, David

    Livsey, Richard

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Love, Andrew

    Efford, Clive

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ennis, Jeff

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Etherington, Bill

    Fisher, Mark

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    McDonnell, John

    Flint, Caroline

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Flynn, Paul

    McIsaac, Shona

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Fyfe, Maria

    McNamara, Kevin

    Gardiner, Barry

    McNulty, Tony

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gerrard, Neil

    McWilliam, John

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Mallaber, Judy

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Goggins, Paul

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Martlew, Eric

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Maxton, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Grogan, John

    Meale, Alan

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Hanson, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Mitchell, Austin

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Healey, John

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Morley, Elliot

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mountford, Kali

    663

    Mudie, George

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mullin, Chris

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Snape, Peter

    Norris, Dan

    Soley, Clive

    Oaten, Mark

    Spellar, John

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Olner, Bill

    Steinberg, Gerry

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Pearson, Ian

    Stringer, Graham

    Pendry, Tom

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Pickthall, Colin

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Pike, Peter L

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Plaskitt, James

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pond, Chris

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pope, Greg

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Pound, Stephen

    Timms, Stephen

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Tipping, Paddy

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Todd, Mark

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Touhig, Don

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Trickett, Jon

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Truswell, Paul

    Purchase, Ken

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Rammell, Bill

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Rapson, Syd

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Tyler, Paul

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Tynan, Bill

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Rendel, David

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Wareing, Robert N

    Rooney, Terry

    Watts, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Roy, Frank

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Ruddock, Joan

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Willis, Phil

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Wills, Michael

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wilson, Brian

    Sawford, Phil

    Winnick, David

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wise, Audrey

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wood, Mike

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Woolas, Phil

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wray, James

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Mr. Mike Hall and

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mr. Kevin Hughes.

    NOES

    Gray, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Mr. Eric Forth and

    Wilshire, David

    Mr. Edward Leigh.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    TERMS AND CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
    The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 2.

    Division No. 11]

    [10.39 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Dawson, Hilton

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Alexander, Douglas

    Dismore, Andrew

    Allan, Richard

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Allen, Graham

    Doran, Frank

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Drew, David

    Ashton, Joe

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Efford, Clive

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Ennis, Jeff

    Austin, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Barnes, Harry

    Fisher, Mark

    Barron, Kevin

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Battle, John

    Flint, Caroline

    Bayley, Hugh

    Flynn, Paul

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Bennett, Andrew F

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Betts, Clive

    Gerrard, Neil

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Blizzard, Bob

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Goggins, Paul

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Browne, Desmond

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Burden, Richard

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Burgon, Colin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Grogan, John

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Campbell—Savours, Dale

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hanson, David

    Caplin, Ivor

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Casale, Roger

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Caton, Martin

    Healey, John

    Cawsey, Ian

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Chaytor, David

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Heppell, John

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Hill, Keith

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hope, Phil

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clelland, David

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cohen, Harry

    Hurst, Alan

    Coleman, Iain

    Hutton, John

    Colman, Tony

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Illsley, Eric

    Cotter, Brian

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jenkins, Brian

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Crausby, David

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cummings, John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Darvill, Keith

    Kemp, Fraser

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Kidney, David

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    665

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Rooney, Terry

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Laxton, Bob

    Roy, Frank

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ruddock, Joan

    Levitt, Tom

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Linton, Martin

    Sanders, Adrian

    Livsey, Richard

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Love, Andrew

    Sawford, Phil

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McDonnell, John

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

    McNulty, Tony

    Soley, Clive

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Spellar, John

    McWilliam, John

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Mallaber, Judy

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Stringer, Graham

    Martlew, Eric

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Maxton, John

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Meale, Alan

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Miller, Andrew

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Timms, Stephen

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Tipping, Paddy

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Todd, Mark

    Morley, Elliot

    Touhig, Don

    Mountford, Kali

    Trickett, Jon

    Mudie, George

    Truswell, Paul

    Mullin, Chris

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Norris, Dan

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Oaten, Mark

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Olner, Bill

    Tyler, Paul

    O'Neill, Martin

    Tynan, Bill

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Pearson, Ian

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Pendry, Tom

    Wareing, Robert N

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Watts, David

    Pickthall, Colin

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Pike, Peter L

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Plaskitt, James

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Pond, Chris

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Pope, Greg

    Willis, Phil

    Pound, Stephen

    Wills, Michael

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Winnick, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Wise, Audrey

    Purchase, Ken

    Wood, Mike

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Woolas, Phil

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Wray, James

    Rammell, Bill

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Rapson, Syd

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Rendel, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Mr. Mike Hall and

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Mr. Kevin Hughes.

    666

    NOES

    Gray, James

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Mr. Eric Forth and

    Leigh, Edward

    Mr. Christopher Gill.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
  Ordered,

  COMMITTEES
    AGRICULTURE
    That Ms Sally Keeble and Mrs. Diana Organ be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. David Borrow and Mr. David Drew be added to the Committee.
    That Mrs. Diana Organ be added to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
    That Ms Dari Taylor be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Stephen Hepburn be added to the Committee.
    ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
    That Dr. Alan Whitehead be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Mr. Hilary Benn be added to the Committee.
    That Mr. Chris Mullin be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Ian Cawsey be added to the Committee.
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That Mr. David Crausby be added to the Social Security Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  PETITION

    Council Tax
    10.50 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I present a petition from Helen Houghton and 740 electors from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who is present. They live in pensioners' flats, which are rated as band A for council tax purposes, with values up to £40,000, and pay the same council tax as people with two, three and four-bedroom houses, because the average three-bedroom terraced house in Grimsby and Cleethorpes is valued at £30,000 or less.
    Helen Houghton, the lead signatory, pays £43 a month, allowing for the reduction for single people, which she would get whatever band her accommodation was in.

    667
    The petition asks for a new lower band to be created for such accommodation for pensioners and students in flats and bedsits. The petition states:
    The Humble Petition of Helen Houghton, pensioner, and 740 others of like disposition, sheweth
    That living in warden controlled dwellings in Grimsby and North East Lincolnshire, as your Petitioners all do, they are required to pay the same Council Tax for their bedsit accommodation as those living in their own houses with as many as three bedrooms, because their properties are all in the same band.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will consider the plight of pensioners in group dwellings and introduce a new additional band to cover this type of property.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    The petition is signed by Helen Houghton, 3 Stratford house, Barmouth drive, Grimsby, Joyce Miller, 1 Stratford house, Barmouth drive, Grimsby, and 738 others. I commend it to the House.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Integrated Transport Policy (Weston-super-Mare)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Brian Cotter: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate a subject that is very important to my constituents. Integrated transport will be the way of the future. It means implementing transport policies that work with, not against, each other, offer genuine alternatives, especially to private car users, and better address the needs of rural and urban areas alike.
  An integrated transport strategy must put people at its heart. Lack of access to affordable and reliable transport cuts people off from essential services and from their family and friends, and can limit employment opportunities.
  Weston-super-Mare lost its bus station in 1986. The site was sold off by the bus company, the station demolished and a block of flats built in its place. A local resident was quoted in the local Mercury newspaper shortly after my election as saying:
  "It was the worst day of our lives when our old bus station was sold off and demolished. It has left retired and disabled bus users, not to mention tourists, out in the cold."
  That sums it up well.
  Weston is a seaside resort and is well worth a visit. As a holiday destination it needs to offer a warm welcome to visitors. I am pleased to say that residents and those involved in the tourism industry do a great job in making it a nice place to stay, but sometimes first impressions count. What first impression do visitors to Weston arriving by bus or coach get?
  The tourist information office in Weston told me that the current situation is, at best, confusing. People, especially tourists, do not know where buses leave from and, as there are currently several bus focus areas, it can be difficult to direct them precisely. The office says that it has to handle a lot of queries about transport issues, thereby reducing the time available to help people with tourism issues. Problems are caused on the sea front, where day trippers come in coaches that interfere with the usual bus stopping areas. Local buses have to double park, causing congestion and a possible safety hazard.
  One of the workers at the local disability information service told me what happened when she was waiting at the main car park in the town centre, which is used by some national coach companies as a pick-up point. She was waiting for a 1 am coach to Dover, but the coach did not arrive until 5 am because of a breakdown. She was with a group of 20 people, many of them elderly and frail, and the conditions were freezing. There was no shelter, nowhere to sit down and no information about what was happening. Had there been a bus station, that need not have happened.
  Another situation arose when an elderly lady came to Weston for a week's holiday. She was dropped off by the coach on the sea front at 8 pm, but her hotel was some way away. There was no telephone, no taxi service, no shops open and no toilets. After carrying her case through the rain for nearly an hour to her hotel, it took her two days to recover and, naturally enough, she does not intend to come back to Weston.

  669
  Since 1986, there has been continuing demand for a bus station and transport interchange in the town. We need to see true integration of services, bringing together north Somerset council, First Bus, Southern National, National Express, Great Western Trains, and Wales and West Trains in a genuine transport focus. Hand in hand with that would be through-ticketing on buses and trains, which should be easy because Badgerline and Great Western are owned by the same company.
  People in Weston and elsewhere have concerns about the sale of railway land. One site in Weston is up for grabs, but it should be considered as a possible site for transport integration. A bus station would provide shelter, security, information and refreshment for visitors and residents alike. A high quality interchange system centred around a bus station, the town centre and the railway station would enable people conveniently to mix and match bus, train, walking, car and bicycle.
  North Somerset council does not have the budget to build a bus station, but the mega-rich First group, which now owns Bristol airport, runs Great Western Trains and has a near monopoly of bus routes in my part of the west country, certainly has the resources. I would like the Government to take on the bus giants and demand better investment in bus services throughout Britain.
  Those of my constituents who live in rural areas often say to me that the Government are more concerned about the problems of urban areas and cities than they are about village life and the countryside. In fact, one in four of my constituents lives in the rural areas around Weston-super-Mare. The villages of north Somerset make a wonderful place to live—I should know because I live in one of them—but the people who live in them are being forced into their cars by inadequate public transport links. North Somerset council subsidises the bus company, mostly in rural areas, by some £250,000 a year. Despite that, too many villages have expensive and inadequate bus links.
  An extraordinary story appeared in the papers this morning about Badgerline, the bus company that serves my constituency. A fully loaded bus ground to a halt half way up a hill. The driver had to ask the passengers to disembark. He then drove to the top of the hill and waited for the passengers to catch up so that they could carry on with their trip. It is bizarre for a bus company to be unable to run its buses properly. The last time I heard such a story was in a Postman Pat book. As it happens, that all took place in the nearby town of Bath, not in my constituency.
  Local authorities try to respond to transport needs, but they have little power to oblige bus and train operators to compete with the car instead of with each other. At the moment, those operators have to give only minimal notice if they alter services. That is not conducive to providing high-quality information, nor to winning passengers' loyalty.
  Local authorities spend thousands of pounds promoting the use of buses by means of timetables, route maps, new bus shelters and anti-drink driving campaigns—all of which provide free publicity for the bus companies. However, councils get no return on the money spent. The bus companies have complete control of timetables, fares, routes, and so on.
  670
  The village of Hutton in my constituency had an important link to the local hospital that was broken recently. The village has many elderly residents, and that was a major blow. The bus company responded by saying that the route was not profitable. Increasingly, it is being left to cash-strapped local authorities to keep open such routes, which can be lifelines. Rural communities need lower fares and more convenient and accessible services, so that public transport can be a realistic alternative in people's transport needs.
  The Government must take a lead in guaranteeing decent service levels for communities such as those in north Somerset. Traffic problems will get worse if action is not taken. Banwell village in my constituency has the highest level of air pollution in the district. The pollution is caused by the dense, slow-moving or stationary traffic on the A371 that goes through the village. It is worth stating that benzine and nitrogen dioxide—the pollutants associated with high levels of road traffic—exacerbate the symptoms of people, and especially of children, suffering from lung disease. They also promote the development of cancers and reduce the supply of oxygen to the heart. All those health issues are very serious.
  Many small villages are becoming more dangerous and unpleasant to live in and visit because of the growth in traffic. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has estimated that traffic in rural areas could double by 2025. In places such as Banwell, village life is being choked to death. Something must be done.
  The provisional local transport plan submitted to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions by North Somerset council includes a proposal to undertake an assessment of transport options for relieving Banwell, and the possibility of a bypass. I urge that a more detailed study be made. I would strongly support that. I also urge that prompt action be taken, with Government support, to follow it up.
  Congresbury, the village in which I live, lies on the B3133, a narrow country lane linking my village with the village of Churchill. However, in common with all too many lanes in our country, it is used as a rat run—in this case, between the bigger A370 and the A38. The B3133 is used in particular by heavy goods vehicles, which cause considerable damage to the road and to the properties alongside it. Some walls have been knocked down, and some buildings demolished, by HGVs using the road.
  Action must be taken to stop heavy lorries using country lanes as rat runs. The damage caused by lorries using inappropriate roads can be reduced by establishing strategic lorry routes with direction signing and restrictions on weight and height. Indeed, North Somerset council agrees that the only solution is to establish such a strategy for sustainable freight distribution. However, it states that it is not in a position to commence any work to that end. I hope that the Minister will consider ways in which the Department can support the authority in making the matter a priority.
  Recently, the problem in rural areas in my constituency was compounded by simultaneous road works on the M5, the A370 and the A38, which are all link roads into Weston-super-Mare. The result, in addition to lengthy traffic jams on the roads concerned, was to encourage traffic to make even more rat runs through villages and along country lanes. We should appreciate it in Weston-super-Mare and in other areas if the Government

  671
  could ensure that roadworks were better planned so that not all main roads in an area were dug up at the same time.
  Finally, the Government's transport Bill proposes to establish a Strategic Rail Authority, which will no doubt help to repair the damage done by rail privatisation. Still absent, however, are proposals for a strategic transport authority that would cover all forms of transport. That is critical if true integration of transport is to be achieved. People in my constituency want and deserve a truly integrated transport system that will help to tackle the problems experienced in towns and villages alike. I look forward to hearing what the Minister hopes to do about these issues.
  11.5 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): May I begin, as is usual, by congratulating the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) on securing the debate? May I also thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of the key issues that he intended to raise? Let me reassure him immediately that the Government are fully committed to improving the transport system in Weston-super-Mare, and, indeed, in north Somerset and the whole country.
  We want a system that is safe, efficient, clean and fair, and we want everyone to be able to have better choice in transport. We will do that by improving public transport, and traffic management and road maintenance, and by creating a more integrated transport system. Before turning to the Government's general progress in implementing our commitment to a more integrated transport system, I would like to respond to some points that the hon. Gentleman made about transport issues in and around Weston-super-Mare.
  Each local transport authority is required to prepare a local transport plan, setting out its strategy for transport together with proposals to carry that strategy forward. The provisional local transport plan for north Somerset is currently being assessed by my officials in the Government Office for the South West, so I must be careful not to comment on the merits of proposals in the plan or to speculate on the likely allocation of resources. However, I can make some general observations about the plan.
  In preparing the plan, I understand that the council invited wide public participation on how it should address transport needs in its area. To achieve effective participation, five stakeholder workshops were established to maximise local information and to build a consensus about the way forward, while also thinking about the wider context. Each workshop contained a mixture of interests, including Government, statutory authorities, interest groups and organisations, and citizens and users. The workshops were locally based and one covered Weston-super-Mare and surrounding areas. The Government very much welcome North Somerset council's approach in involving local people in the development of its plan.
  The process highlighted the perception among people in the district that public transport currently offers a poor alternative to the car. The plan also highlights the problems of congestion on the M5 and the A370 and the problems of heavy lorries using country roads. The hon.
  672
  Gentleman has already expressed his concerns on these subjects in correspondence with Ministers as well as in the debate.
  The plan acknowledges that air pollution levels are high in some places. North Somerset council will need to consider drawing up action plans on air quality where it does not meet acceptable standards. The hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about that problem in Banwell, as a result of heavy lorries using the main road though the village. He will be aware that the provisional local transport plan identifies a bypass as one option for relieving the village's traffic problems.
  The plan also identifies a wide range of opportunities for improving public transport and for addressing other transport issues in the district. These include increasing the frequency of both rail and bus services, more park-and-ride schemes, bus priority measures, and fully integrated ticketing. Meanwhile, new measures have already been introduced, including a quality partnership between North Somerset council and First Badgerline buses. The aim of the partnership is to achieve joint measures that will promote the use of local bus services, including investigating the development of a flexible feeder system linking rural bus services with those along main routes.
  The council proposes to develop a database, which will be used for a telephone inquiry service and also for keeping an electronic record of all bus stop locations. I am also aware that the council has, together with local partners, applied for funding through the rural bus challenge. We are currently considering that and other bids, and hope to make an announcement shortly.
  The hon. Gentleman made some observations about inadequate rural bus services. I understand that North Somerset council did not make a bid for the Government's rural bus grant scheme—funding of about £170 million over three years—that has led to the development of 1,800 new and refurbished bus routes in our rural areas nationwide.
  North Somerset council has made it clear that it has not been able to make as much progress as it would have liked on some of the elements in the provisional plan. However, I understand that the council will be developing more detailed proposals during the next few months, for inclusion in the full local transport plan to be submitted next summer.
  Clearly, it is for the council to decide the content of its local transport plan. However, guidance issued to all local transport authorities points to the need for plans to address a wide range of transport issues, including those relating to public transport interchanges, rural bus services, air quality and the transportation of freight—matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have taken major steps in promoting a more integrated transport system. Our White Paper on the future of transport, which we published within 18 months of being elected, was the first comprehensive statement of transport policy for nearly 20 years. For the first time, we want to integrate transport policy with other key related matters, such as the environment, health, education and land-use planning. The White Paper sets out the framework for sustainable transport for this and the next Parliament, and beyond.

  673
  Of course, we realise that motorists will not readily switch to public transport unless it is significantly better and more reliable. That is why the aim of the White Paper is to increase choice by improving public transport and providing better conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. To do that, we are committed to providing more resources for local transport—the comprehensive spending review allocated a further £700 million over the next three years. As I pointed out, we are also spending an extra £170 million on rural buses.
  In order to put those new measures into practice, we published the new Transport Bill last Wednesday. The Bill contains measures to promote the use of railways through the Strategic Rail Authority, to improve bus services and to reduce road congestion and pollution. From time to time, there have been questions about the apparent delay in introducing that legislation. The truth is that there are no instantaneous solutions, and much preparatory work was required to enable us to identify policies to overcome the failures of the past 20 years.
  We inherited high and growing levels of road traffic congestion, poor public transport, inadequate provision for pedestrians and cyclists, and significant under-investment in road maintenance. Nevertheless, we have already made significant headway through increased investment, especially in public transport and road maintenance. The measures contained in the Bill pave the way for the modern, effective transport system that the country needs and deserves.
  The Bill establishes the Strategic Rail Authority, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The mission of the SRA will be to promote the use of the railways for passengers and freight, to secure the development of the railway network, and to contribute to an integrated transport system. The Bill also recognises the fact that buses are crucial to the success of our integrated transport system and can provide a real alternative to car use. It therefore gives local authorities the power to improve local bus services through quality partnerships and quality contracts. About 130 such partnerships have already been established, voluntarily, throughout the country—often leading to major increases in bus usage of between 10 and 40 per cent. The Bill also includes provisions to improve passenger information, to encourage integrated ticketing and to promote service stability.
  In addition, the Bill gives local authorities new powers to introduce charges on congested roads and to introduce workplace parking charges. The money raised will be put back into improving local transport, improving choice and tackling congestion.
  674
  As I said earlier, it will be for local authorities to put those and other measures into practice. We believe that local people are best placed to find local solutions to local transport problems. That is why we have introduced local transport plans as a centrepiece of our proposals. Those are replacing the existing transport policies and programmes system of annual submissions, and provide a more strategic, longer term view.
  Local transport plans set out authorities' strategies for transport, and will be the key mechanism for pulling all that activity together locally. They include all forms of transport and set out proposals for implementation, including road user and workplace parking charges, and bus quality partnerships. There will also be greater certainty of funding for local authorities and significantly greater local discretion over the allocation of resources.
  As a first stage in that process, all county and unitary authorities have now submitted their provisional five-year plans, on the basis of which resources will be allocated for the next financial year. Authorities will then roll their plans on by one year and next summer will submit full plans for the period from 2001 to 2006. We are currently assessing the provisional plans, and will shortly be announcing the allocation of resources for next year.
  From the feedback so far, it would seem that authorities are responding positively to the challenge of producing local transport plans. They have overwhelmingly welcomed the national policy framework and the process of preparing plans is acting as a positive force for change.
  Although a great deal of work has already been done to improve public transport in this country, we recognise that much more needs to be done to implement the measures in the White Paper. We are fully committed to establishing a new and better transport system, and to ensuring that the necessary financial resources are in place. The national framework has now been put fully in place with the publication of the new Transport Bill, and it is now for local authorities to take matters forward.
  At a local level, North Somerset council is clearly committed to creating a more integrated transport system in its district. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that is too early for me to speculate on the outcome of the local transport plan process in North Somerset or on the work that needs to be done in preparing a full plan for submission next year. However, the position on the provisional plan will become clearer when the allocations are made for the new financial year, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that an announcement on that will be made very shortly.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Farming
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish an inter-departmental task force on problems facing the farming industry in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [100057]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Industry and Universities
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what assessment he has made of the correlation between the geographical locations of industry and of universities; [100644]

  (2) how many students, normally domiciled in Northern Ireland, are enrolled in full-time first degree university courses; and how many full-time first degree places are available in Northern Ireland. [100660]

  Country

  Project/programme title

  Total commitment

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Expenditure for last five years

  Ghana

  ATP Kotoka Airport Rehab.

  8,585

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Ghana

  Kumasi Waste Disposal

  1,085

  13

  0

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Ghana

  Junior Secondary Schools

  2,436

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  Ghana

  Monitoring (Kotoka Rehab.)

  1,278

  9

  16

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Ghana

  Kotoka Rehab. TC Services

  1,595

  183

  —

  —

  —

  —

  183

  Ghana

  Civil Service Reform Project

  2,986

  151

  37

  6

  2

  11

  208

  Ghana

  Cocoa Research (CRIG)

  3,841

  163

  118

  —

  —

  —

  281

  Ghana

  Social Dimensions of Adj

  1,156

  91

  108

  101

  20

  4

  324

  Ghana

  Village Hand Dug Wells

  1,020

  151

  —

  115

  103

  —

  368

  Ghana

  Accra Waste Project

  1,700

  —

  6

  13

  148

  247

  415

  Ghana

  Education Sector Support

  51,800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  445

  445

  Ghana

  Power V ATP

  7,281

  391

  125

  —

  —

  —

  516

  Ghana

  Management of Vertisols

  1,528

  325

  329

  93

  35

  6

  776

  Ghana

  WSIP Water Sector Improvement Sector

  4,065

  —

  —

  —

  245

  570

  815

  Ghana

  Literacy and Functional Skills project

  936

  144

  202

  328

  163

  —

  837

  Contraceptive Procurement for

  Ghana

  National Planning

  1,035

  —

  1,033

  2

  —

  —

  1,035

  Ghana

  SE Districts Water

  9,830

  —

  41

  2,931

  1,423

  743

  5,138

  Wenchi Farming Systems

  Ghana

  Development and Training

  1,528

  283

  231

  329

  267

  168

  1,279

  Ghana

  Two regions water supply

  1,620

  73

  95

  345

  438

  398

  1,349

  Ghana

  Value Added Tax Implementation

  1,870

  750

  303

  4

  41

  375

  1,472

  Ghana

  Small Enterprise Dev. Project

  2,400

  305

  225

  393

  366

  305

  1,595

  Ghana

  Public Enterprise Reform

  2,103

  315

  250

  471

  444

  192

  1,672

  Ghana

  UNICEF—Vaccines and Drugs

  1,761

  —

  —

  1,750

  11

  —

  1,761

  336W
  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100154]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officers' Departments comprising the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office, have let no research contracts since May 1997.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Projects
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the aid projects supported by her Department in(a) Morocco and (b) Ghana, in each of the last five years, indicating those which also received ECGD assistance. [100248]

  Clare Short
  The following lists all projects undertaken in the last five financial years at costs greater than £1 million.
  337W

  Country

  Project/programme title

  Total commitment

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Expenditure for last five years

  Forest Inventory and Management

  Ghana

  Project

  4,980

  772

  855

  168

  14

  2

  1,810

  Ghana

  CSPIP Phase Two

  5,000

  —

  —

  129

  661

  1,147

  1,937

  Ghana

  Forest Sector Development

  2,574

  —

  0

  676

  765

  692

  2,133

  Support to Teacher Education

  Ghana

  Project (STEP)

  3,200

  1,127

  707

  619

  164

  2

  2,621

  Ghana

  NVTI Project—ATP

  3,500

  —

  —

  2,303

  1,143

  39

  3,485

  Ghana

  Bridges for Feeder Roads

  7,640

  —

  —

  —

  580

  3,206

  3,786

  Ghana

  Preparation Costs HSIP

  4,200

  —

  —

  54

  941

  3,199

  4,194

  Ghana

  SE Districts Water

  4,830

  —

  —

  2,875

  1,249

  479

  4,603

  Ghana

  Equipment

  5,100

  2,021

  2,391

  632

  1

  —

  5,042

  Ghana

  Health Sector Aid

  6,415

  761

  1,234

  2,508

  735

  36

  5,273

  Ghana

  Accra Waste Project

  6,100

  —

  —

  —

  3,824

  2,031

  5,855

  Support to Ministry of Health's 5

  Ghana

  Year Programme of Work

  23,600

  —

  —

  —

  1,061

  5,094

  6,155

  Ghana

  Programme Aid 1998

  20,050

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,036

  20,036

  Morocco

  Morocco Gas Turbines

  7,276

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  6

  Morocco

  Tetouan Gas Turbines Project

  10,926

  1,313

  122

  7

  —

  —

  1,442

  Those projects which also received ECGD support were:
  Ghana: South East Districts (Sogakope) Water Project—completed
  Ghana: NVTI Vocational Training—completed
  Ghana: Accra Waste—2001 completion
  Morocco: Tetouan Gas Turbines Project—completed

  European Aid (Central America)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the(a) nature and (b) destination of the 250 million euros aid voted in the European Council for reconstruction and rehabilitation in Central America. [101109]

  Clare Short
  Following the European Council's approval of 250 million euros in post-Mitch reconstruction aid for Central America in May 1999, the European Commission developed a programme of reconstruction, which was agreed by member states in November. The programme will provide Honduras (119 million euros), Nicaragua (84 million euros), El Salvador (28.5 million euros) and Guatemala (18.5 million euros) in three areas:reinstating, improving and extending infrastructure and equipment in the education, public health, environmental sanitation and housing sectors;
  strengthening educational, public health and sanitation services, including the management capacity of the relevant government institutions, in order to improve efficiency, quality and access, for the most vulnerable sections of the population;
  strengthening local government and civil society by providing support for the drafting and implementation of rehabilitation and development plans and for the preparation of a framework for risk prevention and to lessen the impact of this type of natural disaster.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many research contracts have been let by her Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the
  338W
  date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100162]

  Clare Short
  The number of research contracts let since May 1997 is very large, running into hundreds. Recording them and listing the value of each would involve disproportionate cost. The Department for International Development's (DFID) net expenditure on research was estimated at £112 million in 1997–98 and £116 million in 1998–99.

  Source:

  SET Statistics 1999, published by the Office of Science and Technology

  The standard contracts for research projects funded by DFID make no provision for departmental veto over publication, for control over the date of publication. Nor do they contain any requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make it his policy to prohibit the provision of accommodation to civil servants at Portcullis House. [99863]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: In accordance with the Resolution of the House when it approved the brief for the project, Portcullis House will provide office accommodation for 210 hon. Members and for a similar number of their staff. The question of offering any of the space to Government Departments for use by civil servants does not arise.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what categories of persons it is proposed will be allocated accommodation at Portcullis House. [99883]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: The office space in Portcullis House will be occupied by 210 hon. Members and their staff. The only

  339W
  exceptions are two offices to be used by the Clerks Department to provide support services for Select Committees using the adjacent Select Committee rooms, and by the office services and maintenance management staff responsible for the building.

  Parliamentary Estate (Expenditure)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much has been spent on works within the Parliamentary Estate since 1 May 1997; what further sums are anticipated to be spent; and if he will list the amounts broken down by project, indicating the original estimated budget per project. [100504]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: Expenditure against the Works Votes of both Houses including rents, rates, fuel and overheads but excluding Portcullis House has been as follows:

  £

  year

  Voted sums

  Outturn

  1997–98

  49,017,000

  148,852,000

  1998–99

  51,013,000

  50,002,000

  1999–2000 (forecast expenditure)

  55,088,000

  253,652,0O0

  2000–01 (forecast expenditure)

  357,876,000

  357,876,OO0

  1 Excluding legal fees

  2Forecast

  3Estimate

  These sums covered 510 projects in 1997–98 and 419 projects in 1998–99. The number of projects planned for 1999–2000 is 422. The larger projects during this period were:

  £

  Project description

  Original estimate

  Outturn

  Norman Shaw North PDVN Lower Floors

  1,150,000

  1,180,333

  Norman Shaw North PDVN Upper Floors

  1,654,600

  1,854,600

  Refreshment Department Members and Strangers Cafeteria

  7,042,800

  6,776,428

  Refreshment Department Stores and Changing Rooms

  9,070,000

  8,974,800

  Fire Compartmentation 1997–98

  1,400,000

  1,376,844

  Fire Compartmentation 1998–99

  1,300,000

  1,173,447

  Fire Compartmentation 1999–2000

  1,250,000

  1,250,000

  Basement Fire Alarm

  2,300,000

  2,299,553

  PDVN Phase 3 1997–98

  5,000,000

  5,001,857

  PDVN Phase 4 1998–99

  5,120,000

  5,975,000

  PDVN Phase 5 1999–2000

  7,000,000

  6,625,565

  Committee Room Refurbishment Phase I

  861,668

  872,600

  Committee Room Refurbishment Phase II

  1,343,000

  1,122,339

  Royal Gallery Roof Overhaul

  4,125,660

  3,783,021

  For Portcullis House the total expenditure to April 1999 was £149 million. The remaining forecast expenditure and contingency is £86 million, so the project is expected to be completed at least £15 million below budget.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what motor mileage allowance rates his 340W
  Department offers to (a) ministers and (b) civil servants using their own vehicles for official business; and what has been the cost of each in each of the last five years. [98722]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Ministers and MOD civilians are paid the same Motor Mileage Rates if they use their private vehicles for official duty. Reimbursement for motor mileage for official travel in private vehicles is paid at different levels. The higher (Standard) rate is restricted to journeys that would be impracticable by public transport, taking into account the overall cost to the Department. It reflects the full cost of travel by car. The lower (Public Transport) rate is set at a level which reflects the average cost of travel by public transport and is paid for all other official travel by car.

  The rates applicable in the current tax year are as follows:

  Standard rates of motor mileage allowance

  Pence per mile

  Car engine capacity

  Up to 4,000

  Over 4,000

  Up to 1000cc

  28

  17

  1001cc-1500cc

  35

  20

  1501cc-2000cc

  45

  25

  2001cc and over

  63

  36

  Public transport rate of motor mileage allowance

  All cars

  26.5

  Details of Motor Mileage Allowance payments to Ministers are not held separately from those paid to MOD civilians and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total costs of Motor Mileage Allowance claims paid to MOD civilians, including Ministers, are:

  £

  Financial year

  Actual cost

  1994–95

  11,500,000

  1995–96

  12,200,000

  1996–97

  12,700,000

  1997–98

  12,100,000

  1998–99

  11,800,000

  Kapton Insulation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has received about the safety of Kapton wiring in military aircraft; and what actions he has taken. [100924]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 197W.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for increasing the number of Gurkhas serving in the UK armed forces. [101334]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), on 1 December 1999,Official Report, column 191W.

  Depleted Uranium Munitions (Yugoslavia)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) advice and (b) help is given to civilians in Yugoslavia who might have been exposed to contamination by the radioactive dust left by depleted uranium munitions. [99719]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are not aware of any civilians in Yugoslavia who might have been exposed to contamination by the radioactive dust left by depleted uranium munitions.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what protection and advice is provided for British ordnance officers engaged in dealing with depleted uranium munitions in Yugoslavia. [99718]

  Mr. Spellar
  No British personnel are currently engaged in dealing with depleted uranium munitions in Yugoslavia. However, as a precaution, Service personnel are given appropriate guidance during Kosovo pre-deployment training.

  Civilian Posts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many posts have been civilianised in the Directorate of Naval Resources during the last 12 months. [100290]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Arising from the reorganisation of the Central Staff, the Directorate of Naval Resources and Plans was formed on 2 August 1999 comprising elements of the Directorate of Resources and Programmes (Navy), staffed by 17 civilian personnel, and the Directorate of Navy Plans, staffed by 18 military and four civilian personnel. The new Directorate has 20 staff, 11 military and nine civilian personnel overall. One military post was civilianised as the new organisation was formed.

  Defence Estates Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed at the Defence Estates Agency HQ at Sutton Coldfield. [100289]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The number of Defence Estates staff employed at Sutton Coldfield as of 1 December 1999 is 392, consisting of 162 Head Office staff and 230 Central Business Unit staff.

  Project Capital
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of work put out to consultants working on Project Capital in each of the last three years. [100285]

  Mr. Spellar
  PricewaterhouseCoopers were appointed the Project Capital Accounting System Integrators in 1996. As such, they act as project managers, systems developers, implementers and advisers.

  Total payments made on these activities over the last three years were as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  10,725,000

  1997–98

  28,242,000

  1998–99

  40,279,000

  Income Support
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances service men in HM forces may receive Income Support. [100336]

  Mr. Spellar
  Service personnel are eligible to receive social security benefits paid by the DSS on the same basis as civilians. It is, however, unlikely that any service personnel would be eligible for Income Support, given the qualifying criterion requiring a claimant to be working for less than 16 hours per week.

  Type-45 Destroyers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first vessel of the Type-45 destroyer programme will be delivered; and when he expects the last one to be completed. [100757]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  On current plans, the first Type-45 destroyer will enter into service with the Royal Navy in 2007 and we expect that the last will enter service in 2014.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many, and what kind of, strike aircraft were redirected from combat air patrols to offensive operations as a result of the deployment of the HMS Invincible Task Group to the Kosovo theatre of operations. [98564]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: The Sea Harriers based aboard HMS Invincible conducted 102 combat air patrols. As a result, it was possible for multi-role aircraft which might otherwise have been tasked with such duties to be switched to alternative missions. Given the size and complexity of the operation, however, it is not possible to quantify precisely how many aircraft and planned missions were directly affected in this way.

  St. Malo Declaration
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the discussions taking place, and the countries concerned, regarding the St. Malo declaration. [100835]

  Mr. Hoon
  At St. Malo in December 1998, the UK and France launched a major initiative aimed at building European security and defence. In conjunction with the member states of the European Union, NATO and the Western European Union, we are continuing to make good progress both in defining the improvements in capabilities needed and the necessary consultation and decision-making arrangements for responding to crises. The UK and France made a joint declaration on 25 November calling for a further decisive step to be taken at the Helsinki European Council on 10–11 December.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a minister from his Department last visited RAF Menwith Hill. [101132]
  343W
  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1 May 1997, no Minister of this Department has visited RAF Menwith Hill.

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are under way through the Common Foreign and Security Policy consequential to the Cologne Summit to(a) modify and (b) unify European capabilities in (i) intelligence, (ii) strategic transport, (iii) command and control and (iv) defence industries; and if he will make a statement. [100999]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are committed to strengthening Europe's military capabilities such that European nations are able to assemble, deploy rapidly and sustain the right mix of armed forces for specific NATO or EU-led operations.

  We believe that European nations, co-operating together, should be able to undertake the most demanding crisis management operations up to Corps level. At the UK/French Summit in November 1999, we called on European member states to commit themselves to this goal at the Helsinki European Council. Additionally, we called for capability goals to be set and established in the fields of command and control, intelligence and strategic lift, and announced some bilateral measures to enhance our capabilities in these areas.

  We also reaffirmed our conviction that strengthened European defence capabilities need to be supported by a strong and competitive European defence industry and technology.

  Further discussions on these issues will be held by the EU Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Helsinki on 10–11 December.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future membership and remit of the(a) political and security and (b) military committees, established at the Cologne summit. [101001]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Cologne European Council, Heads of State and Government approved a report by the German Presidency which noted that, to support defence decision making, the EU might require a Political and Security Committee and a Military Committee.

  The membership and role of these bodies will be discussed by the EU Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Helsinki on 10–11 December.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the establishment of an EU (i) situation centre, (ii) satellite centre and (iii) Institute for Security Studies, with reference to(a) function, (b) budget and (c) security clearance rating. [101002]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Cologne European Council, Heads of State and Government approved a report by the German Presidency which noted that, to support defence decision making, the EU might require a situation centre, a satellite centre and an Institute for Security Studies.
  344W
  Such bodies already exist under the auspices of the WEU. The future of these bodies, and of the relationship between the WEU and EU, will be further discussed by the EU Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Helsinki, on 10–11 December, and over the coming months.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the development of a central intelligence and analysis agency for the EU consequential to the Cologne Summit. [101105]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are committed to strengthening Europe's military capabilities so that European nations are able to assemble, deploy rapidly and sustain the right mix of armed forces for specific NATO or EU-led operations.

  The EU must be able to draw on intelligence and analysis capabilities in order to undertake a crisis management operation. We are discussing with our Allies and Partners, both in NATO and in the European Union, the best way of achieving this.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the appropriate decision-making bodies referred to in section 2 of the Cologne Presidency report on Strengthening of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. [101000]

  Mr. Hoon
  The decision-making bodies referred to in section 2 of the Cologne Presidency Report are detailed in section 3 of the same Report.

  EU Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries have agreed to contribute to the European Union Rapid Reaction Force; and what each nation will make available in terms of(a) personnel, (b) logistics, (c) ships, (d) aircraft, (e) artillery, (f) main battle tanks, (g) other armoured vehicles and (h) intelligence and surveillance capability. [101101]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the UK units for tagged service within an EU framework, consequential to the Cologne Summit. [101104]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: At the recent UK/French Summit, we called on EU member states to commit themselves to being able to undertake, co-operating together, crisis management operations up to Corps level. In particular, this will mean developing the capabilities of existing national forces, from which such a deployment could be drawn case-by-case for specific NATO or EU operations. We are not creating a standing European Rapid Reaction Force.

  This proposal will be discussed by EU Heads of State and Government at the European Council in Helsinki on 10–11 December. EU member states have not identified any national contributions that might be made available for EU-led operations if they agree this aim.

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems have been identified with the cooking facilities and supply of hot water on HMS Ocean. [100879]
  345W
  Mr. Spellar
  No significant problems have been identified with the cooking facilities or supply of hot water on HMS Ocean.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects HMS Ocean to be in full working order; and if he will make a statement. [100878]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Ocean has been in operational service since 12 March 1999. While the ship has experienced some equipment difficulties, this is not unexpected in the early period of operational life. The Department, the shipbuilder and the equipment manufacturers are working together to improve reliability. This ship has met her busy operational programme.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of repairs and alterations to HMS Ocean carried out since she was handed over to his Department. [100880]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not readily available and I will write to the hon. Member. A copy of my reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Naval Training Establishments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for the future of(a) HMS Collingwood, (b) HMS Centurion, (c) HMS Dryad and (d) HMS Sultan; and if he will make a statement. [100876]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has no plans which might affect HMS Collingwood, HMS Dryad, HMS Sultan and the Centurion site in the immediate future. With specific regard to Collingwood, Dryad and Sultan, these Naval training establishments form part of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency, whose Chief Executive is under a constant remit to review his estate usage to ensure efficiency targets are achieved. Accordingly, the Chief Executive has commissioned an internal strategic review to develop a number of innovative, imaginative, and far reaching options for the future of naval training and to propose the size and shape of the Agency for the future. In Portsmouth, HMS Collingwood, HMS Sultan, HMS Dryad and HMS Excellent are all being considered as part of this review.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent in each of the last three years on(a) HMS Collingwood, (b) HMS Centurion, (c) HMS Dryad and (d) HMS Sultan; and if he will make a statement. [100877]

  Mr. Spellar
  The amount of money spent on HMS Dryad, HMS Collingwood and HMS Sultan over the last three years is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial Year 1996–97

  Financial Year 1997–98

  Financial Year 1998–99

  HMS

  Collingwood

  27.395

  27.472

  26.978

  HMS Dryad

  23.402

  22.255

  23.632

  HMS Sultan

  40.350

  35.404

  36.460

  346W
  These figures are the final cash outturn figures and include the cost of maintaining the buildings and equipment, major capital works (detailed separately), Service manpower costs and civilian manpower costs.

  The following sums were spent on major capital works:

  £ million

  Financial Year 1996–97

  Financial Year 1997–98

  Financial Year 1998–99

  HMS

  Collingwood

  0.183

  0.614

  1.235

  HMS Dryad

  1.063

  0.578

  0.581

  HMS Sultan

  2.259

  0.448

  0.122

  Centurion Building was transferred under a full repairing and insuring lease on 1 January 1998 to Electronic Data Systems (EDS) Defence Limited, as part of a PFI contract. The MOD has not incurred any direct costs arising from maintenance or alterations to this building since that time.

  TAVR (Solihull)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report progress on the securing of new premises for the sea, army and air cadets who parade at the TAVR centre in Haslucks Green Road in Shirley, Solihull. [101062]

  Mr. Spellar
  An alternative site nearby has been identified for the Army Cadet Force, Air Training Corps and Sea Cadet Corps detachments currently based at the Territorial Army Centre, Haslucks Green Road, Shirley. A joint facility will be constructed on this site for the Army Cadet Force and the Air Training Corps and a separate facility on the same site will be constructed for the Sea Cadet Corps. It is hoped that the new accommodation for the cadets will be completed by April 2001, and I can confirm that all three units will continue to parade at their present location until then. The Secretary of the West Midlands Reserve Forces and Cadets Association will continue to keep the hon. Member informed of progress on this matter.

  RAF Chinook Crash
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the continuing involvement of the Air Accident Investigation Branch in the 1994 RAF Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre. [101195]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Air Accidents Investigation Branch are available for consultation by my officials as the need arises.

  Air-to-air Missile Contract
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the contract for the Beyond Visual Range Air-to-air Missile; [101331]

  (2) what account he has taken of the use and sales abroad of the Eurofighter in determining his decision on supplying the contract for the Beyond Visual Range Air-to-air Missile. [101332]
  347W
  Mr. Hoon
  We are currently evaluating the Best and Final Offers we have received in response to the BVRAAM competition. The evaluation will take fully into account the implications for potential sales of Eurofighter of the different proposals received, together with all other relevant factors such as missile performance, cost, industrial impact and overall value for money.

  US Army Chinook
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library reports he has received from the United States authorities relating to the US Army Chinook CH-47 barrel roll incident in 1998. [101400]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. The information that we received from the US Army Authorities about the incident was provided in confidence. I am therefore withholding it under Exemption 1c (information received in confidence from foreign governments) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Salisbury Plain
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he or his officials have had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the extension of the Stonehenge World Heritage Site boundaries into the Salisbury Plain training area, including Robin Hood's Ball. [101399]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My officials have not had direct discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on the proposed extension of the World Heritage Site (WHS). However members of Defence Estate, Land Command and DCMS staff sit on various working groups run by English Heritage connected with the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS) Management and Master Plans. A number of these groups have considered the boundaries of the World Heritage Site.

  HMS Glasgow
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how long HMS Glasgow will continue with its current deployment as part of the UN mission in East Timor; [101297]

  (2) what role HMS Glasgow and her crew have played in the humanitarian effort in East Timor. [101296]

  Mr. Hoon
  HMS Glasgow sailed to East Timor on 18 September as part of the combined Task Group, and carried-out escort duties in the initial stages of the INTERFET deployment. She landed a working party to assist the Gurkhas with humanitarian aid tasks on 25 September. The ship's medical company also came ashore to assist in the setting up of a clinic. HMS Glasgow left East Timor on 30 September, and arrived home in Portsmouth on 10 November.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of sickness hours, per 348W
  officer, per month, among MOD police as a whole in each of the last 12 months. [101639]

  Mr. Spellar
  The average number of sickness hours per Ministry of Defence police per officer per month is shown in the following table:

  Month

  Hours

  November 1998

  10.1

  December 1998

  9.8

  January 1999

  10.4

  February 1999

  9.6

  March 1999

  10.1

  April 1999

  8.6

  May 1999

  8.5

  June 1999

  9.7

  July 1999

  10.0

  August 1999

  10.0

  September 1999

  10.2

  October 1999

  10.8

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average length of employment at AWE Aldermaston of MOD police officers whose service there ended in the last five years. [101640]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is held in files that have been archived and so I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House when it is available.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of MOD police at Aldermaston left their job(a) by retirement with immediate pension rights, (b) voluntarily, but without immediate pension rights and (c) compulsorily during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [101641]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Percentage of officers that left their job with immediate pension rights

  2.97

  3.56

  3.38

  Percentage of officers that left their job voluntarily but without immediate pension rights

  0

  1.98

  1.35

  Percentage of officers that left compulsorily

  0

  0

  0

  The figures do not include officers that were posted away from AWE Aldermaston to other MOD police stations.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of Meat Hygiene Service charges. [101638]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  On 1 December, the Government announced that Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) hygiene inspection charges for the whole of 1999–2000 would be held at the levels set for 1998–99. This will result in a
  349W
  saving to the meat industry of some £7 million in charges in 1999–2000. The Government have also given a commitment that the rates of MHS hygiene inspection charges in 2000–02 should not rise by more than the level of inflation above the levels charged in 1999–2000.

  This will bring benefits across the livestock industry and demonstrates the Government's commitment to helping the sector through its present difficulties.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100148]

  Ms Quin
  The number of research projects placed since May 1997 is 1,317. The total value of these projects is approximately £254 million. Detailed information is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Written agreements, contracts or memoranda of understanding cover all projects. The Department's policy is to encourage its contractors to make the results of research available to the public, to industry, and the wider research community, including through peer-reviewed scientific papers and a range of other routes. The Ministry's approach is that information should be released, save where disclosure would not be in the public interest. We publish details of MAFF-sponsored R & D projects on our website (www.maff.gov.uk) and copies of scientific reports are normally available on request. Overall policy on the release of Government information is set out in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. There is no requirement that contractors incorporate departmental amendments to their research results though final reports are sometimes discussed with contractors as necessary.

  BSE
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE have been confirmed in each of the last 12 months(a) in each of the Government office regions and (b) in total. [99845]

  Ms Quin
  The following table gives figures for confirmed BSE cases by month of confirmation for the last 12 months for the State Veterinary Service (SVS) regions in England together with the regional totals. For Scotland and Wales, figures are given to the end of June 1999. From 1 July 1999, provision of figures for those countries became the responsibility of the devolved administrations, so no further details or totals can be supplied.

  The total number of BSE cases confirmed in Great Britain for the year ended 31 October 1999 was 3,274.
  350W
  It must be noted that expressing cases by month of confirmation does not reflect the occurrence of disease at that particular time. The interval between slaughter of the suspect and confirmation of the disease may be six to eight weeks for routine cases, but could be considerably longer in cases where additional tests or further on-farm investigations are requested.

  The high number of confirmed cases in the first five months of 1999 is a consequence of accelerated diagnosis in order to provide material for an EU research project. Many of these would have been confirmed in April or May under normal procedures.

  Number of BSE cases confirmed in each region by month of confirmation from November 1998 to October 1999

  Month

  East

  West

  North

  Scotland

  Wales

  1998

  November

  127

  237

  175

  11

  44

  December

  47

  109

  58

  6

  13

  1999

  January

  75

  125

  91

  15

  21

  February

  78

  124

  76

  4

  15

  March

  108

  160

  112

  7

  31

  April

  49

  81

  64

  6

  15

  May

  58

  91

  40

  3

  17

  June

  43

  82

  48

  3

  15

  July

  48

  66

  52

  —

  —

  August

  35

  80

  45

  —

  —

  September

  50

  97

  63

  —

  —

  October

  61

  77

  54

  —

  —

  Total

  779

  1,329

  878

  —

  —

  Meat Labelling
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations to the European Commission calling for French and Belgian beef imports to be labelled with the country of origin as a guide to consumers. [99753]

  Ms Quin
  The European Commission has recently put forward proposals for an EU scheme for compulsory origin labelling of beef. These are under discussion with European partners. In principle, compulsory labelling of beef will benefit consumers but will have a cost implication for the supply chain. The Government will consider the UK position on the proposals in the light of negotiations, but in principle we see advantages in labelling.

  GM Varieties
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to use his powers to revoke any national list entries in respect of GM varieties as a result of the farm-scale GM evaluations; [99986]
  (2) what estimate he has made of the compensatory payments to which maintainers of GM varieties on the national list may be entitled upon revocation of their listing after farm-scale evaluations. [99987]

  Ms Quin
  There are no genetically modified plant varieties on the UK National List at present, so the questions do not arise.

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of food surpluses in storage in each member state of the European Union, broken down by country and quantity involved. [100836]

  Cereals 21.11.1999

  Beef 31.7.1999

  SMP 25.11.1999

  Butter 25.11.1999

  Olive Oil 11.10.1999

  Wine (hectolitres) 31.10.1999

  Belgium

  131,924

  147

  6,392

  2,000

  —

  —

  Denmark

  255,035

  1,023

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Germany

  6,059,985

  117,727

  35,849

  7,953

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,974

  3,994

  Spain

  703,246

  17,126

  1,150

  11,781

  10,876

  524,799

  Ireland

  35,551

  26,690

  63,751

  13,908

  —

  —

  France

  4,487,758

  46,811

  2,276

  —

  —

  433,106

  Italy

  15,998

  6,407

  —

  3,200

  2,591

  957,482

  Luxembourg

  5,275

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  836

  10,913

  —

  —

  —

  Austria

  16,623

  4,024

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  434

  —

  3,364

  —

  48,000

  Finland

  41,297

  —

  2,212

  1,368

  —

  —

  Sweden

  250,352

  —

  11,643

  —

  —

  —

  UK

  395,502

  50,154

  64,765

  6,870

  —

  —

  Totals

  12,398,546

  271,377

  199,401

  50,444

  25,441

  1,967,381

  French Turkeys
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if a Government health warning will be issued on the risk of E. Coli and salmonella poisoning from eating French turkeys without adequate precautions. [101078]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The risk of food poisoning from poultry can be avoided by observing the simple rules of food hygiene, in accordance with on-going Government advice. We have no evidence to indicate that turkeys from France pose any greater risk than turkeys from elsewhere.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity of turkey meat has been imported from France in each of the past three years; and what is the estimate for 1999. [101075]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: Official Overseas Trade Statistics show that UK imports of turkey carcase meat, offal and meat and offal preparations from France during 1996–98 and January to August 1999 were as shown in the table.

  Tonnes

  Turkey imports from France

  1996

  1997

  1998

  11999

  Carcase meat (whole birds and cuts)

  27,370

  25,453

  19,175

  7,766

  Meat and offal preparations

  384

  747

  746

  407

  Offal

  161

  389

  196

  120

  Total

  27,915

  26,588

  20,117

  8,293

  1 January-August

  It is not possible to make an accurate forecast of 1999 imports, since the September to December period accounts for a major, but not constant, proportion of annual imports (over 60 per cent. in 1998). However,
  352W
  Ms Quin
  The latest figures where available, for intervention stocks for each member state, are broken down as follows (figures quoted in tonnes unless otherwise stated):

  overall turkey imports from France during January to August 1999 were nearly 5 per cent. higher than for the same period in 1998.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are made on the welfare standards of turkeys imported from France. [101077]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: It is for the French authorities to check the welfare standards under which turkeys are reared in France against any relevant standards set by French law. The welfare of turkeys and all animals during transport is protected by the requirements of Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EEC. This Directive is implemented in Great Britain by the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 and enforced by local authorities.

  Pig Farmers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the EU on measures to offer price or income support to British pig farmers. [101068]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: None, as direct payments and similar supports to producers are not part of the CAP pigmeat regime. However, we have pressed the European Commission to reopen the aids to private storage of pigmeat scheme and to reinstate special refunds on exports of fresh and frozen pig carcases and cuts to Russia. Officials in the Department have also discussed with the European Commission the costs faced by British pig producers because of BSE and the possibility of introducing a pig offal disposal scheme.

  Zinc Bacitracin
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the effect of
  353W
  the suspension of the use of zinc bacitracin in animal feed on the incidence of necrotic enteritis and choloangiohepatitis in poultry. [98445]

  Ms Quin
  There are three authorised antimicrobial growth promoters still available for use in poultry production, with similar effects on the gut flora of poultry to that of bacitracin. Necrotic enteritis and choloangiohepatitis are not notifiable diseases and therefore statistics on their incidence cannot be provided.

  Farm-based Tourism
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has(a) initiated and (b) received concerning the obstacles to developing farm-based tourism; what action he is taking as a result of these studies; and what funds are available to him to support such action. [100271]

  Mr. Morley
  No such studies have been initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Government's Tourism Strategy "Tomorrow's Tourism", launched earlier this year, recognises tourism's role in maintaining the viability of farm businesses. The European Council Rural Development Regulation (1257/1999), which applies from 2000, enables member states to support projects to encourage tourist and craft activities, among other things. A decision on the implementation of the Regulation will be made shortly. Schemes to provide advice and support for those farmers contemplating farm-based tourism have been supported through Objective 5b Schemes. These close at the end of the year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Minister for Youth
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government will appoint a Minister for Youth. [99468]

  The Prime Minister
  While I keep ministerial responsibilities under regular review, I have no current plans to do so. Ministers in several Departments have responsibilities in this area, and work together on cross-departmental policies for young people.

  Royal Gifts
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the gifts received by Her Majesty the Queen and registered as Government property since 1969. [100327]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 23 January 1998, Official Report, column 722W.

  Representation of the People Bill
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Home Office has been given an exemption from his instruction to all Departments to undertake and publish a regulatory impact study of the financial and other effects of all proposed Government legislation, with particular reference to the Representation of the People Bill. [100676]
  354W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: No. A regulatory impact statement relating to the Representation of the People Bill was placed in the Library on 18 November to coincide with the Bill's introduction.

  Gold Reserves
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 24 November 1999,Official Report, columns 613–14, who gave the advice to him and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which he referred and which led them to instruct the Bank of England to sell more than half of Britain's gold reserves. [100523]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: The Bank of England provided technical advice on the portfolio risks associated with gold and other assets, and the various techniques for selling gold.

  Cologne Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the exchanges held with the President of the European Parliament at the Cologne Council. [101018]

  The Prime Minister
  The then President of the European Parliament, Jose Maria Gil-Robles, addressed the first session of the Cologne European Council, setting out the European Parliament's views on the main issues for discussion.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the form of changes required in work organisation and working time for the creation of jobs, as stated in section 10 of the Presidency Conclusions of the Cologne Summit. [101022]

  The Prime Minister
  The Presidency Conclusions of the Cologne European Council"invited the Commission and the member states to examine whether and how to … make changes in work organisation and working time help generate new jobs",
  as well as examining other areas. The Finnish Presidency held a conference on working time and work organisation in Helsinki on 11–12 October.

  The Government believe that companies themselves are best placed to achieve changes in the organisation of work within the framework of minimum standards established by Government. The Government support fair minimum standards on working time, but we do not believe that there is a fixed amount of work in the economy and, therefore, do not consider that reducing working time for individuals will increase employment as a whole.

  The Government are promoting a family friendly employment rights agenda which will help both women and men to combine work with family commitments. In turn, this will help employers to attract a diverse range of people who can fit the different working patterns required for the modern economy.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister when the European Council will release to the public, pursuant to section 36 of the Cologne Presidency Conclusions, a report on global year 2000 preventative measures. [101014]
  355W
  The Prime Minister
  As a result of the Cologne European Council the European Commission set up a High Level Working Group to look at cross border Y2K issues. The group has met regularly and has discussed a wide range of issues. The Commission issued a report on 26 November (COM 1999 639 final), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister in connection (1) with what areas the Government expects extension of qualified majority voting will be raised during the forthcoming intergovernmental conference; and what is his Government's policy thereon; [101024]

  (2) in what areas the Government support an extension of qualified majority voting at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. [101025]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 November 1999,Official Report, column 486W.

  European Employment Pact
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures are planned under the three pillars of the European Employment Pact; if Parliament will be consulted; and what budget lines and finances will be available. [101019]

  The Prime Minister
  The European Employment Pact agreed at the Cologne European Council on 3–4 June 1999 brought together three processes. Two of these were the existing Luxembourg employment process and the Cardiff economic reform process. The third, new element was the macro-economic dialogue, termed the "Cologne process". The dialogue takes place biannually among social partners and fiscal and employment policy makers from existing institutions and considers the interaction between economic and employment policies.

  All elements of the Pact are subject to the usual Parliamentary Scrutiny procedures. The Pact is an amalgam of three processes and therefore there are no new budget lines.

  "Youth and Europe—Our Future"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his Government's policy towards developing EU action, pursuant to the memorandum, "Youth and Europe—Our Future"; and what type of projects are envisaged. [101020]

  The Prime Minister
  The memorandum "Youth and Europe—Our Future" was produced during the German Presidency of the Council of Ministers. It described a number of measures which, in the Presidency's view, would contribute to increasing the employability of young people in Europe. The Government welcomed this initiative and would consider on their merits any proposals for EU action that the European Commission or members states might put forward.

  Downing Street Discussions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names of those present at the discussions at No. 10 Downing street on the evening of 21 October 1997. [101207]
  356W
  The Prime Minister
  As with previous Governments, it is not my practice to provide details of private meetings.

  Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of servicing the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee in the last year for which figures are available. [101211]

  The Prime Minister
  No separate costs for the servicing of the Joint Consultative Committee are identified.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what rules of confidentiality apply to non-ministerial members of the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee concerning discussions in that forum. [101213]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 485W.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister who sits on the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee. [101210]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on 21 October 1998,Official Report, columns 1123–35W.

  EU Commissioners
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the timetable for the handover of Commissioner portfolios from the temporary incumbents. [101017]

  The Prime Minister
  The new Commission was sworn in on 17 September.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the review of the Social Exclusion Unit; and if he will make a statement. [101681]

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister what reviews have taken place of the work of the Social Exclusion unit since its inception; and what decisions have been taken on the long-term future of the unit. [100696]

  The Prime Minister
  I established the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) in December 1997. Its remit is to help improve Government action to reduce social exclusion by producing"joined up solutions to joined up problems".

  Most of its work is on specific projects, chosen by me following consultation with other Ministers and suggestions from interested groups.

  Since its inception, the unit has focused on the following priorities: truancy and school exclusion, rough sleeping, poor neighbourhoods, teenage pregnancy and 16–18-year-olds not in employment, education or training. The unit has reported to me on each, with a full analysis

  357W
  of the problem and concrete recommendations for action, all of which I have accepted. These are now Government policy and are being implemented.

  I announced in December 1998 that, as the unit was set up on a time-limited basis, its success would be reviewed in the summer 1999, and a decision announced about its longer term future and work programme.

  During the summer, this review was undertaken by KPMG, working with members of the SEU. The review took evidence and opinions in writing and face to face with a large number of individuals and organisations with an interest in the work of the unit. The review has now reported to me and the full review report will be published to coincide with this announcement.

  The consultation showed that there is overwhelming support for the continued existence of the SEU, and a widespread belief that it has been a success in terms of operation and its effect on wider Government policy, although it is too early to judge the impact of the SEU on the ground.

  In particular, the quality of the unit's reports was considered exceptional and its working practices, with a mix of civil service and external staff, was seen as a strength. The approach could be used more widely across the whole of Government. It is also clear that the unit's work has done much to raise the profile of social exclusion as a policy issue within and outside Government.

  It is clear from both from the quality of the unit's work and its impact so far that there is a role for it to play for some years to come. I have therefore decided that it will continue in existence, and be reviewed again at the end of 2002.

  In the short term, I have set the unit the following new priorities as a result of this review. They are:
  to complete the current programme of work to develop the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal, including oversight of the work of the 18 policy action teams. The unit will be closely involved in establishing the arrangements for implementation of the strategy after it is announced in the summer of 2000;
  to work closely with HM Treasury and other Government Departments to ensure that the 2000 spending review reflects the priority the Government gives to tackling poverty and social exclusion; and
  to bolster the arrangements for monitoring implementation of past reports. I have asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office to chair the Ministerial Network on Social Exclusion, which will be given a new remit to chase progress across Government on implementation of past SEU reports, as well as acting as an informal sounding board for the unit's future work programme. I have also expanded the Network's membership to enable it to meet this new remit.

  The membership of the Ministerial Network is:
  Mo Mowlam (chair), Cabinet Office
  Wendy Alexander MSP, The Scottish Executive, Development Department
  Hilary Armstrong, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
  Paul Boateng, Home Office
  Yvette Cooper, Department of Health
  358W
  Lord Falconer, Cabinet Office
  Patricia Hewitt, Department of Trade and Industry
  Kate Hoey, Department for Culture, Media and Sport
  Jane Hutt AM, National Assembly for Wales, Health and Social Services
  Estelle Morris, Department for Education and Employment
  Jeff Rooker, Department of Social Security
  Andrew Smith, HM Treasury
  Baroness Blackstone, Department for Education and Employment

  Arrangements for Network representation from Northern Ireland will be announced shortly.

  I will announce a new work programme for the unit in the summer of 2000, once it has finished its current project to develop the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal.

  The full review report will be placed in the Library and on the SEU website.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Restraining Equipment
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department takes the United Nations' Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners into account before granting export licences for oversize cuffs, jumbo cuffs and other restraining equipment. [98542]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 23 November 1999, Official Report, columns 84–85W.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total number of jobs(a) created and (b) safeguarded by inward investment projects in the areas covered by each of the Government Offices for the Regions in each year since 1996. [100463]

  Mr. Caborn
  The figures in the table are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies' best estimate, at that time, of the number of jobs to be created/safeguarded by the investment in its first three years.

  There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where the Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, the relevant Regional Development Agency in England or the Government Office were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Region

  Number of projects

  Total new jobs

  Total safe jobs

  Total associated jobs

  1996–97

  East

  9

  925

  470

  1,395

  East Midlands

  23

  1,343

  4,770

  6,113

  London

  40

  2,711

  1,205

  3,916

  North East

  46

  3,089

  4,529

  7,618

  359W

  Region

  Number of projects

  Total new jobs

  Total safe jobs

  Total associated jobs

  North West

  46

  1,556

  3,032

  4,588

  South East

  46

  3,775

  2,756

  6,531

  South West

  30

  2,504

  8,922

  11,232

  West

  Midlands

  76

  4,350

  15,351

  19,701

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  36

  1,887

  3,503

  5,390

  Total

  306

  22,140

  44,538

  33,378

  1997–98

  East

  33

  935

  17,744

  18,679

  East Midlands

  18

  1,686

  758

  2,444

  London

  62

  2,898

  444

  3,342

  North East

  47

  2,649

  9,890

  12,539

  North West

  71

  4,944

  7,277

  12,221

  South East

  57

  5,534

  7,482

  13,016

  South West

  40

  3,205

  1,735

  4,940

  UK

  3

  175

  0

  175

  West

  Midlands

  81

  5,641

  12,546

  18,187

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  65

  2,874

  15,131

  18,005

  Total

  477

  30,541

  73,007

  103,548

  1998–99

  East

  41

  1,411

  2,575

  3,986

  East Midlands

  19

  2,096

  730

  2,826

  London

  100

  4,025

  1,796

  5,821

  North East

  35

  2,304

  6,953

  9,257

  North West

  66

  3,249

  9,123

  12,372

  South East

  74

  4,597

  13,957

  18,554

  South West

  34

  7,908

  1,417

  4,423

  UK

  2

  50

  5,800

  5,850

  West

  Midlands

  71

  5,478

  9,323

  14,801

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  84

  3,543

  18,372

  21,915

  Total

  526

  34,661

  70,046

  104,707

  Government Offices for the Regions
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed at each of the Government Offices for the Regions; and what are their annual administration costs. [100465]

  Mr. Caborn
  The number of staff in post in each Government Office at 1 November 1999 and their administrative costs for the 1998–99 financial year are as follows:

  Staff

  Administrative costs (£000)

  South East

  245

  8,561

  South West

  213

  6,985

  London

  378

  13,238

  North East

  254

  8,619

  North West

  407

  13,702

  East Midlands

  229

  6,754

  360W

  Staff

  Administrative costs (£000)

  West Midlands

  268

  9,474

  East of England

  190

  6,269

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  266

  8,684

  Post Offices
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices were closed or relocated in(a) the Vale of Glamorgan and (b) Wales in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [100475]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of post offices closed or relocated in Wales since 1997 are as follows:

  Closed

  Relocated

  1997

  23

  12

  1998

  27

  8

  1999 to date

  24

  1

  The Post Office tell me that they do not hold such information on a Parliamentary constituency basis.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates have been made of the financial costs to Her Majesty's Government of promoting or providing financial cover for arms exports for the current financial year. [100581]

  Mr. Caborn
  No specific estimate is made for defence claims however £400.8 million is included in our published estimates this financial year to cover all claims payments.

  All claims are recoverable. Authorised claims during the financial year to end September 1999 amount to £128.7 million of which £59.9 million are defence related.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by how much the resources of the Small Business Service will be reduced as a result of his decision not to establish a payroll service as an integral part of the Small Business Service. [100739]

  Ms Hewitt
  The level of resources for the Small Business Service will be considered over the next few months.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the advice given to the Small Businesses Service on how to enhance co-operative forms and businesses and small enterprise. [101070]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: There is no separate advice specifically for co-operatives. The

  361W
  Small Business Service, through the network of Business Link franchises, will provide advice and business support services to help all types of small and medium-sized enterprises.

  WTO (China)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy towards the accession of China to the WTO, indicating the role accorded to human rights issues. [101107]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government will continue to support the European Commission's efforts to negotiate an agreement with China regarding the terms of its accession to the World Trade Organisation. We will be seeking to ensure that the Commission's approach to that negotiation continues to take into account the interests in the Chinese market of UK exporters and investors, both actual and potential, and maintains the integrity of the WTO as a multilateral system of rules agreed by and equally applicable to all members.

  The Government believe that a more liberal approach to international trade and membership of the World Trade Organisation will bring benefits to, and improve living standards in, the Chinese economy and that social, environmental and political improvements in China will follow as a result. The Government fully support China's accession on the terms outlined above and looks forward to her becoming a WTO member in the near future.

  EU-US Trade Relations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the form of the early warning system for the resolution of disputes under the Transatlantic Dialogue, referred to in section 84 of the Cologne Conclusions; and which institutions are involved in that dialogue. [101108]

  Mr. Caborn
  A joint statement on an early warning mechanism was agreed at the EU/US Summit in Bonn on 21 June 1999. Both sides underlined the need to identify, provide early warning of, and facilitate the resolution of, potential bilateral EU/US disputes. Any side may raise with the other any issue that might have an impact on EU/US relations. The two principal groups in which this dialogue and exchange of information takes place are the Transatlantic Economic Partnership Steering Group and the New Transatlantic Agenda Task Force. Co-ordinating this work, the Senior Level Group of officials reviews early-warning items in preparation for the six-monthly EU/US Summits. The Transatlantic Legislators' Business, Consumer, Environment and Labour Dialogues have also been invited to contribute to the process by identifying problems and offering proposals for resolution.

  ECGD
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of ECGD cover was made available to(a) the aerospace industry, (b) sales of military aircraft, (c) sales of defence-related equipment and (d) civil aircraft sales, in each of the last five years. [100509]
  362W
  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 1 December 1999]: The table lists by financial year the percentage of ECGD cover made available for each of the sectors requested.

  Business by Financial Year—Percentage split by type of business

  Percentage

  Military business

  Non-military business

  Aircraft

  Non-aircraft

  Aerospace

  Non-aerospace

  1994–95

  2.49

  18.33

  32.91

  46.27

  1995–96

  10.22

  12.49

  17.43

  59.86

  1996–97

  9.16

  6.50

  28.59

  55.75

  1997–98

  6.96

  16.22

  23.98

  52.84

  1998–99

  30.67

  20.74

  21.68

  26.91

  Note:

  Underlying business figures have been converted to Sterling equivalents at 31 October 1999 exchange rates.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was(a) the value of receipts to and (b) the value of payments from the ECGD in connection with aerospace projects for businesses receiving ECGD cover, in each of the last five financial years. [100508]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 1 December 1999]: The information requested is available only since 1996. The details are as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  (a)

  (b)

  1996–97

  26.9

  10.8

  1997–98

  58.8

  4.5

  1998–99

  38.0

  23.1

  1999–2000 to 30 September

  12.3

  55.5

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the value to the UK economy of the work of the ECGD over the last 10 years. [100510]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 1 December 1999]: No formal estimate of the value to the UK economy of ECGD's activities has been made in the last 10 years. However, since the privatisation of ECGD's short term business operations in 1991, the Department has facilitated approximately £30 billion of capital goods and project exports for UK exporters.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the ECGD's Annual Report and Trading Accounts for 1998–99. [101474]

  Mr. Byers
  The Report and Accounts were laid before the House this morning. I am pleased to say that they demonstrate once more that British exporters, with Government support, have been successful in winning valuable overseas orders, despite 1998–99 being a difficult period for the global economy. Furthermore, they show that ECGD's finances are in a very healthy position, which must be good news for their ability to support further business while protecting the interests of the taxpayer.

  Postage Rates (SMEs)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the
  363W
  costs to small and medium-sized business enterprises trading in Europe of the increase in letter postage rates from the United Kingdom to Europe over the last six months. [101189]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Changes to postage tariffs are primarily a matter for the Post Office in consultation with the Post Office Users' National Council (POUNC) to whom the Post Office is statutorily required to refer major proposals for comment. The proposals are formally notified to my Department at the same time as they are referred to POUNC. The increase was prompted by increasing handling costs and is in line with the agreement, set out in the European Postal Services Directive, that prices should be geared to costs. It is still one of the cheapest rates in Europe.

  Internet Shopping
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on small businesses of fraudulent Internet transactions. [101323]

  Ms Hewitt
  Encouraging small businesses to use the Internet is a key part of the Government's commitment to making the UK the best place for e-commerce by 2002. We will monitor closely issues such as Internet fraud which may affect them.

  The Government are working with the industry and consumers groups, in consultation with the OFT to develop a new body called TrustUK to accredit e-commerce codes and a "hallmark" that accredited codes may use on their websites. TrustUK will be operational by early next year.

  The Electronic Communications Bill promotes high quality cryptography services which will allow people to have more confidence about whom they are dealing with on the Internet and to protect the confidentiality of data (e.g. payment details). The Government welcome the proposals by the Alliance for Electronic Business to meet the objectives of Part I of the Bill and ensure the appropriate standards for such services through accreditation under its T-scheme.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice his Department has issued to consumers regarding security of financial details when shopping on the Internet. [101324]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has published general advice on its website (http://www2.dti.gov.uk/cacp/ca/supply2.htm) about the precautions consumers should take when they shop on-line. This includes checking that businesses offer secure payment facilities.

  DTI's Consumer Gateway (http://www.consumer.gov.uk) provides links to a range of consumer websites, including ones such as that run by the Office of Fair Trading, which offer detailed advice about shopping electronically.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have been reported to his Department for attempting to evade the national minimum wage. [101300]
  364W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Over 3,400 complaints of non-compliance have been received to date by the National Minimum Wage Helpline.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to uprate the national minimum wage annually; and if he will make a statement. [101480]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have no plans to uprate the national minimum wage annually. As with its introduction, any changes to the minimum wage rates will be made sensibly and taking account of the economic circumstances prevailing at the time.

SCOTLAND

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in maintained schools in Scotland in each year for each of the last 20 years. [98578]

  Dr. Reid
  The available information is given in the table. Education in Scotland is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Net current expenditure per pupil in local authority schools

  £

  Year

  Expenditure per pupil

  1979–80

  649

  1980–81

  838

  1981–82

  974

  1982–83

  1,069

  1983–84

  1,155

  1984–85

  1,223

  1985–86

  1,293

  1986–87

  1,426

  1987–88

  1,587

  1988–89

  1,753

  1989–90

  1,938

  1990–91

  2,098

  1991–92

  2,252

  1992–93

  2,385

  1993–94

  2,377

  1994–95

  2,421

  1995–96

  2,496

  1996–97

  2,510

  1997–981

  2,537

  1 Due to changes in funding arrangements for pre-school provision, the nursery component for 1997–98 includes an estimated expenditure element.

  Notes:

  1. The per pupil figure relates to nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  2. The figures are net current expenditure excluding costs of home to school transport, school meals, education authority central administration costs, and loan and leasing changes.

  3. Figures derived from local authority financial returns (LFR 1).

  Post Office
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the principal activities of his Department and its agencies which provide business for(a) Crown post offices and (b) other post offices; if he will assess

  365W
  whether the level of business generated in each case is likely to increase or decrease over the next five years; and which new areas of business for post offices are likely to be developed by his Department and its agencies over the same period. [99553]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Scotland Office currently has no activities which provide business for Crown or other post offices and I do not expect the position to change significantly over the next five years.

  No specific areas of new business for post offices are foreseen but the targets for electronic delivery of services (50 per cent. by 2005, 100 per cent. by 2008) represent a real opportunity for additional business for the Post Office network across all public services delivered by central or local Government.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been spent by his Department on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) his Department's programme provision and (ii) his Department's running costs. [99493]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 10 November 1999, Official Report, columns 626–27W. All expenditure by my Department on external consultants since May 1997 has been funded from running costs provision.

  Highlands and Islands
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his liaison role in respect of the future of oil fabrication in the Highlands and Islands. [101439]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am, of course, extremely concerned about the impact of the job losses announced by Barmac, and the situation faced by all UK oil fabrication yards. These are issues being addressed by the oil and Gas Industry Task Force, of which I am a member. As agreed at its meeting last week, plans are already under way for a group to meet as soon as possible to clarify how they can together best help the industry adapt to the changes in the market.

  This is being copied for information to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy).

  Barmac Oil
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the management and unions at the Barmac oil fabrication yards. [101438]

  Mr. Wilson
  I will be meeting representatives of the management and work force of Barmac later this week. The Government and the Scottish Executive will continue to work together closely to tackle the problems resulting from the lack of new construction orders for oil fabrication yards.

  This is being copied for information to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy).

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Clay Pigeon Shooting
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what Government funding is made available for research into(a) materials used and (b) safety procedures for clay pigeon shooting. [100667]

  Kate Hoey
  None. The Government have not been asked to fund any such research.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the breakdown is by region of the number of tickets to the Millennium Dome sold within the first eight weeks for which tickets were on sale. [99334]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: Ticket sales and reservations are running ahead of NMEC's expectations. They passed the one million mark on 10 November. In February 2000 NMEC will release information about attendance at the Dome during January, and on a monthly basis thereafter.

  Visitor Attractions
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people visited Britain's visitor attractions in 1998; and what is his estimate of the number of visitors in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [101159]

  Janet Anderson
  In 1998 there were 408 million visits to 6,164 tourist attractions across the UK.

  My Department has no figures or forecasts for the number of visits to tourist attractions in 1999 or 2000. The British Tourist Authority has forecast that the number of holidays taken in the UK (by domestic or overseas visitors) will be over 10 per cent. higher in 2000 than in 1998. This suggests that there will be a strong demand for tourist attractions in 2000.

  EU Recycling Directive
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what account he has taken of the EU Directive on Recycling in setting the terms of reference for his working party for the digital switch-over. [100863]

  Janet Anderson
  We have not set up a working party for digital switch-over, but we will be formally reviewing progress on availability and affordability of digital services every two years with industry, regulators and consumer groups. We expect many analogue television sets to be replaced by digital sets as part of the normal cycle of set replacement. Analogue sets need not be scrapped as they can be converted to digital by using a set top box.

  Museum Staff
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were employed in Britain's museums(a) in each of the past 20 years, (b) on 10 July 1997 and (c) on the most recent date available. [101312]
  367W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The most recent (1998) survey by the Digest of Museum Statistics (DOMUS) reports that 12,590 paid permanent staff (full-time equivalent), 2,775 paid temporary staff (full-time equivalent) and 25,506 volunteers were employed in 1,188 museums that responded to the survey. The 1997 DOMUS survey reported 11,245 paid permanent staff (full-time equivalent), 2,358 paid temporary staff (full-time equivalent) and 20,120 volunteers in 1,214 museums that responded to the survey. In July 1999 there were 1,761 museums with full or provisional registration. I am not aware of reliable or comparable figures that could be used to estimate the numbers over the previous 18 years.

WALES

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what motor mileage allowance rates his Department offers to(a) ministers and (b) civil servants using their own vehicles for official business; and what has been the cost of each in each of the last five years. [98714]

  Mr. Murphy
  Ministers travelling on official business may use a private car instead of an official car, and claim the mileage allowance in the same circumstances and on the same terms as civil servants in my Department, at the rates set out below:Cars with engine capacity up to 1500cc is 35p per mile for the first 4,000 miles in a year, and 20p per mile thereafter in that year.
  Cars with engine capacity between 1501cc-2000cc is 45p per mile for the first 4,000 miles in a year, and 25p per mile thereafter in that year.
  Cars with engine capacity over 2000cc is 48p per mile for the first 4,000 miles in a year, and 32p per mile thereafter in that year.
  A Public Transport Rate of 23.8p per mile is payable when a private car is used although there are more cost-effective modes of transport available.
  Figures are not available before financial year 1996–97. For the years since then there may be an unidentified mix of expenditure, but as nearly as can be determined the costs of motor mileage for Ministers and civil servants have been as follows:

  £

  Ministers

  Civil Servants

  For the Welsh Office

  1996–97

  9,555

  293,792

  1997–98

  5,252

  326,925

  1998–99

  9,424

  389,408

  1 April 1999–30 June 1999

  1,006

  112,269

  For the Wales Office, following devolution

  1 July 1999–20 November 1999

  575

  1,179

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent on civil servants' transport in each of the last two years. [98713]

  Mr. Murphy
  All travel undertaken by civil servants complies with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer provided by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 1 December 1999,Official Report, column 256W.
  368W
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent on ministerial transport in each of the last two years. [98712]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Ministers are required, under the terms of the 'Ministerial Code' and 'Travel by Ministers' to make efficient and cost effective travel arrangements. For information on spend on the Government Car Service, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 1 December 1999,Official Report, columns 255–256W.

  Post Office
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the principal activities of his Department and its agencies which provide business for(a) Crown post offices and (b) other post offices; if he will assess whether the level of business generated in each case is likely to increase or decrease over the next five years; and which new areas of business for post offices are likely to be developed by his Department and its agencies over the same period. [99552]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department uses the postal services for routine correspondence, but does not normally undertake any other activities which provide business for either Crown post offices or other post offices. It is not possible to assess whether levels of correspondence will either increase or decrease substantially over the next five years, and currently no specific new areas of business for post offices seem likely to be developed by my Department.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of households in Wales were workless at the latest date for which figures are available. [98494]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Labour Force Survey (Spring 1999) estimated the percentage of households in Wales of which no-one was in employment at 22 per cent.—based on households with at least one person of working age.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the locations in Wales where consent has been given for genetically modified crop planting. [100898]

  Mr. Hanson
  There were four applications to release Genetically Modified crops at sites in Wales in 1998, two at Whitehouse Farm, Newcastle, Monmouthshire and two at Great Cumberland Farm, Llanishen near Chepstow. Crops were sown at the former and harvested in September last year. At the other site, the farmer subsequently withdrew his application and no sowing took place.

  Since then there have been no further applications in Wales.

  Since May this year, applications for the release and marketing of GMOs in Wales are made to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100158]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The term "research" covers a wide range of activities from scientific and engineering research through to consultancies and public opinion surveys. The information requested is not held centrally by my Department, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new initiatives he intends to introduce to reduce the amount of fraud in claiming social security payments. [101418]

  Mr. Rooker
  We set out our strategy for combating fraud and reducing error in "Safeguarding Social Security", published on 23 March 1999. We are putting this strategy into practice with strong and sensible safeguards to ensure the right money goes to the right people. Among the new initiatives that carry this wish forward are the following:New more robust powers for fraud inspectors in The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill published on 1 December. These provisions give greater clarity and allow all benefit fraud investigations to proceed on the basis of common powers.
  All payments will move to automated credit transfer (ACT) from 2003 as a modern, more secure and efficient method of paying benefits. This will virtually eliminate "instrument of payment" fraud and enhance security over the life of a claim. This is expected to yield annual fraud savings of around £140 million.

  Project

  Start date

  Planned completion date

  Planned cost (£ million)

  IT projects in development stage

  DSS Year 2000 Programme10

  1 July 1997

  31 March 2000

  142.7

  Site Backbone Upgrade2,10

  November 1999

  June 2000

  5.8

  DSS Corporate Intranet

  June 1999

  March 2001

  31.2

  CSA Operations Re-organisation Project (ORP)

  May 1998

  31 March 2000

  23.4

  Decision Making and Appeals

  3 February 1998

  29 November 1999

  32

  Working Families Tax Credit

  1 April 1998

  22 February 2000

  47.7

  Data Protection/Freedom of Information Act(s)

  18 November 1998

  1 December 2001

  55.1

  Resource Accounting and Budgeting

  1 September 1998

  31 October 2000

  1.5

  Devolution (Scotland)

  1 April 1998

  31 March 2000

  2.8

  PSCS/INCAP—Changes to SDA (SDA Reform)

  11 January 1999

  1 April 2001

  3.5

  Disability Living Allowance Administrative Reforms

  20 April 1999

  8—

  70.1

  Order Book Control Service (OBCS)—National Rollout Project

  5 July 1999

  91 April 2005

  9.3

  IT projects in the planning stage

  HQ Stakeholder Pensions Project4, 10

  December 1998

  April 2001

  34

  Child Support Reforms New Rules Implementation5, 10

  January 1999

  2003

  6—

  Bereavement Benefits10

  1 January 1999

  30 April 2001

  17

  370W
  A regional radio campaign, from 1 November, costing some £500,000, with supporting adverts in local newspapers, to advertise the Benefit Fraud Hotline. This has led to thousands of extra calls to the Hotline.

  Industrial Injuries Policy Group
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he expects the Benefits Agency's Industrial Injuries Policy Group will offer guidance to the agency in respect of the aggregation of life gratuities once the seven year period has elapsed arising from the case law CI/522/93, CI/1698/97 and CI/4766/97; [101046]

  (2) on how many occasions and over what period of time the Benefits Agency's Industrial Injuries Policy Group has discussed guidance to be offered to the agency arising from case law CI/1522/93, CI/1698/97 and CI/4766/97. [101047]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are considering the implications of Commissioners' decisions CI/522/93, CI/1698/98 and CI/4766/97 which are about the aggregation of disablement assessments for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit which have been compensated by life gratuities. Once we have considered the decisions, the Benefits Agency will issue guidance to District Offices.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the information technology projects being undertaken by his Department and agencies responsible to his Department, including(a) the start date, (b) the planned completion date, (c) the current expected completion date, (d) the planned cost and (e) the current estimated cost; and if he will make a statement. [99628]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. The information that is available is in the table.

  The projects listed are those currently being undertaken by the Department where the IT cost exceeds £5 million. Also listed are lesser value projects with an IT content that are deemed to be critical to the Department's business.
  371W

  Project

  Start date

  Planned completion date

  Planned cost (£ million)

  Payment Modernisation Programme10

  21 May 1999

  31 December 2005

  240

  AMS(P) Pensions Forecasting Project

  19 January 1999

  31 March 2001

  20.1

  State Second Pension (S2P)

  1 December 1999

  30 April 2002

  25.5

  Jobseeker's Allowance—New Deal for Partners of the Unemployed

  1 October 1998

  1 April 2000

  6.4

  Strategic Debt Solution Project

  1 September 1999

  1 October 2000

  3.9

  IT procurement projects

  ACCORD IS/IT Supply Programme (Office and Networks)

  June 1999

  April 2000

  750+

  Associated projects

  ITSA Strategic Outsourcing Project

  12 October 1999

  2000

  6—

  1 The planned Departmental cost is now £43.2 million. This is within the cost tolerance set by Treasury at +/- 5 per cent. or £1 million.

  2 "Site backbone" is the name given to the network components, hardware and software which provide high-speed volume connections between individual elements of the Departmental sites and into the Wide Area Networks linking the sites.

  3 Business case not yet approved.

  4 While this Department is funding the project, the IT is being provided by the Inland Revenue contract with EDS and their contract with NIRS2.

  5 This is also a procurement project.

  6 Not yet quantifiable; business case currently under development.

  7 Business case not yet approved. Costs likely to be in excess of £50 million

  8 Ongoing—end date not known

  9 Latest

  10 "*" denotes projects with IT cost exceeding £5 million

  Social Security Helplines
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the social security helplines, with the number of calls received over the latest 12 month period. [99914]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Number of calls to social security helplines received during the period 1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999

  Enquiry line

  Number of calls

  Benefit Enquiry Line

  1,200,000

  CSA National Enquiry Line

  2,857,171

  DLA Helpline

  5,094,316

  Family Credit Helpline

  3,546,876

  Pensions Direct

  751,063

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit Information Helpline

  98,756

  Overseas Telephone Liaison

  1—

  Child Benefit Enquiry Line

  2,174,715

  War Pensions Helpline

  551,767

  Winter Fuel Helpline

  200,847

  CSA Client Helpline

  2,919,626

  Total

  19,395,137

  1Figure unavailable

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that local authorities carry out adequate checks on housing benefit claimants in order to reduce the amount of bogus claims. [101419]

  Mr. Rooker
  We inherited a flawed system which placed far too much emphasis on the detection of fraud once it had occurred. Working in partnership with local authorities, we are transforming the delivery of Housing Benefit by emphasising the importance of getting it right to begin with and keeping it right during the life of a claim.
  372W
  We are financing local authorities to focus on both the prevention and detection of fraud with the introduction of the Verification Framework. The Framework specifies the evidence which must be verified before a claim can be paid and sets out the checks which must be made during the life of a claim. We have made £100 million available to allow all local authorities to implement this important new initiative. So far, we have funded the implementation of the Framework in 223 local authorities. We want all local authorities to adopt the high standards set by the Framework and we have embarked on a programme to increase its take up, particularly among the highest spending authorities.

  From 6 September 1999, with the application of Section 19 of the Fraud Act, all new claims for Housing Benefit are subject to tough new identity checks to ensure that all claimants can be linked with the appropriate National Insurance number.

  As part of our strategy to ensure that local authorities have in place arrangements for the secure and accurate administration of Housing Benefit, we have instructed the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate to focus their attention on the 30 largest local authorities who between them account for almost a third of the total expenditure on Housing and Council Tax Benefit. These authorities will have been inspected or revisited by the summer of next year and a report will be published with recommendations on each authority which we will follow up. This will allow us to measure their progress in the fight against fraud.

  We have also made good progress in preventing the significant amount of fraud which occurs when fraudsters make false claims and then redirect benefit mail from addresses at which they are not resident. The Royal Mail Do Not Redirect scheme was introduced nationally from 1 February this year and will stop the redirection of appropriately marked benefit mail. To date, over 200 local authorities have taken up this initiative and we are aiming that all authorities will adopt this service.

  Poverty
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families were officially living in poverty(a) in each of the past 20 years, (b) on 1 May 1997 and (c) on the most recent date available. [101309]

  Mr. Bayley
  Poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of people's lives; their income, health, housing, the quality of the environment, opportunities to work and to learn. There is no single measure which can capture the complex problems which need to be overcome.

  We are determined to tackle the problems that condemn many individual and communities to poverty. That is why we set out our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion in our first annual report "Opportunity for all" (Cm 4445). The report includes a range of indicators that capture many of the aspects of poverty and social exclusion.

  Information on the indicators, including definitions and baseline data, was placed in the Library on 21 September to accompany "Opportunity for all". One of the indicators monitors the proportion of people living in low income households. Further information on low income statistics are published (annually in recent years) in Households Below Average Income (HBAI). The results can be found in the HBAI publication for the relevant year in the Library.

  Pensioner benefit units receiving Income Support (private households) Great Britain, (1987–99)

  Year

  IS pensioners

  Percentage

  Couples

  Percentage

  Single

  Percentage

  May 1988

  1,598,000

  19.5

  281,000

  7.8

  1,317,000

  28.5

  May 1989

  1,461,000

  17.7

  233,000

  6.4

  1,229,000

  26.5

  May 1990

  1,514,000

  18.2

  247,000

  6.5

  1,267,000

  27.9

  May 1991

  1,381,000

  16.5

  211,000

  5.5

  1,170,000

  25.7

  May 1992

  1,419,000

  17.0

  227,000

  5.9

  1,192,000

  26.5

  May 1993

  1,503,000

  17.6

  266,000

  6.7

  1,237,000

  27.1

  May 1994

  1,538,000

  18.3

  279,000

  7.2

  1,259,000

  27.8

  May 1995

  1,555,000

  18.6

  284,000

  7.2

  1,272,000

  28.5

  May 1996

  1,533,000

  18.3

  279,000

  7.1

  1,254,000

  28.5

  May 1997

  1,486,000

  17.5

  263,000

  6.5

  1,223,000

  27.5

  May 1998

  1,433,000

  n/a

  251,000

  n/a

  1,182,000

  n/a

  May 1999

  1,405,000

  n/a

  244,000

  n/a

  1,161,000

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Pensioner benefit units in private households exclude claimants in Residential care and Nursing Homes.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand, percentages given to one decimal place.

  3. Figures refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or couple.

  4. Income Support for the unemployed was replaced by Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance from October 1996. Income Support figures from 1997 exclude unemployed.

  5. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where either the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  6. Income Support figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample up to 1993 and a 5 per cent. sample thereafter.

  7. All Percentages are Income Support benefit units expressed as a proportion of all pensioner benefit units (private households).

  8. The percentages quoted are based on pensioner benefit units estimates for Great Britain private households taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) for 1993–94 to 1997–98 and the Family Expenditure Survey HBAI datasets from 1988 to 1992.

  9. FRS estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  10. Details of all pensioner benefit units are not yet available for 1999 therefore no percentage is given for this year.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries, May 1987-May 1993.

  2. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1994-May 1999.

  3. Family Resources Survey.

  4. Family Expenditure Survey HBAI datasets from 1988 to 1992.

  Benefit Payments (Post Offices)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received about the impact of changes in the way social security benefits are paid on the viability of post offices; [101376]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the impact of changes in the way social security benefits are paid on the viability of post offices. [101374]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received a number of such representations. Ministers and officials in this Department have had a number of discussions with their counterparts in the Department of Trade and Industry about the planned move to automated credit transfer for the payment of benefits.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the number and (b) the percentage of pensioner benefit units receiving income support in each of the last 10 years; if he will provide his estimate for the remainder of the public expenditure planning period; and if he will provide separate figures for single and married pensioners. [101079]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
  375W

  Forecasts for Income Support pensioner benefit units 1999–2000–2001–02

  Pensioners (thousand)

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Singles

  1,151

  1,144

  1,119

  Couples

  242

  238

  231

  Total

  1,393

  1,382

  1,350

  Note:

  Information on the population of pensioner households in the period 2000–02 is not available, therefore we are unable to provide an estimate of the percentage of Income Support pensioner benefit units for this period.

  Source:

  PBR Forecasts November 1999 based on data up to May 1999.

  CSA Reform
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral statement of 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 5, if he will list the pieces of information which are currently required in order to assess liability for child maintenance; and if he will identify which of these will be required under his proposed reforms. [101036]

  Angela Eagle
  The current child support formula requires a wide range of information to be obtained, not only about the financial and family circumstances of the parents involved but also about their new partners. This can include details of their income from earnings, benefits or other sources, housing costs (such as mortgages, rent, service charges, council tax, home improvement loans, property and loan insurance), travel to work costs and clean break property settlements.

  The new child support rates will require information to be obtained only about the non-resident parent's income and the number of children for whom he is responsible. The definition of what is to count as income will also be considerably simplified as set out in Annexe Two of the White Paper "Children's Rights and Parent's Responsibilities" (Cm. 4349) published on 1 July 1999.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his written answer of 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 51W if the proposed amendment to Section 6(1) of the Child Support Act 1991 will apply in cases where a claim for income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance proves to be fraudulent. [101130]

  Angela Eagle
  As now section 6(1) of the 1991 Act will apply where a parent with care claims or is paid Income Support or income based Jobseeker's Allowance. If the payment of benefit subsequently turns out to have been fraudulent, section 6(1) will only cease to apply when payments stop.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Car Theft
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the number of car thefts; and if he will make a statement. [99698]
  376W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On 22 September, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched the Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team strategy document. That strategy is intended to deliver the Government's 30 per cent. vehicle crime reduction target by the end of March 2004.

  Police (Crime Prevention)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage an increase in the proportion of time spent by police officers on fighting crime. [99701]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The deployment of police officers is the operational responsibility of Chief Constables. However, the introduction of best value into the police service from April next year and the requirement that year on year efficiency savings of 2 per cent. must be recycled into front-line policing should allow Chief Constables to allocate more officers to the essential job of reducing crime.

  Information Technology systems being delivered under the National Strategy for Police Information Systems (NSPIS) and new radio technology for the police being provided as part of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) will do much to free officers from administrative burdens.

  The NSPIS Custody application draws much of the criminal history information required for effective administration of those in custody automatically from the Police National Computer, saving police time, effort and paperwork. The NSPIS Case Preparation system is designed to produce all the information needed by the police, courts, Crown Prosecution Service and other bodies to process cases automatically. This, too, will substantially reduce the administrative burden on police officers, freeing them for front line duties. Holmes 2 harnesses modern technology to make the best use of police resources used in the investigation of major crimes. NSPIS Crime automates the recording of crime reports, saving effort in compilation and making them easier to use in crime management and intelligence led policing. The National Management Information System (NMIS) provides an integrated set of tools to deliver the information commanders at all levels need to manage their resources as efficiently as possible to meet performance targets. NMIS will also enable data to be collected on a common basis to a standard format making it easier to collate and compare at the national level. This will reduce the burden on the police in producing returns and help Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in their work.

  The NSPIS applications will be interlinked so that information can be shared electronically, and transmitted to front line officers via the new Public Safety Radio Communication System. These new applications will help free officers from the burden of paperwork and free them for front line duties.

  Electoral Reform
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in reform of electoral procedure. [99702]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Representation of the People Bill had its Second Reading on 30 November.

  Sex Offenders
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to ensure that children and other members of the public are protected from sex offenders. [99704]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are committed to protecting children and others from sex offenders. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 contained strong additional safeguards in the new sex offender orders and extended supervision provisions. This session we are bringing forward proposals for a scheme to prevent unsuitable people, including sex offenders, from working with children as part of the Crime and Public Protection Bill.

  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out his Department's policy on the notification of hon. Members of the release of sex offenders into bail hostels within their constituency; and in respect of that policy if he will list(a) the number of category A sex offenders placed in bail hostels within England and Wales in each of the past two years, (b) the notification given to his Department, in each case, prior to the offender being placed in a bail hostel and the notification given, in each case, to the hon. Member for the constituency where the hostel was located and (c) on how many occasions the notification given to hon. Members was less than four days. [101359]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over the last two years, two sex offenders who were category A prisoners were released to hostel accommodation. Home Office Ministers were notified of the release arrangements two weeks before the first prisoner's release and five weeks prior to the second prisoner's release. The hon. Members for the relevant constituencies received notification seven days and 34 days respectively prior to their release.

  In addition to the arrangements for category A prisoners, the Department has, since 1 April 1999, operated an Early Warning system within the prison and probation services in relation to the release of offenders in respect of whom there is a strong risk that a serious violent or sexual offence will be committed after release and where there are victim issues; difficulties with the supervision plan or accommodation; and where it is likely that the case will be subject to media attention. Prisons and probation services are asked to give the Department two months notice of the release of an offender who meets these criteria.

  Thirty such cases have been notified to the hon. Members concerned. The information was passed on as soon as we knew what the accommodation arrangements were going to be. I did this in order to reassure hon. Members of the safeguards which have been put in place. This is particularly important if there is likely to be a hostile media reaction so that hon. Members are able to respond if necessary. Many hon. Members have been very supportive to the local agencies responsible for managing dangerous offenders in the community, for which I am grateful.

  I am currently reviewing the arrangements for handling these cases. As part of that review, I shall be writing to hon. Members individually to ascertain which of them wishes to continue to receive information, in confidence, about the release of dangerous offenders and offering further briefing to anyone who would find it useful. We
  378W
  are committed to doing all we can to ensure public safety, especially where dangerous offenders are concerned and we will continue to work with hon. Members to bring this about.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been reported to him by the Metropolitan police in the case of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. [99705]

  Mr. Straw
  The criminal investigation by the Metropolitan Police into WPC Fletcher's murder is continuing. They intend to pursue this investigation vigorously and the arrival of our Ambassador in Tripoli later this month should help that process. The Metropolitan Police continue to expect full co-operation from the Libyan authorities.

  UK Passport Agency
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the current backlog and turnaround times for passport applications are at the UK Passport Agency. [99706]

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for improving the service provided by the UK Passport Agency. [99682]

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the current backlog and turnaround times are for passport applications at the UK Passport Agency. [99691]

  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for improving the service provided by the UK Passport Agency. [99695]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friends to the announcement the Secretary of State made earlier today.

  Refugee Dispersal
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome to date of the policy of dispersal of refugees. [99707]

  Mrs. Roche
  We plan to bring in the new support arrangements in Part V1 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 on 1 April 2000. The National Asylum Support Service is currently drawing up plans for dispersal of asylum seekers. The statutory interim arrangements set out in Schedule 9 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will come into effect on 6 December. These will underpin a voluntary dispersal scheme whereby asylum seekers seeking support from local authorities in London and Kent can be transferred on a voluntary basis to local authorities outside London and the South East.

  Burglary
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to ensure the elderly are protected from burglaries. [99708]
  379W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The elderly, like all age groups, will benefit from the £250 million Crime Reduction Programme that was launched in July 1998 as an evidence-based approach to reducing crime, and from the Crime Reduction Strategy that we announced last week.

  The Crime Reduction Programme includes the Reducing Burglary Initiative, under which more than £50 million will be used to support anti-burglary projects over three years covering some 2 million households in 500 areas with high levels of domestic burglary. Of the 63 strategic development projects already under way under this initiative, seven will specifically benefit the elderly.

  In addition, we recently announced an £11 million project to provide security improvements for the homes of pensioners on low incomes in high burglary areas, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, which starts in June. We plan to announce in the Spring how the improved security arrangements will operate.

  This scheme, along with the Reducing Burglary Initiative, will be evaluated to help identify what works most cost-effectively in which circumstances. The results will be disseminated to all partnerships to help them tackle their own burglary problems.

  Home Office literature on crime prevention already includes detailed advice to help the elderly reduce the risk of burglary, including burglary by fraudulent callers. We are also in the initial stages of developing a national programme to combat distraction burglary (the victims of which are mostly very elderly). This will use widespread publicity and improved intelligence and detection methods and will involve the police, other organisations such as Neighbourhood watch and the public utility companies.

  Metropolitan Police
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current number of officers in the Metropolitan police. [99709]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that, on the 31 October, there were 26,290 officers in the Metropolitan Police Service.

  Health Service (Prisons)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the operation of the health service in prisons. [99710]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on 29 March 1999,Official Report, columns 556ߝ58W, a programme of reforms of the organisation and delivery of health services to prisoners. The Prison Service and National Health Service Executive, working in partnership, are establishing a Prison Health Care Task Force and a Joint Prison Health Policy Unit. These Units are implementing
  380W
  the recommendations of the Report on "The Future Organisation of Prison Health Care", published last March.

  Trial by Jury
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received on the number of people, in the last year for which figures are available, who opted for a trial by jury, as opposed to a magistrate, who changed their plea before the trial commenced. [99711]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) on 25 November 1999,Official Report, column 181W, by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke).

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research findings he has obtained concerning abuse of the right to elect for trial by jury in either-way cases. [99712]

  Mr. Straw
  Research conducted by the Home Office showed that nearly 90 per cent. of convicted offenders who had elected Crown Court trial in 1989 had previous convictions and over a third had more than 10 previous convictions. Information is also available from the baseline data collected by the Home Office in 1998 for the evaluation of the pilot schemes to reduce delay in the criminal justice system. In a sample of nearly 1,000 cases in the six pilot areas, about 60 per cent. of those who elected for the Crown Court pleaded guilty before the trial started.

  Public House Licensing
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make changes to the public house licensing regime. [99713]

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make changes to the public house licensing regime. [99699]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We aim to publish a White Paper early in the new year setting out our proposals for reform, and to bring forward a Bill when Parliamentary time permits.

  Severe Personality Disorder
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Department of Health on the matter of severe personality disorder. [99714]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's proposals on severe personality disorder form a single piece of work which is the joint responsibility of the Home Office and the Department of Health. Work on all aspects of the proposals is being taken forward jointly with ongoing contact between officials of the two Departments.

  Police Resources (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police resources in Greater Manchester. [99715]
  381W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) on 25 November 1999,Official Report, columns 176–78W, the provisional funding settlement for the Greater Manchester Police for 2000–01. The police authority's provisional funding allocation is £386 million. This is an increase of 2.8 per cent. over 1999–2000, which is in line with the average increase in funding for England and Wales next year. It will be for the police authority to set the budget for the next financial year. It is for the chief officer to determine staffing levels within the overall resources available.

  The Government are also making available additional resources, as part of a new ring-fenced Crime Fighting Fund, to enable the police to recruit 5,000 officers over and above the number that forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years from April 2000. The Greater Manchester Police Authority will be able to make a bid for a share of this funding.

  Right to Remain
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the time taken to determine whether an individual has the right to remain in the UK, having first entered on a visitor's visa. [99690]

  Mrs. Roche
  Visa nationals who obtain a visit visa from a British Diplomatic Post and are given leave to enter the United Kingdom for up to six months as a visitor are, under the Immigration Rules, expected to leave the country at the end of that period.

  Non-visa nationals who are given leave to enter the United Kingdom for up to six months as a visitor are also expected to leave the country at the end of that period. They may, however, apply for further leave to remain under a different category in accordance with the Immigration Rules. Straightforward applications which can be dealt with under a fast track system can usually be processed within about six weeks. Other applications which require lengthy examination or further inquiries will take longer to decide. We cannot give an average length of time for processing such applications as each is considered on its individual merits.

  Civil Servants (Transport)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent on civil servants' transport in each of the last two years. [98698]

  Mr. Straw
  All travel undertaken by Home Office civil servants complies with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code. The total spend on civil servants' transport in each of the last two years has been as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  12,538,635

  1997–98

  12,950,486

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent on ministerial transport in each of the last two years. [98697]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 1 December 1999,Official Report, columns 253–56W. In addition, the Home Office spent, in 1997–98, £161,984 (of which £161,884 was capital expenditure) and, in 1998–99, £29,035 on transport services for Ministers.

  Drug-related Crime
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested for drug-related crime on Merseyside in each year from 1995 onwards; how many were charged; how many were subsequently convicted; and how many were aged(a) between 14 and 16, (b) between 16 and 19, (c) between 19 and 29 and (d) over 29 years. [99432]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: No information is collected centrally on drug-related crime, only on offences under various specific drug legislation, mostly the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  The following information is available:

  (a) Recorded Crime

  Notifiable offences of trafficking in controlled drugs recorded by Merseyside police is as follows:

  Number

  1995

  698

  1996

  563

  1997

  694

  For 1998–99 the coverage of notifiable offences was extended and revised principles for counting introduced. The following was recorded by Merseyside police:

  Number

  Trafficking in controlled drugs

  729

  Possession of controlled drugs

  4,737

  Other drugs offences

  154

  (b) Stop/searches under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act

  Numbers of persons/vehicles stopped and searched for drugs and number of arrests made for drugs by Merseyside police is as follows:

  Stop/searches

  Arrests

  1995

  5,357

  1,066

  1996–97

  11,324

  2,030

  1997–98

  15,613

  2,557

  383W
  (c) Persons cautioned, proceeded against and convicted:

  Numbers of persons cautioned, proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts within Merseyside police force area for indictable drug offences1 by age group 1995–98

  Age and year

  Total cautioned

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  1995

  1,170

  1,810

  1,485

  1996

  1,457

  1,956

  1,563

  1997

  2,033

  2,311

  2,030

  1998

  2,309

  2,615

  2,359

  of which:

  14–15 years of age

  1995

  74

  19

  13

  1996

  77

  23

  16

  1997

  116

  22

  16

  1998

  143

  40

  29

  16–18 years of age

  1995

  361

  212

  174

  1996

  451

  233

  169

  1997

  544

  270

  240

  1998

  678

  402

  359

  19–29 years of age

  1995

  630

  1,129

  941

  1996

  797

  1,172

  963

  1997

  1,111

  1,339

  1,162

  1998

  1,176

  1,413

  1,304

  30 and over

  1995

  99

  450

  357

  1996

  130

  526

  414

  1997

  248

  677

  611

  1998

  295

  759

  667

  1Trafficking in controlled drugs, possession of controlled drugs and other drug offences (principal offence basis)

  There is no information specifically on the number charged. Figures on those cautioned and proceeded against are the nearest available centrally.

  (d) Research

  Home Office research involving the drug testing of arrestees strongly suggests that around a third of acquisitive crime is linked to drug taking. Further work is being conducted within this programme. The results of the next phase, including research on Merseyside, are due to be published by the end of June 2000.

  Integrated Casework Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the Business Plan of the Integrated Casework Directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [100490]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) Report for 1999, published on Tuesday 30 November, which reports on performance during 1998–1999 and sets out our programme to meet the published targets for 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02. The Report focuses on IND's key objectives underpinning the Home Office Aim 6, as set out in the Public Service Agreement and Home Office Business and Expenditure Plans (Command Paper 4205).
  384W
  I have also placed in the Library a detailed business plan for the Integrated Casework Directorate as given to staff in July. The document was at that time a draft and remains a living document subject to continuing review. For example, numbers of staff already recruited, and current recruitment plans, exceed those stated in the draft business plan.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the current backlogs are in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for(a) asylum cases, (b) general and settlement cases, (c) illegal entry, deportation and European cases and (d) nationality cases. [100488]

  Mrs. Roche
  The current backlog of cases for the various categories is set in the table:

  Number

  Asylum cases

  94,305

  General and settlement cases

  127,200

  European cases

  1940

  Deportation and illegal entry cases

  118,100

  Nationality cases

  100,000

  1 Figures relate to cases in the Integrated Casework Directorate, excluding those currently being actioned in caseworking groups and local enforcement offices.

  The backlogs are being tackled by various initiatives. We have introduced streamlined measures for dealing with general casework across all Case Management Units. We are successfully piloting new processes to speed up the consideration of asylum cases, both new and in the backlog.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures he is planning to enable his Department to identify asylum cases involving children to ensure a faster turn-around time after 1 April 2000. [100487]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have developed new procedures for speeding up the consideration of asylum applications. New family cases involving dependent children are being given priority. A database is being set up to monitor progress.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is in respect of restraint of people with a severe mental illness by methods based on the infliction of pain. [100719]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The restraint of any person must be within the law, which requires that the force used to prevent crime or to apprehend a suspect must be reasonable in all the circumstances.

  Police guidelines on restraint provide a range of options based on the use of an appropriate necessary level of force. It is not, of course, always possible to determine immediately whether a person who needs to be restrained or apprehended is suffering from mental disorder.
  385W
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken in response to the recommendations of the Police Complaints Authority on raising officers' awareness of the nature and impact of severe mental illness and about officers seeking advice and assistance when dealing with someone who is mentally ill. [100716]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that officers in both the Metropolitan Police and other forces in England and Wales receive formal training on mental illness as part of their probationer training. It is open to chief officers to provide additional training on this subject if there is a particular need for it. Home Office Circular 12/95 sets out advice for chief police officers and others on dealing with mentally disordered suspects or offenders, including the need to develop effective contacts with other local services and agencies. We have noted the recommendations of the Police Complaints Authority and will assess whether there is scope for further guidance to the police.

  Custody Officers (Training)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government proposes to take in response of the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee's (Fourth report, Session 1998–99, HC 81) about enforcing a requirement that all custody officers receive training before commencing duties. [100717]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is essential that all police officers receive the training necessary to enable them to carry out their duties properly. The Government published options for future police training arrangements in a consultation document on 18 November. The principal aim of these proposals is to ensure that all officers and support staff are equipped to carry out their duties to common high standards. The Government will announce their final proposals early in 2000, shortly after the consultation period closes on 7 January.

  Public Sector Openness
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the function and (b) the remit of the Advisory Group on Openness in the Public Sector. [100651]

  Mr. Straw
  The function of the Advisory Group on Openness in the Public Sector is to advise the Secretary of State on the steps needed to be taken ahead of legislation to create a culture of openness in all public services and lay the foundations for the implementation of a future Freedom of Information Act.

  The remit of the Advisory Group is to:
  advise the Home Secretary on proposals for promoting cultural change in the public sector to foster a culture of greater openness; assist in the development of training and education programmes for public servants to promote cultural change and facilitate the introduction of Freedom of Information; and
  undertake other tasks related to the implementation of Freedom of Information as directed by the Home Secretary.

  The Group is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), and the members are drawn from a variety of backgrounds. Some bring a specialist knowledge of an area of public service to the Group's work, while others have a
  386W
  particular interest in Freedom of Information on the management of change. Information about the Advisory Group, including information about its function and remit as well as accounts of its meetings, is published on the Home Office website.

  The Group has today submitted its recommendations to me and I have placed a copy of the report in the Library.

  Coroners' Services
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations he has had with representatives of the Muslim and Jewish communities about the provision of coroners' services during the period between Christmas and the end of the Millennium holiday; [100586]

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure the adequate provision of coroners' services during the period between Christmas and the end of the Millennium holiday. [100587]

  Mr. Boateng
  The need for appropriate cover over this period has already been brought to the attention of the Coroners' Society and we expect to write to all coroners on this matter shortly. Coroners are required under the Coroners Rules to be available at all times to undertake duties in connection with inquests and post mortem examinations. (We have held no consultations with, nor received representations from, religious communities specifically during this period about cover). Responsibility for the availability of coroner services lies with the relevant coroner and the local council.

  Emergency Planning (Holiday Period)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has issued to local authorities about emergency planning during the forthcoming Christmas and new year period. [100583]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Local authorities are expected to have generic emergency management arrangements. Recognising the unique features of this period, the Home Office has issued two additional guidance documents to local authorities and has made a major contribution to a range of Millennium specific seminars and workshops. In addition, a Millennium version of the "Exercise planners guide" was issued in January 1999.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the state of readiness of local authorities' emergency plans for the period by Christmas 1999 and new year 2000. [100582]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Each local authority is responsible for determining its own emergency planning arrangements. It should be able to respond effectively to any emergency at any time. However, the Home Office visited a range of local authorities to discuss the unique aspects of the Millennium date change period. On the basis of those visits, we are informed that local authorities are prepared for the period.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used to assess the
  387W
  validity of marriages in cases where the husband has been allowed residence in the United Kingdom following marriage. [100616]

  Mrs. Roche
  Before indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom is granted on the basis of marriage, we must be satisfied that the marriage is genuine and subsisting. Appropriate checks are carried out in order to ensure that these criteria are met. The validity of a marriage in cases where indefinite leave to remain has been granted would not normally be investigated unless there were strong grounds to believe that leave was obtained by deception.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on co-operation between different Government agencies to(a) track down and (b) deport illegal immigrants. [100615]

  Mrs. Roche
  Staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), including the Immigration Service (IS), work in co-operation with many other government agencies as appropriate, including the police, Benefits Agency and Contributions Agency, in detecting those who are suspected of being illegal immigrants or facilitating illegal entry. This liaison is allowed for under section 28(3) of the Data Protection Act 1994 which provides for the exchange of information where this is necessary to prevent or detect a crime.

  The responsibility for deciding whether an illegal immigrant should be deported or otherwise removed rests with IND. No other government agencies are involved in this decision.

  Jill Dando
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the police investigation of the murder of Jill Dando. [100589]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The investigation of crime within the Metropolitan Police District is an operational matter for the Commissioner. He tells me that this investigation is continuing, although no clear motive for the murder has yet emerged.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the Criminal Records Bureau will come into operation; and if he will make a statement; [100609]

  (2) what is the estimated cost of establishing the Criminal Records Bureau; how many staff will be employed when it commences operations; and what is the estimated annual cost of running the Bureau. [100611]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The project to set up the Criminal Records Bureau is being managed within the framework of a Public Private Partnership. Final costs and staff numbers will depend upon the outcome of procurement action. This is under way. Bids were 388W
  received on 19 November and are under evaluation. I have been reviewing the timetable of the project and I shall announce the outcome shortly.

  Working Time Regulations (Police Exclusion)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the potential impact on the health and safety of police officers of their exclusion from the Working Time Regulations. [100628]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Working Time Regulations do apply to the Police Service. However, while the regulations clearly apply to police officers and support staff, there are a number of defined exceptions covering circumstances routinely encountered by operational police officers and support staff. Regulation 18 specifically exempts those police duties which inevitably conflict with the limits and entitlements provided for. Regulation 20 applies to workers whose duration of working time is not measured or predetermined, or can be determined by the worker him/herself. Regulation 21 applies in a range of circumstances, including duties in security or surveillance.

  Chief officers have a 'duty of care' towards their employees and, although forces do have local arrangements in place in respect of the Working Time Regulations, we are aware that chief officers may need guidance on the issue for operational purposes. The Home Office will issue guidelines following discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Adlearn Foundation
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the findings of the Charity Commission Inquiry into the Adlearn Foundation. [100730]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand from the Charity Commission that its inquiry began following the Commission's routine monitoring procedures.

  The Charity Commission is satisfied that the way in which the trustees have now decided to wind up the charity is appropriate. I have asked the Chief Charity Commissioner to write to my hon. Friend, and I shall arrange for a copy of that letter to be placed in the Library.

  Electrical Register
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the proposed restrictions on the use of the electoral register. [100831]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Annexe K to the Report of the Working Party on Electoral Procedures lists those who responded to the consultation exercise on this issue which was carried out in 1998.

  Since publication of the Working Party's recommendation in July of this year, we have received a number of further representations from industries which make use of the electoral register, from members of the public and from hon. Members.

  Intrusion Classification System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he issues to police authorities on the use of CLASSIC (Covert Local Area Sensor System for Intrusion Classification); and if he will make a statement. [100845]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None.

  Edwards Report
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Edwards report. [100850]

  Mr. Straw
  My intention is to publish a progress report early in the New Year.

  Life Sentences (Murder)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people currently subject to life imprisonment for murder are awaiting the outcome of a review by him of his tariff. [101343]

  Mr. Boateng
  As at 30 November 1999, there were 94 people in custody in England and Wales convicted of murder who had submitted representations about the tariff set in their case and who were awaiting a decision by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department since 1983, in how many cases of people convicted of murder the tariff was set at less than 20 years; and what, in each case, was the reason for a tariff being set at less than 20 years. [101342]

  Mr. Boateng
  Tariffs of 20 years or more are reserved for the gravest types of murder including, for example, terrorist murders, murder by firearm in the course of robbery, the murder of police or prison officers and the sexual or sadistic murder of children. The great majority of murders do not fall into any of the gravest categories and the tariffs they attract are, therefore, normally less than 20 years. About 88 per cent. of all those convicted of murder and currently serving their sentence in custody in England and Wales have a tariff of less than 20 years.

  2 Marsham Street
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the annual cost is of maintaining the blocks at 2 Marsham Street. [101153]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department took responsibility for the maintenance of 2 Marsham Street on 1 April 1999, as part of the Home Office Central London Accommodation Strategy. The budgeted cost of maintenance for the year to 31 March 2000 is £640,000 excluding Value Added Tax.

  Most of this expenditure is related to health and safety issues.

  A Winter Shelter under the Rough Sleepers Initiative is currently operating from 2 Marsham Street until 7 April 2000.

  Chelmsford Prison
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the prescribed maximum capacity of Chelmsford Prison; and how many prisoners were held at the prison on the latest date for which information is available. [100713]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 1 December 1999, the operational capacity of Chelmsford prison was 469 places, and the number of prisoners held was 426.

  Essex Constabulary
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers, (b) constables and (c) civilian staff there are in the Essex constabulary; and what the equivalent numbers were for the two previous years. [101412]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police numbers is collected twice a year (March and September). The figures for September 1999 are not yet available. The information requested for each year since 1997 are set out in the table.

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Police Officers

  Constables

  Civilian support staff

  1997

  2,961

  2,269

  1,199

  1998

  2,929

  2,264

  1,253

  1999

  2,891

  2,215

  1,273

  Porton Down
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to date of the investigation by Wiltshire Constabulary into the Chemical and Biological Defence establishment at Porton Down; and how many(a) police officers and (b) civilians are employed on it. [99703]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total costs to date are estimated at £80,000 as of 24 November. This figure includes all salaries, overtime, subsistence, travel, accommodation and purchase of additional computer and other equipment.

  A total of 13 police officers (three on a part-time basis) and two civilian support staff are employed on the investigation.

  Police (Disciplinary Notices)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the officer heading the Operation Waller inquiry into Cleveland Police has issued Regulation 6 disciplinary notices concerning senior police officers; and if he will make a statement. [101421]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Cleveland Police Authority has not appointed an investigating officer to investigate its senior officers, so the question of Regulation 6 notices has not arisen.

  Rural Policing
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many additional police officers will be required in each of the rural counties referred to in the report prepared by ORH Ltd.; [101173]
  391W
  (2) if he will place in the Library the report prepared by ORH Ltd. relating to the provision of police forces in rural areas; [101171]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the report prepared by ORH Ltd. relating to the provision of police forces in rural areas. [101172]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a Question from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 25 November 1999,Official Report, columns 182–83W.

  A copy of the Operational Research in Health Ltd. (ORH) report on the cost of providing policing services in sparsely populated rural areas, and a copy of the report's executive summary, is available in the Library.

  The findings of the report were considered by a Home Office chaired Working Group—which included representatives of the police service, police authorities and local authorities—in July. There was no single view within the Working Group on the conclusions of the research report. There was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected, but less agreement about how to include it appropriately in the police funding formula.

  In announcing funding allocations for police authorities for 2000–01, we set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities plan ahead. In the July 1998 White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People", the Deputy Prime Minister said that we would not expect to make fresh changes to the method of calculation of Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) whilst a fundamental review of the SSA system across local government is conducted. This applies equally to police grant, as a common formula is used for distribution of police grant and SSA.

  Our present intention is that, subject to consultation and approval by the House, we shall not make any changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. We do not, therefore, propose to make any substantive changes to the operation of the police funding formula for next year. Rural police forces will continue to benefit from the existing 'sparsity' element in the funding formula.

  The research report made recommendations in respect of changes to the police funding formula. There were no specific recommendations in relation to police officer numbers in the rural forces. The powers for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to set police establishment levels for each force were removed under the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994. It is for chief officers of police to determine staffing requirements within the overall resources available. However, the new ring-fenced Crime Fighting Fund will enable the police to recruit 5,000 officers, over and above the number forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years, commencing April 2000. Rural police forces will be able to apply for a share of this funding.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the conclusions of his Department's report on rural policing were taken into account in his recent allocation of funding to police authorities in England; and if he will make a statement; [101169]
  392W
  (2) when he received the report on policing in rural areas; and when he intends to publish its conclusions. [101170]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to a Question from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), on 25 November 1999,Official Report, columns 182–83W.

  In announcing funding allocations for police authorities for 2000–01 we set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities plan ahead. In the July 1998 White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch With the People", the Deputy Prime Minister said that we would not expect to make fresh changes to the method of calculation of Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) while a fundamental review of the SSA system across local government is conducted. This applies equally to police grant, as a common formula is used for distribution of police grant and SSA.

  Our present intention is that, subject to consultation and approval by the House, we shall not make any changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. We do not, therefore, propose to make any substantive changes to the operation of the police funding formula for next year. Rural police forces will continue to benefit from the existing 'sparsity' element in the funding formula.

  The Home Office received the final report on the cost of providing police services in rural areas from the researchers on 6 May 1999, following which an executive summary of the report's conclusions were commissioned. The full report and executive summary were presented to a Home Office chaired Working Group, which included police representatives, on 8 July. The executive summary was sent to all police authorities in England and Wales on 21 July. A copy of the full report and the executive summary are available in the Library.

  Ruth Ellis
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the death penalty on Ruth Ellis; and if he will arrange for further investigation by his Department. [101217]

  Mr. Straw
  Ruth Ellis was convicted of murder in 1955, for which the death sentence was mandatory. No appeal was lodged. The Home Secretary of the day concluded that there were insufficient grounds to justify the sentence not being carried out. The powers of the Home Secretary to refer alleged miscarriages of justice to the Court of Appeal were replaced in 1997 by new powers vested in the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is now responsible for the investigation of cases of alleged wrongful conviction. I understand that an application for a review of Ruth Ellis's case has recently been submitted to the Commission. It will be for the Commission to decide in due course whether the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal.

  Target Setting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many targets have been agreed between his Department and (i) local authorities and (ii) other bodies apart from his own agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997. [99476]
  393W
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: A very wide range of targets set by the Home Office impact, to varying degrees, upon local authorities and other bodies. The precise information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Examples of areas of activity for which such targets have been introduced since May 1997 include: reduction in the level of vehicle crime; reduction in the number of police officers taking medical retirement; and the recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority officers in the fire service, the police service and the probation services. Details of the ethnic minority employment targets are available in "Race Equality—the Home Secretary's Employment Targets. Staff targets for the Home Office, the Prison Service, the Police, the Fire and the Probation Services", published by the Home Office on 28 July 1999. A copy has been placed in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Modernising Government Action Plan
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made on the corporate IT strategy framework documents promised in the Modernising Government Action Plan. [101687]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  In the Modernising Government Action Plan we are committed to publishing a corporate IT strategy for government in March 2000. I am now able to announce that I have published, as part of that strategy, a framework document on Call Centres. This document provides the public sector with guidelines on the issues they need to consider when using call centres, such as standards and accessibility. Over the next month I will be publishing further framework documents covering websites, smart cards, authentication and digital TV. I have arranged for copies of these frameworks to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  DOE Building, Marsham Street
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she intends to demolish the former Department of the Environment building in Marsham Street, SW1. [100907]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 6 December:
  The Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, Ian McCartney, has asked me as Chief Executive of Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the demolition of 2 Marsham Street.
  It remains our intention to demolish 2 Marsham Street as soon as practicable. You may be aware that, in connection with its Headquarters PFI project, the Home Office has made the property available to its bidders to consider as one of their options.
  A decision by Home Office is now expected in late Spring next year. Pending this decision, Home Office has assumed management responsibility and is paying the holding costs of the property.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many non-departmental public bodies have been(a) established and (b) abolished since 2 May 1997. [100892]

  Mr. Stringer
  Data on numbers of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are collated on a financial year basis and published annually in the publication "Public Bodies", copies of which are available in both Libraries of the House. "Public Bodies 1998" reported a net reduction of 55 NDPBs on the previous year. "Public Bodies 1999", which is due to be published later this month, is likely to show a further reduction in NDPBs.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which non-departmental public bodies were(a) established and (b) abolished in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [100622]

  Mr. Stringer
  The following lists all the non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) that have been abolished or created in the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99. The publication "Public Bodies 1998", which is available in both Libraries of the House, provides comprehensive information on each NDPB. "Public Bodies 1999" is due to be published later this month.

  Abolished1
  Executive

  British Board of Agrément

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  Countryside Commission

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Education Assets Board

  Land Authority for Wales

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission

  North Hull Housing Action Trust

  Residuary Body for Wales

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority

  Scottish Community Education Council

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  Tai Cymru

  UK Ecolabelling Board

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Ulster Museum

  Urban Development Corporations x 9

  Advisory

  Advisory Committee on Coal Research

  Advisory Committee on Dental Establishments

  Advisory Committee on Design Quality in the NHS

  Advisory Committee on Joint Environmental Markets

  Advisory Committee on Plant and Machinery

  Advisory Committee on Service Candidates

  Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales

  Assessment Panel for Construction Research

  Aviation Committee

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research

  Citizens Charter Panel of Advisers

  Consultative Panel on Badgers and Bovine TB

  County Court Rule Committee

  Crime Prevention Agency

  Dartmoor Working Party (formerly part of the Dartmoor

  395W

  Steering Group)

  Defence Scientific Advisory Council (sub-committees) x 5

  Deregulation Task Force

  Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland

  Local Government Property Commission for Scotland

  Local Government Staff Commission (England)

  Microbiology Advisory Committee

  National Advisory Council for the Employment of People with Disabilities

  Northern Ireland Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel

  Nuclear Powered Warships Safety Committee

  Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee

  Overseas Project Board

  Race Relations Employment Advisory Group

  Regional Panels in MAFF x 9

  Residuary Body for Wales

  Royal Commission on Long Term Care of the Elderly

  Scottish Agricultural Consultative Panel

  Scottish Crime Prevention Council

  Scottish Economic Council

  Scottish Studentship Selection Committee

  Secretary of State for Scotland's Advisory Group on Sustainable Development

  Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights (NI)

  Standing Committee on Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  Statistics Advisory Committee

  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee

  Supported Employment Consultative Group

  Supreme Court Rule Committee

  Teaching Company Scheme Board

  Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee

  Welsh Advisory Committee on Drug and Alcohol Misuse

  Welsh Council for Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education

  Tribunals NDPBs
  Scheme of Compensation for Loss of Earnings through Civil Unrest (NI)

  1Include NDPBs which have been reclassified e.g. those moved to the private sector

  Created
  Executive

  British Potato Council

  Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland

  Community Learning Scotland

  Competition Commission

  Countryside Agency

  Docklands Light Railway

  Education Transfer Council

  English Tourism Council

  Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland

  Historic Royal Palaces

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  National Lottery Commission

  National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland

  New Opportunities Fund

  NI Human Rights Commission

  Police Information Technology Organisation

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  Regional Development Agencies x 8

  Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

  Scottish Further Education Funding Council

  Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

  396W
  Advisory

  Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment and Training

  Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs

  Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment

  Advisory Committee on Lifelong Learning Targets

  Aerospace Committee

  Better Regulation Task Force

  Civil Justice Council

  Civil Procedure Rule Committee

  Commission for Integrated Transport

  Committee on Chemicals and Materials and Construction for use in Public Water Supplies and Swimming Pools

  Defence Nuclear Safety Committee

  Development Awareness Working Group

  Expert Group on Airborne Particles

  Expert Group on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies

  Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals

  Expert Panel on Sustainable Development Education

  Football Task Force

  Genetics and Insurance Committee

  Low Pay Commission

  New Deal Task Force

  People's Panel Advisory Group

  Race in Employment and Education Forum

  Race Relations Forum

  Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly

  Scottish Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards

  Scottish Childcare Board

  Security Vetting Appeals Panel

  Sentencing Advisory Panel

  Skills Task Force

  Spectrum Management Advisory Group

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Zoos Forum

  Tribunal

  Office of the Surveillance Commissioners

  Registered Nursery Education Inspectors Appeal Tribunal

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Unmarried Fathers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to seek to amend the law to provide unmarried fathers with the same right of parental responsibility as married fathers; and if he will make a statement. [101085]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government intend to introduce an amendment to the Children Act 1989 that unmarried fathers who sign their child's birth certificate jointly with the mother will acquire parental responsibility without further formality. This provision will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the

  397W
  date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100156]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has awarded 37 research contracts since May 1997 with a total overall spend of £1,003,776; details of these, including the cost of each contract are provided in the table. None

  LCD research projects contracted since May 1997

  Project Title

  Cost£

  Date completed

  Researcher details

  Regulating Legal Services

  9,000

  August 1997

  Robert Baldwin—London School of Economics

  The Use of Judicial Appointment Commissions: A Review of the US and Canadian Models

  2,250

  August 1997

  Kate Malleson—London School of Economics

  Judicial Appointments in Continental Europe

  8,400

  August 1997

  Cheryl Thomas—Wolfson College, Oxford University

  Review of the Court of Appeal

  12,602

  August 1997

  Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson—Consultants in Management, IT and the Law

  Contracting for civil litigation: modelling volumes, access and regional distributions for certified non-matrimonial civil legal aid

  1,800

  September 1997

  Tamara Goriely—TPR Social and Legal Research

  The Division of Marital Assets Following Divorce With Particular Reference to Pensions

  4,900

  October 1997

  Antony Dnes—University of Hertfordshire

  Contracting For Legal Services With Different Cost Rules

  6,200

  March 1998

  Gwyn Bevan—London School of Economics and Political Science Paul Fenn—University of Nottingham Neil Rickman—University of Surrey

  Costing Fast Track Procedures Through Hypothetical Case Studies

  96,000

  March 1998

  Tamara Goriely, Farah Butt and Avrom Sherr—Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

  Review Papers on Marriage—causes, and ways of preventing marital breakdown

  79,150

  March 1998

  One plus One

  Economic Impact of Law on Ancillary Relief

  4,000

  April 1998

  Antony Dnes—University of Hertfordshire

  Court Customer Needs

  4,200

  July 1998

  Sarah Beinart (Independent consultant)

  Empirical Analysis of Standard Fees in Magistrates' Courts

  6,000

  July 1998

  Paul Fenn—University of Nottingham

  Government Policies and Lawyers' Roles

  11,075

  September 1998

  Phillip Lewis—Wolfson College, Oxford University

  Ancillary Relief Pilot Scheme

  206,703

  September 1998

  KPMG

  Economic Impact of the Quality of Legal Machinery

  2,500

  October 1998

  Alice Belcher—University of Dundee

  Fast Track Simulation Pilot

  31,386

  December 1998

  John Peysner—Nottingham Trent University

  Criminal Justice Reform and the Organisation of Criminal Defence Services

  15,200

  June 1998

  Lee Bridges—University of Warwick

  Toward a Civil Justice Audit

  32,168

  June 1998

  Joanna Shapland—University of Sheffield

  Study of the services to litigants in person provided by the Citizens' Advice Bureau in the Royal Courts of Justice

  10,693

  June 1998

  Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson—Consultants in Management, IT and the Law

  Impact of legal aid on litigants behaviour: an empirical analysis

  43,800

  January 1999

  Paul Fenn—University of Nottingham Alastair Gray—Wolfson College, Oxford University

  Neil Rickman—University of Surrey

  Regional study of local authority and court processes in homelessness cases

  30,989

  March 1999

  Trevor Buck—University of Leicester

  Civil legal aid for children: a mapping exercise

  24,654

  March 1999

  Judith Masson—University of Warwick

  ADR in the Court of Appeal—Preliminary Work

  5,000

  March 1998

  Hazel Genn—University College London

  Applicability to other tribunals and court jurisdictions of principals/practice in the London Parking Appeals Service

  25,246

  April 1999

  John Raine—University of Birmingham

  Professionalising Lay Justice: Effective Clerking in Family Proceedings

  39,507

  July 1999

  Joan Hunt—Wolfson College, Oxford University

  County court baseline data

  52,361

  May 1999

  Hazel Genn—University College London

  Alternative Dispute Resolution in Commercial Cases

  14,500

  September 1999

  Hazel Genn—University College London

  New public management and the administration of justice in the magistrates' court

  25,000

  December 1999

  Ben Fitzpatrick—Leeds University

  Community Legal Service: Developing joined-up solutions

  19,500

  January 1999

  Jane Steele

  Legal Aid and the Human Rights Act 1998

  26,507

  May 1999

  Richard Moorehead—Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and Claire Brown—Independent consultant

  Cross-jurisdictional issues in case management

  12,500

  1April 2000

  Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson—Consultants in Management, IT and the Law

  398W
  of the projects was subject to a specific veto on publication of results or control over date of publication. A standard clause in research contracts is that
  "the contractor shall always consider any representation from the Contract Manager for the revision of any publication, interim or final, of the results".
  The Department retains the right to insert a disclaimer in published reports.
  399W

  LCD research projects contracted since May 1997

  Project Title

  Cost £

  Date completed

  Researcher details

  Factors affecting the decision to apply for Silk/Judicial Office

  9,652

  1April 2000

  Kate Malleson—London School of Economics Fareda Banda—School of Oriental and African Studies

  Community Legal Service: Pioneer Community Legal Service Partnerships

  33,779

  1December 1999

  Richard Moorehead—Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

  Finalising the civil justice audit

  25,377

  1April 2000

  Joanne Shapland—University of Sheffield

  Ancillary Relief Pilot Study

  11,177

  1December 1999

  Gwynn Davis—University of Bristol

  Study on Lay and Stipendiary Magistrates

  60,000

  2—

  Rod Morgan—University of Bristol and Taylor Nelson Sofres—Consultants

  Total

  1,003,776

  1Anticipated completion date

  2To be determined

  In addition £18,853 was contributed (1998–99 financial year) to a study entitled "Baseline Customer Research" commissioned by the Legal Services Ombudsman. The study was run by Customer Management Consultancy Ltd. and the resulting data were published in a Summary of Findings and Recommendations by the Legal Services Ombudsman in March 1999.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish the names and addresses of the solicitors' firms and other agencies which have been awarded block contracts by the Legal Aid Board to give advice, assistance and representation in immigration and asylum cases. [101295]

  Mr. Lock
  The Legal Aid Board has only recently offered contracts in immigration and asylum work to solicitors and other agencies and the exact number of contracted providers will not be known until the end of December 1999. Almost 500 contracts have been offered and the Board expects a high proportion of them to be taken up. From January 2000, the Board will be able to provide information on those contracted to do immigration and asylum work. It would not be right to publish the names and addresses of firms and agencies who have been offered contracts, but who have not yet decided to accept them, because to do so would be breaking the commercial confidentiality held between the Board and the suppliers. The names and addresses of those solicitors firms and other agencies awarded contracts will be placed in the Library in January 2000 and will also be set out in the Community Legal Service Directory. The Directory is expected to be published in April 2000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antartic Environmental Treaty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards ratification of the Antarctic Environmental Treaty; and if he will make a statement. [100806]

  Mr. Hain
  The Environmental Protocol to the Antartic Treaty and its Annex I to IV entered into force on 14 January 1998. The United Kingdom's instrument 400W
  of ratification of the Protocol was deposited on 25 April 1995. To give effect to the Protocol in UK law, the various Sections of the Antartic Act (1994) were brought into force between 1 November 1995 and 14 January 1998.

  The fifth Annex to the Protocol, dealing with the Antartic protected areas system, is anticipated to enter into force in 2000, following approval by four remaining Antartic Treaty Parties. The UK approved V Annex in May 1996.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he has taken to promote a peace process in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [100802]

  Mr. Hain
  We believe a lasting solution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka can only be reached through a political settlement. We have made clear that we stand ready to help in the resolution of the conflict if both sides ask us to play a role.

  Burma
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Burma regarding(a) human rights, (b) religious freedom and (c) the detention of James Mawdsley. [100712]

  Mr. Battle
  Our Ambassador in Rangoon frequently raises our concerns with the Burmese authorities about human rights, including religious freedom, most recently with the Burmese Foreign Minister on 16 November. The UK also co-sponsored the UN General Assembly resolution adopted on 19 November, condemning the human rights violations and urging the Burmese regime to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedom. Our Ambassador in Rangoon, accompanied by Mrs. Mawdsley, visited James in prison on 20 November and remains in close touch with the Burmese authorities on his case.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he raised matters relating to the Russian military activity in Chechnya and
  401W
  compliance with the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and additional protocols of 1977 at the OSCE Istanbul summit; and if he will make a statement. [100837]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised our concerns on Chechnya with Foreign Minister Ivanov, including at the OSCE Istanbul summit. We and our EU partners have reminded all parties to the conflict of the necessity to observe international humanitarian law.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Russian authorities over the invasion of Chechnya; and if he will make a statement. [101193]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had regular discussions with Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov, most recently in a telephone conversation on 3 December, urging that Russia should seek a negotiated political settlement to the conflict. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also written to the Russian President and Prime Minister underlining our concerns.

  EU Policy (Northern Dimension)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the development of a Northern Dimension in EU policy; what areas are covered; what policies are concerned; and what budgets are involved. [101003]

  Mr. Vaz
  The development of a Northern Dimension to EU policy has progressed under the Finnish Presidency. I attended a conference in Helsinki on 16 November. The Commission are now drafting an Action Plan. Key policy areas concerned are energy, environment, nuclear safety, transport and cross-border co-operation. Activities will be financed through the EU PHARE, TACIS and INTERREG programmes.

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) national and (b) EU programmes are in progress to encourage states to abolish the death penalty. [101007]

  Mr. Hain
  The United Kingdom opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. Together with EU partners, we regularly call upon all states to abolish it. Where the death penalty is retained, we urge states to apply it only for the most serious crimes and to observe international minimum standards such as the non-execution of minors, pregnant women or the insane.

  The UK, along with its EU partners, regularly carries out demarches in a number of countries including most recently, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, the USA, Iran, Ukraine, the Philippines and Uganda.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future role of the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers. [101005]
  402W
  Mr. Vaz
  The Deputy Secretary-General will be responsible for the day to day running of the Council Secretariat and supporting the Secretary-General as appropriate.

  EU Stability Pact
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the development of a European Union Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe; what finances are involved; which Directorate-Generals are involved; which countries are concerned; what is the purpose of this agreement; what representations he has received from concerned parties; and what Common Financial and Security Policy considerations are covered; [101011]

  (2) what staff will be required for the European Union Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe; at what cost; what nationalities will be eligible to join; and from which institutions the Special Co-ordinator will be chosen. [101012]

  Mr. Vaz
  The founding document of the Stability Pact for South-East Europe places the pact under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The Special Co-ordinator for the Stability Pact (Bodo Hombach) was appointed by the European Union, after consultation with OSCE Chairman in Office and other Pact participants.

  The Office of the Special Co-ordinator is in Brussels. The Office currently has 29 staff, many secondees from participant countries (including the UK). We anticipate that the UK's contribution to cover the costs of the inaugural Summit meeting of the Stability Pact, and the costs incurred in supporting the EU's Special Representative for the Stability Pact until 31 December 1999, will be approximately £225,000.

  The Pact brings together the countries of the region, the EU, the USA, Russia, a range of other countries, many international organisations and International Financial institutions. It has been stressed at all Stability Pact meetings that there is a role for FRY when conditions permit. Meanwhile, Montenegro is fully involved in the Pact's work.

  The Pact aims to promote peace, stability and democracy in the region. The EU plays a leading role in the Pact. But other international organisations and the IFIs also have a critical role to play. The Pact's strength is as a catalysing and co-ordinating organisation. It is not intended to be a grant-giving body. We will continue to support the implementing agencies (EU, OSCE, IFIs, etc.) through our regular contributions and on a case-by-case basis.

  The UK has played an active role in the first meetings of the Regional Table and three Working Tables (covering Democracy/Human Rights, Economic Reconstruction/ Development/Co-operation and Security Issues). These and other meetings and regular bilateral contacts enable us to have a full exchange of views with all Pact participants and the Special Co-ordinator on all aspects of the Stability Pact process.

  There was an informal meeting of Stability Pact Foreign Ministers in the margins of the OSCE Summit in Istanbul on 18 November. This provided a useful stock-taking opportunity. Overall progress has been good.

  403W
  But the Stability Pact has been in existence for less than six months and although early wins are important, sustainable progress in the long-term is the real prize.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the Charter of Fundamental Rights will identify those rights pertaining solely to EU citizens; and what voting procedure will pass the final document. [101004]

  Mr. Vaz
  The reference in the Cologne Conclusions on rights pertaining to EU citizens is designed to make the Charter an effective showcase of existing EU rights.

  The decision-making process in the Charter drafting body is consensus-based. The Cologne Conclusions state that the European Council will propose to the European Parliament and the Commission that, together with the Council, they should solemnly proclaim a European Charter of Fundamental Rights on the basis of the draft document.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposals under discussion for the establishment of an EU agency for human rights and democracy; what is the relevant treaty base; if such will fall under the remit of the Common Foreign and Security Policy; and what timescale is envisaged. [101010]

  Mr. Hain
  In the Vienna Declaration of 10 December 1998, the EU undertook to consider various ways of strengthening its human rights structures. This year's Cologne Council suggested that the advisability of setting up an Agency for Human Rights and Democracy should be considered. We would give careful thought to any such proposal, including how an Agency would fit with existing Common Foreign and Security Policy mechanisms.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the types of rights planned for inclusion into an EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [101009]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Charter drafting body has yet to start work. Its first meeting is on 17 December. But the Cologne Conclusions provide some indications of the ground that might be covered. We believe that the Charter should make it easier for EU citizens to know the civil and political rights which they already enjoy under the Treaties.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department first received reports of moves by other EU Governments to propose an EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; and from what initial source. [101006]

  Mr. Vaz
  There was a specific reference to work on an EU Charter of Rights in the German Presidency Work Programme produced at the turn of the year.

  European Security Charter
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the incorporation of Russia into elements of the European Security Charter. [101008]
  404W
  Mr. Vaz
  Like other OSCE participating states, the Russian Federation signed the European Security Charter at the OSCE Summit in Istanbul on 18–19 November 1999. The Charter, which as well as confirming participating states' adherence to previous OSCE commitments sets out principles for future security co-operation in Europe, was the result of lengthy negotiations amongst OSCE participating states, including Russia.

  British Deaths (Nigeria)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of procedures used by British High Commission staff to obtain police reports on the deaths of British citizens in Nigeria. [101363]

  Mr. Hain
  I am satisfied that the British High Commission in Abuja and the British Deputy High Commission in Lagos do all they properly can to obtain police reports on the deaths of British citizens in Nigeria.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions when British High Commission staff have met representatives of the Nigerian Government to ask for a copy of the complete police report on the death of Mr. Mark Davey. [101362]

  Mr. Hain
  British High Commission staff met representatives of the Nigerian Government on the following occasions:15, 18 and 29 May 1998;
  4 August 1998;
  27 August 1998;
  27 October 1998;
  5 March 1999;
  8 April 1999;

  12 April 1999; and
  21 September 1999

  In addition, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Permanent Under-Secretary and Head of the Diplomatic Service raised the issue with the Permanent Secretary at the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 16 February 1999.

  The British High Commission has reminded the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on numerous occasions that a copy of the report has not been forthcoming. They have written to officials and Ministers on five occasions and sent Diplomatic notes to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on a further five occasions. I look for opportunities to raise this matter when I visit Nigeria early next year.

  The British High Commission will continue to press the Nigerian authorities for a copy of the report.

  Torture
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which member countries of the OSCE have failed to eradicate torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. [101366]

  Mr. Vaz
  The issue of torture was discussed at the Human Dimension session of the OSCE Review Conference in Istanbul on 9 November. It was noted that, while torture is prohibited in all OSCE participating states, instances of abuse persist in many parts of the
  405W
  region. No state should be complacent. Eradication of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a constant process, requiring in particular effective human rights protection for detainees and investigation and punishment of offences.

  The Government are funding work by the OSCE to address these issues, for example the production of a handbook on combating torture.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia about wildlife conservation, with particular reference to orang-utans and Tanjung Puting National Park; and if he will make a statement. [99675]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are concerned that forest degradation, including illegal logging in Indonesia and elsewhere, represents a critical threat to the survival of many species including orang-utans. Officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Government departments are in frequent touch with the Indonesian authorities on forest issues. The Government are working with other countries and international institutions to encourage Indonesia urgently to put in place systems to ensure the sustainable management of forests, and the protection of forest habitats. The Department for International Development appointed a Forestry Adviser to Indonesia in January 1999, who is working closely to this end with the Government of Indonesia and local communities.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Kosovo; and how long he estimates UK troops will remain there. [101330]

  Mr. Vaz
  The situation in Kosovo has been transformed in the six months since the deployment of KFOR on 12 July.

  KFOR has robust presence throughout Kosovo. The Serbian VJ and MUP forces have withdrawn and their reign of terror and repression has ended. The KLA have been demilitarised. But problems remain. KFOR are having to devote 50 per cent. of their manpower to the protection of minorities, with a permanent presence in Serb communities. Some 1,800 UNMIK police have been deployed covering 60 per cent. of Kosovo but further resources are needed. The murder rate has fallen but crime and violence remain too high. The UK is working with EU partners to help the UN Mission (UNMIK) more effectively to tackle organised crime.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed export of smoke and incendiary grenades to the Norwegian KFOR contingent in Kosovo; and what assessment he has made of its compatibility with the UN and EU arms embargoes in place in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. [101732]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have granted a licence for the export to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) of 2,000 incendiary hand grenades and 6,000 coloured smoke 406W
  grenades for use in de-mining activities by the Norwegian KFOR contingent deployed in Kosovo. These goods are on the UK's military List.

  UN Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1160 imposed an arms embargo on the FRY. The only exception to this embargo is that UNSCR 1244 provides that prohibitions imposed by UNSCR 1160 shall not apply to the sale or supply of arms and related material for the use of the international civil and security presences in Kosovo. Equipment needed for de-mining activities is not covered by the EU arms embargo.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of his current foreign policy objectives are aided by the ECGD. [101486]

  Mr. Hain
  ECGD aids the following foreign policy objectives:

  Objective 2:
  To improve, through international action, economic opportunities for a prosperous UK.

  Objective 3:
  To improve quality of life worldwide; and develop a strong international community.

  Objective 4:
  To increase the impact and respect for British foreign policy and values.

  Objective 5:
  To ensure the UK plays a strong role in a strong Europe, responsive to people's needs.

  UN Security Council resolution 1244 established UNMIK and KFOR for an initial deployment of 12 months, to continue thereafter unless the Security Council decided otherwise. We believe the international presence should remain in Kosovo for as long as is necessary to ensure a secure environment for the people of Kosovo to live in peace.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the ECGD makes to Britain's foreign policy objectives. [101485]

  Mr. Hain
  ECGD contributes to Britain's foreign policy Objective 2 (to improve, through international action, economic opportunities for a prosperous UK) by promoting an safeguarding UK trade and outward investment, and other economic, financial and technological interests overseas; and by developing and implementing arrangements to further free, fair and sustainable trade and economic relations. Objective 3 (to improve quality of life worldwide; and develop a strong international community) is assisted by ECGD encouraging growth and development through out the world; and by international action to protect the environment.

  Objective 4 (to increase the impact and respect for British foreign policy and values) is contributed to by ECGD's involvement in multilateral bodies, such as the OECD and Paris Club, and through multilateral and bilateral debt, and debt relief initiatives; by ensuring that international considerations inform government policy-making; and by providing a response to the

  407W
  concerns of Parliament, the public, and the media. Objective 5 is supported (to ensure the UK plays a strong role in a strong Europe, responding to people's needs) by ECGD's involvement in promoting effective EU external policies in the field of export credits.

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how nuclear test is defined in the context of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; what the source is of the definition; and if he will make a statement. [101387]

  Mr. Hain
  The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty does not set out a definition of a nuclear test. The obligations of parties to the Treaty are contained in Article I. These obligations are not to carry out any nuclear weapons test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control. State parties also undertake to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

  These obligations where drawn up in the course of the treaty negotiations.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty following the failure of the United States Senate to ratify the Treaty. [101389]

  Mr. Hain
  We have made clear our deep disappointment with the US Senate's vote against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We will continue to work with the US Administration, and with other key countries, to bring the Treaty into force as soon as possible.

  Russia
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) UK bilateral and (b) NATO financial assistance is being (i) offered and (ii) provided to Russia in relation to (1) decommissioning redundant nuclear weapons and delivery systems, (2) destruction of chemical weapons and (3) other arms control systems; and if he will make a statement. [101384]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK has provided £35,900,000 in bilateral assistance to support the decommissioning of redundant nuclear weapons. This figure comprises £35 million for equipment to transfer warheads from the Former Soviet Union to Russia between 1992–95 and approximately £900,000 assistance on safeguards and materials accountancy. We have also announced a £5 million bilateral assistance programme to help Russia deal with its nuclear waste and spent fuel legacy. Specific projects are now being considered, but, before we can initiate projects on the ground, we need an adequate legal and financial framework for such assistance. This is under negotiation.

  NATO does not provide financial assistance in these areas. At the Washington Summit this year, NATO said that it would consider options for confidence and security-building measures, verification, non-proliferation
  408W
  and arms control and disarmament. The Council in Permanent Session will propose a process to Ministers this month for considering such options.

  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced on 24 November that nuclear safety in the Former Soviet Union would be the subject of cross departmental study in the 2000 Cross-cutting review. The UK is also contributing to ongoing discussions in the EU on a "Joint Action Establishing a European Union Co-operation Programme for Non-proliferation and Disarmament in the Russian Federation."

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the high-level parliamentary visits planned this year to Russia, referred to at paragraph 19 of the paper dated 6 October prepared by his Department and supplied to the Foreign Affairs Committee. [101386]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer my hon. Friend to the annexe of Parliamentary visits attached to the supplementary Memorandum submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 2 December. The list of visits for 1999 is as follows:

  Parliamentary Visits 1999

  January
  Ivan Rybkin, President Yeltsin's personal envoy to CIS, plus seven deputies for seminar on standards in public life, organised by Leeds University.

  March
  Nine MPs, House of Commons Defence Committee.

  April
  Alexander Shokhin, Chairman of Duma faction of "Our Home is Russia" Party, plus four deputies to London and regions.
  North Atlantic Assembly delegation to Moscow.
  Five Deputies, Duma Budget Committee (tax sub-committee).

  May
  Alexander Zhukov, Chairman, Duma Budget Committee plus four deputies Terry Davis, MP (as candidate for Secretary General Council of Europe).

  June
  Six deputies, Duma Budget Committee (tax sub-committee)1.
  Three deputies, Duma Budget Committee (tax sub-committee)1.
  Five deputies, Duma Information Policy Committee Nikolai Stolyarov, Deputy Chairman, Duma Foreign Affairs Committee plus four deputies.
  Four Deputies, Duma Veterans Committee.
  Nineteen deputies to UK for election study visit.
  Five MPs to Moscow and Regions.
  Six MPs to Moscow, for discussions on Kosovo.
  Two deputies to UK (in group of Ministry of Labour officials and NGO representatives).

  July
  Vladimir Lukin, Chairman, Duma Foreign Affairs Committee, for opening of Scottish Parliament.
  Nikolai Stolyarov, Deputy Chairman, Duma Foreign Affairs Committee for Inter-parliamentary seminar on security issues.

  September
  Lord Cromwell and Dr. Michael Clark, MP to Moscow, for meetings on democracy and governance.
  Two Duma deputies, Ivan Rybkin and Viktor Sheinis, for a seminar on media and elections campaigns.

  October
  Eight MPs from the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, to Moscow, St. Petersburg and Ekaterinburg.

  November
  Andrew Tyrie, MP to Moscow, for meetings on human rights issues.

  1Separate visits
  409W
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the United Kingdom made representations to the Russian Government about the prosecution of the journalists Nikitin and Pasko; and if he will make a statement. [101383]

  Mr. Vaz
  We, along with our EU partners, have been concerned that the trials of the environmentalists Nikitin and Pasko should be conducted fairly, justly and in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. We will continue to monitor both cases.

  Russia (QMV)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason qualified majority voting has been introduced into the Common EU strategy on Russia; what was his policy on its introduction; what decisions henceforth will no longer be subject to unanimity; what decisions have been taken under the new procedure; and what is the procedure for restoring the unanimity principle. [101013]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, which entered into force on 1 May 1999, provides for the European Council to decide on common strategies unanimously. It also provides for the Council to act by qualified majority when adopting joint actions, common positions, or taking any other decisions on the basis of a common strategy. If a member of the Council declares that it intends for important and stated reasons of national interest to oppose the adoption of a decision to be taken by qualified majority, a vote shall not be taken. The Council may, acting by qualified majority, request that the matter be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity. No actions have yet been taken on the basis of the common strategy on Russia by qualified majority. We support the new arrangements for the common foreign and security policy put in place by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

  Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extent to which the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty has been(a) ratified and (b) implemented by the relevant states. [101385]

  Mr. Vaz
  (a) The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty was ratified by all 30 States and entered into force in July 1992. The adapted CFE Treaty was signed in Istanbul on 19 November 1999. The adapted Treaty will not come into force until all 30 signatories have ratified. This could take some time. In the interim period, the original CFE Treaty remains in force.

  (b) While there have been a number of examples of non-compliance, implementation since the Treaty came into force has generally been good. We and our NATO Allies continue to press for full compliance, and have made clear that our ratification of the adapted Treaty will depend upon the level of all Parties' compliance with limits that have been agreed.

  State Visits (Policing)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is standard 410W
  practice for minutes not be taken of meetings held between officials of his Department and the Metropolitan Police on security matters relating to state visits. [101293]

  Mr. Battle
  It has not been standard practice to take minutes of such meetings.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he or his officials have had access to minutes taken by the Metropolitan Police of meetings between his officials and the police in relation to the visit of the Chinese President. [101354]

  Mr. Battle
  There are no such minutes.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on those detained by the police during the state visit of the President of China to the UK. [101891]

  Mr. Battle
  Following a further review, I am now able to give figures for arrests for activities related to the State Visit in all police areas visited by the Chinese President. As I made clear in the Debate on the Address, no-one was charged. As the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) said on 5 November 1999,Official Report, column 366W, 15 people were arrested in the Metropolitan Police Area. I regret that I may have implied during the Debate on the Address that there were no arrests. I can now confirm that, in addition to those above, one person was arrested in the City of London. There were no arrests in Cambridge. I reconfirm that no one was charged in any of these police areas.

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the enhancement of non-military crisis response tools within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, as established in section 56 of the Cologne Presidency Conclusions; to what extent qualified majority voting will apply; what the role will be of (i) national Governments and (ii) the Commission in their deployment; and what is his policy towards the pooling of national civil resources and expertise complementing other CFSP initiatives. [100998]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Presidency have carried forward the conclusions of the European Council at Cologne on non-military crisis response tools, and will present a report to the European Council at Helsinki suggesting how the Cologne conclusions may be taken further. Decisions on any new arrangements in this area will be taken by consensus. No decisions have yet been taken on the roles of the Commission or of national governments in any new coordinating arrangements. We support better coordination of the various non-military crisis response tools at the disposal of the Community and member states as a way of strengthening the European Union's common foreign and security policy.

  Bilateral Visits (US)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of major inward and outward bilateral visits
  411W
  to and from the USA since September 1998 compiled on the same basis as the annexe contained in the memorandum dated 5 October submitted by his Department to the Foreign Affairs Committee entitled "The FCO's Role in Promoting British Interests in Relations with Russia". [101388]

  Mr. Battle
  Once a complete list is available in the early part of next year, it will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Child Care
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the strengthening of early years development and child care partnership plans to ensure a comprehensive network of child care provision. [98727]

  Ms Hodge
  My Department issued planning guidance to assist the early years development and child care partnerships to draw up their updated plans for 2000–01 in September. The guidance emphasises that plans should be working towards comprehensive coverage of child care services. Between May 1997 and end of June 1999, this Administration has created 94,316 new child care places, compared with 74,053 new places created by the out of school child care initiative in the four years between April 1993 and April 1997.

  Since September, we have held a series of 14 planning guidance conferences around England attended by over 900 partnership members. As part of an extensive programme of partnership support we have also made a series of two and three day strategic planning modules available to partnerships. These modules offer workshop sessions tailor made to suit the needs of individual partnerships and give an opportunity for partners to identify detailed strategies to implement their early years development and child care plan.

  The wider programme of partnership support includes publication of a series of good practice guides, the setting up of quarterly, regional partnership meetings for partnership chairs, lead officers and members, and the issue of regular newsletters and information sheets to partnership members. We are currently assessing partnership training needs and will make training packages available to them by the end of this financial year.

  Nursery Places
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the number of additional nursery school places created since May 1997. [100007]

  Ms Hodge
  Since September 1998, all four-year-olds have been eligible for a free early education place. Currently around 587,000, or 95 per cent., of these places are taken up.

  In addition, we are making available £390 million over three years to almost double the number of three-year-olds in England able to access a free early education place. These resources will fund 190,000 new places by March
  412W
  2002. From September 1999, £40 million of this new money has been allocated to the 57 local education authorities with the highest levels of social need, to create around 48,000 new, free places during 1999–2000. From April 2000, additional funding for three-year-olds will be distributed across all local education authorities, again prioritised by social need.

  The table shows the number of places that we expect to be created across all authorities by 2000–01. We have yet to determine the allocation for 2001–02.

  LEA

  1999–2001

  Liverpool

  1,167

  Manchester

  563

  Birmingham

  6,059

  Newham

  1,618

  Sandwell

  466

  Hackney

  1,444

  Knowsley

  65

  Tower Hamlets

  275

  Southwark

  958

  Lambeth

  1,646

  Nottingham

  1,016

  Greenwich

  821

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  762

  Haringey

  704

  Wolverhampton

  100

  Bradford

  1,220

  Sunderland

  469

  Leicester

  1,412

  Middlesbrough

  57

  Kingston upon Hull

  460

  Lewisham

  1,566

  Islington

  1,043

  Walsall

  102

  Salford

  154

  Oldham

  1,086

  Rochdale

  900

  Sheffield

  2,565

  Barking and Dagenham

  262

  Brent

  1,017

  Coventry

  1,229

  Doncaster

  593

  Gateshead

  625

  Camden

  831

  Blackburn with Darwen

  887

  Waltham Forest

  1,562

  South Tyneside

  73

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  595

  Hartlepool

  34

  Halton

  544

  Ealing

  410

  Bolton

  748

  Barnsley

  885

  Leeds

  1,247

  Stoke-on-Trent

  439

  Wandsworth

  1,601

  Stockton-on-Tees

  66

  Redcar and Cleveland

  54

  St. Helens

  725

  Rotherham

  1,186

  Blackpool

  1,058

  Wirral

  1,437

  Tameside

  593

  North Tyneside

  68

  Durham

  301

  North East Lincolnshire

  629

  Wakefield

  581

  Hounslow

  584

  Westminster

  918

  Southampton

  1,579

  413W

  LEA

  1999–2001

  Sefton

  486

  Derby

  687

  Kirklees

  1,100

  Kensington and Chelsea

  695

  Brighton and Hove

  1,046

  Bristol

  821

  Luton

  1,179

  Enfield

  1,284

  Telford and Wrekin

  914

  Wigan

  1,339

  Portsmouth

  1,045

  Calderdale

  381

  Plymouth

  1,262

  Croydon

  884

  Redbridge

  913

  Dudley

  77

  Slough

  244

  Isle of Wight

  506

  Torbay

  327

  Darlington

  25

  Cornwall

  1,644

  North Lincolnshire

  493

  Thurrock

  547

  Southend-on-Sea

  590

  Lancashire

  1,871

  Nottinghamshire

  180

  Reading

  183

  Northumberland

  67

  Bournemouth

  435

  Peterborough

  651

  Hillingdon

  638

  Bury

  51

  Trafford

  54

  Barnet

  82

  Merton

  51

  Medway

  665

  Derbyshire

  176

  Harrow

  225

  Warrington

  50

  Cumbria

  112

  Havering

  78

  Bexley

  58

  Richmond upon Thames

  41

  Lincolnshire

  141

  Swindon

  122

  Stockport

  70

  Bromley

  341

  Norfolk

  176

  City of London

  1

  Staffordshire

  194

  Herefordshire

  41

  Devon

  150

  Suffolk

  563

  Oxfordshire

  234

  Cambridgeshire

  142

  Cheshire

  161

  Kent

  467

  Dorset

  282

  Milton Keynes

  61

  Gloucestershire

  735

  Surrey

  251

  Bracknell Forest

  89

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  34

  Bedfordshire

  98

  Kingston upon Thames

  35

  East Sussex

  110

  Somerset

  112

  West Berkshire

  37

  Wiltshire

  215

  North Somerset

  51

  Solihull

  46

  414W

  LEA

  1999–2001

  Shropshire

  63

  North Yorkshire

  106

  Isles of Scilly

  19

  Warwickshire

  119

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  80

  Northamptonshire

  164

  Bath and North East Somerset

  37

  Essex

  314

  Leicestershire

  349

  Poole

  34

  Worcestershire

  130

  Sutton

  46

  South Gloucestershire

  61

  Wokingham

  37

  Rutland

  8

  York

  42

  Buckinghamshire

  124

  Hampshire

  295

  Hertfordshire

  265

  West Sussex

  163

  Total

  83,636

  New Deal (Heywood and Middleton)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many clients have joined the New Deal Voluntary Option since its launch(a) nationally and (b) in the constituency of Heywood and Middleton. [100295]

  Ms Jowell
  From the launch of the New Deal in January 1998 to the end of September 1999, 22,400 young people nationally, and 11 young people in Heywood and Middleton constituency, had left the Gateway to start the Voluntary Sector option.

  Early Year Services
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the inspection system for early years services. [99096]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: On 2 December, the Care Standards Bill was introduced into another place. Part V of the Bill makes provision for the reform of the regulation of early years services. In particular, it enables the regulation of child care and early years education in England to be brought together under a distinct and new Early Years Directorate in Ofsted.

  Part V also makes other important changes to the regulation of child care. For example, it provides for new and uniform national standards for child care. It introduces, for the first time, checks on people working with children aged 8 and over. It will also ensure that overnight care is properly regulated.

  These measures will ensure greater consistency in child care provision. They will result in safer environments of a higher quality for children and less bureaucracy for providers. Parents will have access to more information and so make better informed choices. And they will have greater peace of mind knowing that unsuitable people are prevented from caring for their children.

  LEA Administration Costs
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent, in cash terms, by local education authorities in England on administration within their education budgets in the most recent year for which information is available. [100928]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table gives information by each local education authority in England for the financial year 1997–98 on central administration expenditure within the local education authorities education budgets.

  Expenditure on administration by LEAs in England for financial year 1997–98

  LEA number

  LEA name

  Total net expenditure (£000)

  201

  London, City of

  640

  202

  Camden

  6,108

  203

  Greenwich

  8,318

  204

  Hackney

  8,037

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,631

  206

  Islington

  5,222

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,409

  208

  Lambeth

  768

  209

  Lewisham

  5,355

  210

  Southwark

  6,505

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  8,867

  212

  Wandsworth

  3,823

  213

  Westminster, City of

  5,143

  301

  Barking and Dagenham

  3,782

  302

  Barnet

  4,021

  303

  Bexley

  4,780

  304

  Brent

  2,883

  305

  Bromley

  4,638

  306

  Croydon

  3,604

  307

  Ealing

  6,576

  308

  Enfield

  6,959

  309

  Haringey

  3,431

  310

  Harrow

  3,444

  311

  Havering

  2,623

  312

  Hillingdon

  3,878

  313

  Hounslow

  3,902

  314

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,887

  315

  Merton

  3,745

  316

  Newham

  4,267

  317

  Redbridge

  2,566

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,302

  319

  Sutton

  3,825

  320

  Waltham Forest

  7,579

  330

  Birmingham

  13,139

  331

  Coventry

  2,518

  332

  Dudley

  3,070

  333

  Sandwell

  4,199

  334

  Solihull

  2,960

  335

  Walsall

  2,258

  336

  Wolverhampton

  3,464

  340

  Knowsley

  3,518

  341

  Liverpool

  8,4311

  342

  St. Helens

  2,519

  343

  Sefton

  3,611

  344

  Wirral

  5,324

  350

  Bolton

  3,284

  351

  Bury

  2,173

  352

  Manchester

  7,160

  353

  Oldham

  2,343

  354

  Rochdale

  3,124

  355

  Salford

  6,808

  356

  Stockport

  3,434

  357

  Tameside

  2,935

  416W

  Expenditure on administration by LEAs in England for financial year 1997–98

  LEA number

  LEA name

  Total net expenditure (£000)

  358

  Trafford

  1,906

  359

  Wigan

  4,094

  370

  Barnsley

  2,555

  371

  Doncaster

  3,477

  372

  Rotherham

  3,626

  373

  Sheffield

  6,408

  380

  Bradford

  6,516

  381

  Calderdale

  2,882

  382

  Kirklees

  6,401

  383

  Leeds

  9,419

  384

  Wakefield

  4,961

  390

  Gateshead

  4,343

  391

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5,210

  392

  North Tyneside

  1,217

  393

  South Tyneside

  3,208

  394

  Sunderland

  2,218

  420

  Isles of Scilly

  48

  800

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2,685

  801

  Bristol, City of

  7,427

  802

  North Somerset

  3,502

  803

  South Gloucestershire

  5,222

  805

  Hartlepool

  1,899

  806

  Middlesborough

  2,890

  807

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,907

  808

  Stockton on Tees

  2,562

  810

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  3,464

  811

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  4,057

  812

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,573

  813

  North Lincolnshire

  5,227

  815

  North Yorkshire

  6,894

  816

  York, City of

  1,359

  820

  Bedfordshire

  4,738

  821

  Luton

  2,436

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  10,175

  826

  Milton Keynes

  5,128

  830

  Derbyshire

  4,688

  831

  Derby City

  2,428

  835

  Dorset

  3,066

  836

  Poole

  1,736

  837

  Bournemouth

  2,252

  840

  Durham

  7,556

  841

  Darlington

  1,656

  845

  East Sussex

  7,767

  846

  Brighton and Hove

  4,044

  850

  Hampshire

  13,474

  851

  Portsmouth

  1,952

  852

  Southampton

  1,058

  855

  Leicestershire

  7,991

  856

  Leicester City

  16,577

  857

  Rutland

  374

  860

  Staffordshire

  2,243

  861

  Stoke on Trent

  3,484

  865

  Wiltshire

  5,915

  866

  Swindon

  1,485

  903

  Berkshire

  8,404

  905

  Cambridgeshire

  8,392

  906

  Cheshire

  8,888

  908

  Cornwall

  4,839

  909

  Cumbria

  3,581

  911

  Devon

  9,049

  915

  Essex

  5,872

  916

  Gloucestershire

  6,431

  918

  Hereford and Worcester

  4,791

  919

  Hertfordshire

  11,744

  921

  Isle of Wight

  3,233

  922

  Kent

  27,805

  923

  Lancashire

  19,887

  925

  Lincolnshire

  7,965

  417W

  Expenditure on administration by LEAs in England for financial year 1997–98

  LEA number

  LEA name

  Total net expenditure (£000)

  926

  Norfolk

  5,349

  928

  Northamptonshire

  5,848

  929

  Northumberland

  4,918

  930

  Nottinghamshire

  16,335

  931

  Oxfordshire

  8,468

  932

  Shropshire

  3,549

  933

  Somerset

  6,492

  935

  Suffolk

  5,309

  936

  Surrey

  11,662

  937

  Warwickshire

  6,914

  938

  West Sussex

  8,767

  Total

  678,572

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of the Labour and Social Affairs Council held in Brussels on 29 November; and if he will make a statement. [100994]

  Ms Jowell
  I represented the UK at this meeting of the Council.

  The Council approved the draft Joint Employment Report for 1999, the latest draft Employment Guidelines for 2000 and the latest draft of the Council Recommendation on the implementation of member states' employment policies. These elements were also agreed by the Joint ECOFIN/Social Affairs Council, held on the same day, at which the Secretary of State and I represented the UK. They will now be submitted to the Helsinki European Council on 10–11 December for agreement.

  The Council reached political agreement on the Council Decision establishing the Employment Committee.

  A Resolution on the employment and social aspects of the Information Society was adopted by the Council. This calls on member states to maximise the job potential of the Information Society through measures related to: learning and research; the world of work and public services.

  In the absence of consensus on the provisions for employees involvement in the proposed European Company, Presidency efforts to find a compromise solution will continue in December.

  The UK confirmed that it could only accept Article 63(4) as a legal base for extending Regulation 1408/71 (Co-ordination of Social Security Systems to Third Country Nationals). Some other member states supported Articles 42 and 308. The issue will be taken forward under the Portuguese Presidency.

  Most member states called for varying degrees of extension of Regulation 1408/71 to cover Third Country Nationals and non-active persons. The UK argued in
  418W
  favour of simplifying the Regulation first and then extending it later as a separate exercise. Discussions will continue under the Portuguese Presidency.

  The Council adopted Conclusions on a concerted strategy for modernising and improving social protection and agreed to the establishment of a Group of High Level Officials to exchange information and best practice and to write reports for the Council.

  The Council noted a Presidency progress report on the Proposal for a Directive on Physical Agents (Vibration).

  The Commissioner presented a package of measures to prohibit discrimination under the new powers of the Amsterdam Treaty (Article 13). There will be a discussion of the package in the appropriate working group in December in order to prepare the work of the Portuguese Presidency.

  Employment Pact
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if section II 4 of the Resolution of the European Council on the European Employment Pact permits positive discrimination. [101099]

  Ms Jowell
  Section II 4 of the Resolution of the Employment Council does not permit positive discrimination and, in any case, has no legal effect.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the implementation of subsidiarity within the Employment Pact, with reference to individual projects planned. [101098]

  Ms Jowell
  The European Employment Pact is consistent with the principles of subsidiarity. The Pact is an amalgam of three non-binding processes, the existing Luxembourg employment process and the Cardiff economic reform process, and a third, new element, the macro-economic dialogue, termed the 'Cologne process'. There are no new individual projects planned.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the Macro-economic Dialogue, indicated in section 12 of the Resolution of the European Council on the European Employment Pact; and what discussions he has held on the dialogue. [101111]

  Ms Jowell
  The macro-economic dialogue referred to in section III of the Resolution of the European Council on the European Employment Pact takes place biannually among social partners and fiscal and employment policy makers at EU level. There are two elements, a technical working party which had their first meeting on 29 October 1999 and a political level ministerial meeting which took place for the first time on 8 November 1999. These meetings provided an opportunity for an initial exchange of views.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the Jumbo Council meeting referred to in the report to the Cologne Council on the European Employment Pact. [101113]
  419W
  Ms Jowell
  The Jumbo Council is the meeting of the Finance and Economic Policy Council and the Employment and Social Affairs Council. It meets every six months during each Presidency.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the measures for closer co-operation between EU states within the framework of the European Employment Pact; what new priorities are under discussion; and if he will make a statement on progress made under the Pact. [101110]

  Ms Jowell
  The European Employment Pact agreed at the Cologne European Council on 3–4 June 1999 brought together three processes. Two of these were the existing Luxembourg employment process and the Cardiff economic reform process. The third, new, element was the macro-economic dialogue, termed the 'Cologne process'. The Pact gives fresh impetus, through the macro-economic dialogue, to the promotion of long term, sustainable job creation in a climate of stability and steady growth.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many jobs his Department estimates have been created as a consequence of decisions taken through the Employment Pact. [101112]

  Ms Jowell
  The European Employment Pact gives fresh impetus to the existing Luxembourg employment process as well as introducing a macro-economic dialogue process which helps create a climate of stability and steady growth. The UK National Action Plan, produced as part of the Luxembourg process sets out policy initiatives for a medium term strategy to maximise job creation.

  Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) maths and (b) science trainee teachers have been placed in the employment-based route to teaching schemes in each of the three terms of the 1998–99 school year; and what was the average cost per place in each of those terms. [100908]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: In the school year 1998–99, the number of training plans approved for the Graduate and Registered Teacher Programmes from people who had secured a placement to teach mathematics or science was as follows:

  Term

  Mathematics

  Science

  Autumn 1998

  15

  9

  Spring 1999

  9

  11

  Summer 1999

  8

  11

  The average termly training grant for maths and science programmes approved during 1998–99 was:

  Term

  Cost (£)

  Autumn 1998

  1,075.41

  Spring 1999

  1,051.75

  Summer 1999

  1,206.53

  Middle Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of middle, deemed secondary, schools. [101177]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Systems of organisation involving middle deemed secondary schools are traditional in some local education authority areas. We recognise that a variety of patterns of organisation are possible, and we support those that are in the best interests of education in the area. Any proposals to change the age range of a school by a full year or more will need to go through the formal statutory proposal process. If there are any objections, the proposals will be decided by a local school organisation committee or, if the committee cannot agree, by an independent adjudicator.

  Unauthorised Absence
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average level of unauthorised absence(a) in schools in local education authorities with three-tier school systems and (b) nationally. [101176]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Promoting regular school attendance is a key component in the Government's strategy to raise educational standards. Our recently published strategy document "Tackling Truancy Together" sets out our proposals to reduce days lost to education as a result of truancy. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  In 1998–99, 0.6 per cent. of half days were missed as a result of unauthorised absence in maintained primary and secondary schools in those local education authorities in England which operated a three-tier system. This compares with an overall national figure of 0.7 per cent. of half days missed.

  Head Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many headteachers are eligible to apply to be considered for early retirement under his proposals; and how many retirement packages can be provided from within the funding allocated for the scheme; [101395]

  (2) who will determine whether headteachers applying for the Government's early retirement package meet his Department's criteria of not being able to carry forward the major changes envisaged in improving education; and how applicants will be judged against the criteria. [101393]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  £10 million of Standards Fund money has been made available for 2000–01 to support the early retirement of headteachers. A limit of £50,000 has been placed on the support available in any individual case. This will allow for at least 200 retirements to be supported by the scheme. Local Education Authority employers will determine which of their headteachers appear to meet the scheme's criteria and prioritise those for whom they are applying for support. This Department and OFSTED will consider the evidence provided by LEAs in support of each application and announce during January which applications have been approved.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the planned expenditure on performance-related pay for teachers over the next two years, broken down by category of expenditure, including(a) training, (b) cost of external assessors and advisers and (c) pay awards for teachers passing through the threshold. [101397]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government have set aside up to £1 billion over the next two years to fund Green Paper proposals, the vast majority of which is for pay. We have announced a Standards Fund grant of £20 million in 2000–01 for introductory training for performance management and provisionally a further £8 million in 2001–02. We are considering what further training and support might be provided centrally for schools. The costs associated with this training and the external assessors and advisers will be subject to the outcome of negotiations. The Government has proposed to the STRB that teachers should receive up to £2,000 for passing the threshold. There will be no quota on threshold successes and it is not possible therefore to give a total cost in advance; this will depend upon the number of teachers who pass the threshold.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications have been received in response to his Department's advertisement for external assessors to operate under the teachers' performance-related pay scheme. [101394]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have received over 3,000 expressions of interest from people wishing to be an external assessor under our proposed threshold arrangements for teachers.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when Hay/McBer will complete its work on the threshold criteria under the teachers' performance-related pay proposals; and when he will publish the criteria. [101391]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned Hay/McBer to undertake research into the characteristics of effective teaching. In relation to the threshold, they will identify models of good practice which the Department will take into consideration in finalising its proposals for the threshold standards. He intends to invite views on the draft threshold standards early next year.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  DVLA
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the backlog of unopened post at the DVLA; and what operational problems exist at the DVLA; [99106]

  (2) what the current waiting time is for driving licence applications; and if he will make a statement. [99105]
  422W
  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: Approximately 80,000 items of mail are received at DVLA daily. For security and operational reasons, DVLA post is never opened until the point of processing and therefore there is currently a four to five day queue of unopened mail, which is about normal for the time of year. The level of work awaiting processing is carefully monitored each day.

  On the driving licence side, which accounts for 20,000 to 30,000 applications per day, the DVLA undertakes to issue driving licences, including return to the applicant, within three weeks—15 working days—from the date of receipt at the Agency. This three-week standard has been met or bettered consistently throughout the year.

  In cases where a driver declares a medical condition—amounting to some 1,100 applications a day—because of the increased complexities the service standard is five weeks for a car licence and seven weeks for a bus or lorry licence. Some current cases in these categories are taking longer. Action is being taken to bring this service up to standard and the position is steadily improving.

  There are no exceptional operational difficulties at the Agency. Over the pas 18 months, major changes to both driver and vehicle computer systems have been successfully introduced.

  Ruddy Duck
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the direct cost is to his Department of each ruddy duck shot this season as part of the Central Science Laboratory's culling programme. [99592]

  Mr. Mullin
  The cost of the control trial is approximately £800,000 over four financial years. The aims of the control trail are to test the feasibility of eradicating the UK's population of ruddy duck within ten years, determining the financial cost of such a programme and indicating the number of birds needed to be culled each year to achieve this.

  Additionally, the control trial aims to identify the factors which will impact on any national programme, such as whether compulsory access to land would be necessary, the distribution and numbers of ducks at various sites, methods of control dependent upon differing habitats and the number of visits needed to individual sites. Due to the many varied aspects and requirements of this control trial, a cost of controlling each individual duck was not requested from the contractors.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many ruddy duck have been shot by the Central Science Laboratory this season. [99598]

  Mr. Mullin
  The control trial is being undertaken in three areas of the country: Western Midlands, Anglesey where the control is all year round, and Fife, where the control is post-season only. The control trial does not focus on the numbers of birds culled, it looks at the wider picture of how the control is progressing given the various conditions, such as habitat, numbers of birds at each site, migratory movements, access to land, and number of site visits. However, between March and end of September 1999, with control only taking place in two of the regions,
  423W
  over 12 per cent. of the total national ruddy duck population was culled. At the conclusion of the first year, the contractors will produce a detailed report one aspect of which will be the number of birds culled.

  River Thames
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who has responsibility for search and rescue on the River Thames in the event of an emergency. [99624]

  Mr. Hill
  Her Majesty's Coastguard is responsible for the initiation and co-ordination of civil maritime search and rescue within the United Kingdom search and rescue region. That region includes all tidal waters within UK territorial limits, and so includes the tidal River Thames.

  Within that, responsibility for search and rescue on the Thames is undertaken by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), the Port of London Authority (PLA) and the Metropolitan Police; under detailed Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) between them, MCA retains overall responsibility and also handles incidents in the Thames estuary upstream to Canvey Island as part of its coastal operation. Under the MoU between MCA and the PLA, the PLA co-ordinates search and rescue incidents on the rest of tidal Thames, west of Canvey Island to Teddington Lock. PLA in turn have an MoU with the Metropolitan Police, covering the Thames between Crayfordness and Teddington, under which the Police assume responsibility for handling major incident in that area.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the division of responsibilities between the Marine Coastguard Agency, the River Police (Thames Division), the Fire Brigade and the Port of London Authority for safety on the River Thames. [99622]

  Mr. Hill
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is responsible for developing, promoting and enforcing high standards of marine safety; for minimising loss of life among seafarers and coastal users; and for responding to maritime emergencies 24 hours a day. This responsibility applies to the River Thames where MCA is responsible for the initiation and co-ordination of search and rescue.

  The Port of London Authority (PLA) is responsible for the maintenance of the safety of navigation and for the conservancy of the tidal Thames. Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the MCA, the PLA also co-ordinates search and rescue incidents west of Canvey Island to Teddington Lock. The PLA in turn has an MoU with the Metropolitan Police covering the Thames between Crayfordness and Teddington, under which the Police assume responsibility for any major incident in that area.

  The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Thames Division is responsible for the prevention of crime and disorder, high visibility patrolling and emergency policing response, which includes saving or preserving life when called upon to do so. It has general responsibility for the co-ordination of the response to civil emergencies. Accordingly, the MPS assumes responsibility for any major incident between Crayfordness and Teddington. But it does not provide a dedicated search and rescue facility.
  424W
  The London Fire Brigade (LFB) has designated responsibility for fire fighting and the provision of fire prevention information and advice. It has no designated responsibility for river rescue. With a view to increasing flexibility of river borne operations, it recently took delivery of two new fast response craft. While the primary purpose of these craft is for firefighting, they can be used to assist rescue operations and are equipped to do so. In the event of a serious incident on the Thames, the LFB would place their vessels and themselves at the disposal of the other relevant authorities to help rescue casualties.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions the Regional Marine Safety Committee has met; who are the members; what recommendations it has made on safety on the Thames; and how many recommendations have not been acted on. [99620]

  Mr. Hill
  The London District Marine Safety Committee covers safety on the Thames. It is chaired by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and has met on 11 occasions. Its members are representatives of HM Coastguard; Norfolk County Council; London Fire and Civil Defence Authority; Environment Agency; Port of London Authority; Health and Safety Executive; Trinity House; the Metropolitan Police; P&O European Ferries; Stena Line; F T Everard and Sons; National Federation of Fisherman's Organisations; Royal Yachting Association and Upper Thames Passenger Boat Association.

  The main purpose of District Marine Safety Committees is to keep under review the distribution of responsibilities for safety, rescue and control of pollution on inland and coastal waters. They facilitate communication between interested parties and resolve local issues quickly. In fulfilling this role the London District Safety Committee, its sub-committees and working groups have considered a wide range of issues, many relevant to safety on the Thames. Achievements include development of model guidelines for Port Emergency Plans; assisting in the development of two Codes of Practice, one for local authorities and one for users, on Personal Watercraft; providing guidance on manning scales for small passenger boats; development of an inland waterway boat activity matrix as a basis for risk assessment and development of emergency plans for stretches of water with significant usage.

  The London District Marine Safety Committee has made recommendations of more general interest to the annual National Marine Safety Steering Group Committee and its successor, the Marine Safety Co-ordinating Committee. Of particular relevance was a recommendation on the need to introduce more specific regulation to control alcohol abuse; a public consultation document was issued on 2 December 1999.

  Child Passengers (Risks)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the risk involved in children(a) travelling as car passengers and (b) travelling as motorcycle pillion passengers; and if he will make a statement. [100011]

  Mr. Hill
  There were 85 child car passenger casualties per 100 million km travelled between 1996 and 1998 in Great Britain. Of these, seven per 100 million km were fatal or serious.
  425W
  The number of children identified in the National Travel Survey making journeys as motorcycle pillion passengers over the last five years has been too small to provide a reliable estimate for the population as a whole.

  The absolute numbers of child passenger casualties in the past three years are as shown in the table.

  Child passenger casualties (aged 0–15) in Great Britain: 1996–98

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1996–98

  Two-wheel motor vehicle passengers

  Fatal

  1

  3

  0

  4

  Serious

  51

  48

  34

  133

  Slight

  130

  137

  141

  408

  Total

  182

  188

  175

  545

  Car passengers

  Fatal

  75

  72

  63

  210

  Serious

  1,218

  1,171

  1,133

  3,522

  Slight

  14,036

  14,598

  14,546

  43,180

  Total

  15,329

  15,841

  15,742

  46,912

  Croydon Tramlink
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when Croydon Tramlink will be fully operational and open to the public. [100437]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a matter for Tramtrack Croydon Ltd. (TCL), the private sector consortium which holds the concession to build, operate and maintain the tram system. I understand that TCL's latest programme has an opening date for the full system in February 2000.

  Scooters
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in enabling scooters to be conveyed on trains since February 1997. [100727]

  Mr. Hill
  The position is little changed. The majority of train operating companies and, indeed, other transport operators, will not carry scooters. The difficulty is that many are physically too big to be accommodated, or they are not sufficiently stable to travel safely.

  We are continuing to work with the wheelchair manufacturing industry to develop a system of labelling mobility equipment which is transportable. This will help disabled people to choose a scooter or wheelchair to suit their particular lifestyle.

  Auxiliary Coastguards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many coastguard stations in the UK auxiliary coastguards have operated digital selective calling in the last 12 months; for what period the emergency has lasted; how many auxiliary coastguards have been trained in the last year; and where they are located. [100665]

  Mr. Hill
  There have been no occasions on which Auxiliary Coastguards have operated digital selective calling in emergency situations in the last 12 months. 73 426W
  Auxiliary coastguards have been trained in the last year and details of where they are located is summarized in the following table:

  Coastguard Region

  Auxiliary Coastguards having received familiarisation

  Location

  West of Scotland and Northern Ireland Region

  59 in total

  Greenock, Ardossan, Campbeltown, Tarbert and Islay

  North East Scotland

  2 in total

  Kirkwall and Wick

  Eastern

  0

  —

  West

  0

  —

  South-East

  0

  —

  South-West

  12 in total

  St. Marys, Isles of Scilly, Lizard, Lands End, Trevose Head

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many training courses have been given to auxiliary coastguards in the operation of digital selective calling. [100664]

  Mr. Hill
  The training of Auxiliary Coastguards to operate Digital Selective Calling is undertaken on the job as part of their annual training programme, therefore specific training courses are not necessary.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding has been made available to the Marine and Coastguard Agency for training auxiliary coastguards to operate digital selective calling in case of an emergency involving the failure of radio equipment. [100663]

  Mr. Hill
  Training of Auxiliary Coastguards who may be required to operate digital selective calling, eg in the case of an emergency involving the failure of radio equipment, is provided on the job. Funding for this would be met from the overall Auxiliary Coastguard budget which was increased by 6.5 per cent. for the financial year 1999–2000.

  Rent
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to monitor the performance of the Greater Manchester Rent Officer Service in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [100769]

  Mr. Mullin
  Rent Officers are independent statutory officers, and my Department does not intervene in their decisions. Until recently, the conduct and performance of rent officers in Greater Manchester were the responsibility of the Chief Rent Officer for the Greater Manchester Rent Registration Area, under the supervision of a Proper Officer appointed by Manchester City Council. However, on 1 October the Rent Service was established as an Executive Agency of my Department. The Agency is committed to ensuring consistency and raising standards throughout the Rent Service.

  Road Noise
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish
  427W
  the list of the responses he has received to the Government's announcement of new measures to help alleviate noise on motorways and trunk roads. [100177]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: The Government's announcement of the budget and the criteria on 22 March this year to deal with some of the most serious and pressing cases of traffic noise on existing trunk roads did not invite responses. However, as a result of the announcement a further 43 sites have been brought to our attention, of which 23 have been taken forward for further study.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had recently with(a) the European Commission and (b) other EU ministers with regard to a common system of road noise measurement, and methods of alleviating road noise. [100172]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: Although there have not been recent Ministerial discussions on these issues, my Department is co-operating in a number of EU initiatives on noise, including work to finalise a Directive which, for the first time, would specify standards and limits for the noise generated by tyres.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on levels of noise nuisance to nearby residents which are caused by noise emanating from nearby motorways and trunk roads. [100216]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: The Highways Agency is currently undertaking detailed studies at a considerable number of locations with a view to identifying appropriate measures to reduce excessive levels of noise at nearby properties. The results of these studies are not yet available.

  Untaxed Cars
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions with which agency the responsibility to pursue the owners of untaxed cars lies; and if he will make a statement. [100790]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: The responsibility for pursuing the keepers of unlicensed vehicles rests with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). The Agency works closely with the police and traffic wardens to detect unlicensed vehicles on the public road. Where an offence has been confirmed, action is taken through out of court settlement or, in the more serious cases, by prosecution.

  Last year successful action was taken against 475,000 tax dodgers with some £57.9 million recovered in fines and penalties. In addition, 125,000 evaders or potential evaders relicensed their vehicles as a direct result of enforcement action bringing in a further £15 million.

  Road Diggings
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the use of permanent reinstatement materials by utility companies when they dig up paved roads and footways. [101135]
  428W
  Mr. Hill
  Utilities carrying out street works are required to reinstate the street in accordance with the Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways, which is a statutory code of practice published under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The specification requires the permanent reinstatement to match the original surface materials as closely as possible.

  Public Transport (Women)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the initiatives taken since May 1997 on women and public transport usage, indicating in each case the(a) date of the initiative, (b) budget and (c) impact assessment carried out; and if he will make a statement. [100886]

  Mr. Hill
  As women are the main users of public transport, our "New Deal for Transport" is of particular importance to them. It has put a greater emphasis on providing better quality transport services; on providing safer public transport; on improving the quality of the pedestrian environment; and on promoting land-use policies which encourage local services. The Commission for Integrated Transport will also take full account of women's transport needs.

  A number of initiatives have been—and will be—undertaken to improve the general availability and accessibility of public transport; for example, through Local Transport Plans, Bus Quality Partnerships and the national public transport information system. More specifically, we are finalising the production of a gender audit to assist transport planners and operators to develop and implement public transport systems that meet women's transport requirements and encourage sustainable development. The audit will be available in the new year.

  We are also continuing to make use of consultations, research projects and disaggregated statistics to identify the impact of policy on women. We also require the inclusion of policy appraisal statements in each Ministerial policy submission.

  A380 Kingskerswell Bypass
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will include the A380 Kingsherswell bypass in his review of future road building. [101049]

  Mr. Hill
  The A380 Kingskerswell bypass was withdrawn from the trunk road programme in 1996 and, indeed, the A380 no longer forms part of the Trunk Road Network. Responsibility for the promotion of any such scheme lies with Torbay Council and Devon County Council which would have to consider it within the context of their respective Local Transport Plans. The Authorities are currently undertaking a joint study along the A380 corridor, which is to be developed for inclusion within their final Local Transport Plans, due for submission in July 2000.

  Countryside (Public Access)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  429W
  plans he has to increase public access to woodlands and river banks; and if he will make a statement. [101215]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government's plans, announced in March this year, to introduce a new statutory right of access on foot to specified categories of open countryside—mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land—will be included in the countryside Bill which was announced in the Queen's Speech. At the Government's request, the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission have recently reported on the case for extending public access to other types of open countryside, such as coast, woodland and riverside. We are considering their views carefully before deciding how best to proceed.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amount has been spent since 20 March 1998 on(a) legal, (b) financial and (c) other consultancy costs for the public private partnership for London Underground; and (i) what were the initial budgets and (ii) what are the future estimates for future consultancy work. [101082]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 12 May 1999,Official Report, columns 154–55W. I shall shortly be reporting London Transport's expenditure on external consultants up to the end of the first half of the current financial year. London Transport will not know the overall requirements or costs for external advice until the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) transaction has been

  London Underground delays of 15 minutes and over period 1 January 1998 to date (November 1999)Count of incident rate

  Symptom

  Bakerloo Line

  Central Line

  District Line

  Jubilee and East London Lines

  Metropolitan and Circle Lines (C and H)

  Metropolitan and Circle Lines(Main)

  Northern Line

  Piccadilly Line

  Victoria Line

  Total

  Altercation/assault

  22

  42

  26

  8

  5

  16

  28

  21

  2

  170

  Animal incident

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  10

  Antisocial behaviour

  7

  15

  13

  15

  8

  9

  15

  12

  3

  97

  Asset damaged/unfit to use

  17

  9

  5

  2

  1

  3

  6

  4

  —

  47

  Audible warning on train

  —

  3

  —

  8

  1

  15

  3

  —

  —

  30

  Awaiting connection

  —

  1

  —

  11

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  15

  Bomb alert—nothing found

  —

  1

  2

  1

  2

  —

  1

  3

  1

  11

  Booking office closed

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Chemical release

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Computer system failure

  4

  2

  2

  48

  3

  4

  2

  12

  —

  77

  Congestion

  2

  7

  4

  1

  —

  3

  7

  3

  1

  28

  Contact between person and train

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  1

  —

  8

  Current charges late

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  4

  —

  8

  Current discharged

  9

  3

  4

  1

  —

  —

  3

  4

  1

  25

  Damage to personal property

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Doors obstructed/held open

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  13

  Drunk

  1

  3

  4

  5

  2

  5

  4

  11

  —

  35

  Dual aspect on signal

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  8

  Earth recorded

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  7

  Emergency brakes applied on train

  —

  101

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  3

  108

  Erratic acceleration of train

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  430W
  completed, but the Government are working with LT to ensure that we receive the best advice while minimising the overall costs of implementing the PPP.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list research published by the London Underground task force; and if he will make a statement on its future work programme. [101080]

  Mr. Hill
  The Task Force for London Transport has published no research. Its role is to ensure that the extra resources London Transport were given in July, translate into real improvements for passengers.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the findings of the task force set up to monitor improvements to London Underground indicating how often the task force has met and when. [100952]

  Mr. Hill
  The Task Force monitors investment in the London Underground to ensure the delivery of improvements to passengers; this work is on-going. The task force meets every month.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of delays to passenger services of 15 minutes or more for each line of the London Underground for 1998 and 1999. [100946]

  Mr. Hill
  London Underground Limited (LUL) are responsible for delays for the day-to-day running of their Underground network, including any delays to services. LUL have provided the information set out in the table.
  431W

  London Underground delays of 15 minutes and over period 1 January 1998 to date (November 1999)Count of incident rate

  Symptom

  Bakerloo Line

  Central Line

  District Line

  Jubilee and East London Lines

  Metropolitan and Circle Lines (C and H)

  Metropolitan and Circle Lines(Main)

  Northern Line

  Piccadilly Line

  Victoria Line

  Total

  Error miscellaneous

  22

  36

  14

  15

  14

  24

  25

  19

  3

  172

  Escalator incident

  10

  6

  —

  3

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  25

  Fall between train and platform

  3

  6

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  14

  Fire/smoke alert

  73

  66

  37

  20

  22

  15

  59

  29

  20

  341

  Flooding

  2

  4

  4

  4

  1

  5

  4

  2

  —

  26

  Gas leak

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  7

  High wind

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Infrastructure damage/unfit to use

  1

  4

  2

  8

  4

  5

  4

  3

  —

  31

  Leaves on track

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Lift incident

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  14

  —

  17

  Miscellaneous/no details

  1

  2

  17

  2

  2

  3

  3

  5

  2

  37

  Missile

  —

  8

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  14

  No aspect on signal

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  6

  No forward movement of train

  42

  124

  18

  35

  20

  32

  63

  13

  12

  359

  No stock

  —

  50

  —

  1

  3

  1

  3

  2

  —

  60

  Object on train

  7

  10

  6

  8

  4

  11

  10

  9

  —

  65

  Passenger alarm operated

  —

  16

  2

  3

  —

  1

  4

  2

  4

  32

  Person action miscellaneous

  5

  1

  6

  5

  3

  5

  1

  3

  3

  32

  Person caught/struck by doors

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Person ill

  8

  38

  24

  5

  15

  14

  30

  21

  3

  158

  Person on track

  14

  15

  10

  6

  8

  9

  13

  8

  10

  93

  Person overcarried to depot/siding

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Person train safety (other)

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  5

  Person under train

  8

  11

  7

  1

  4

  2

  13

  13

  6

  65

  Person(s) injured

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  4

  1

  —

  11

  Platform edge door incident

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Platform overrun

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Points failure

  41

  54

  61

  21

  21

  48

  35

  24

  1

  305

  Police request

  5

  12

  5

  7

  2

  9

  5

  7

  2

  54

  Possession overrun

  16

  12

  46

  10

  14

  7

  26

  20

  10

  161

  Power failure

  12

  11

  7

  10

  4

  9

  6

  6

  —

  65

  Rail broken or displaced

  10

  9

  9

  3

  3

  3

  1

  4

  23

  65

  Signal overrun

  13

  11

  9

  15

  8

  11

  22

  13

  —

  102

  Signal remaining at danger

  75

  16

  56

  82

  16

  32

  32

  30

  11

  350

  Smell on train

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  5

  Snow/ice

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Staff absent/not in position

  10

  54

  24

  237

  22

  33

  55

  55

  29

  519

  Stopped at closed station

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Surfer

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  TEP/TMS flashing or dead

  —

  —

  1

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Theft

  2

  5

  3

  3

  1

  6

  4

  2

  1

  27

  Track circuit failure

  82

  148

  75

  27

  61

  67

  39

  30

  21

  550

  Track miscellaneous

  10

  3

  8

  16

  6

  7

  12

  6

  18

  86

  Track safety compromised

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  5

  Train brakes weak

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Train braking too hard

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Train collision

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Train defect miscellaneous

  26

  66

  42

  87

  22

  75

  67

  66

  30

  481

  Train derailment

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Train door safety system failure

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Train door opened incorrectly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  432W 433W

  London Underground delays of 15 minutes and over period 1 January 1998 to date (November 1999)Count of incident rate

  Symptom

  Bakerloo Line

  Central Line

  District Line

  Jubilee and East London Lines

  Metropolitan and Circle Lines (C and H)

  Metropolitan and Circle Lines(Main)

  Northern Line

  Piccadilly Line

  Victoria Line

  Total

  Train failed brake test

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Train sluggish

  —

  15

  —

  7

  2

  3

  2

  1

  1

  31

  Train uncoupled

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Tunnel telephone operated

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Unattended/lost property

  17

  29

  26

  14

  32

  9

  44

  22

  28

  221

  Unauthorised access

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  6

  Unauthorised use of inter-car doors

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Unexploded bomb

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Unusual noise on train

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  5

  Vandalism

  5

  34

  21

  8

  2

  15

  9

  4

  4

  102

  Vomit

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  4

  —

  10

  Wheels flatted

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Wrong signal cleared

  1

  21

  6

  3

  3

  6

  1

  9

  1

  51

  Wrong train description

  —

  —

  3

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Total

  596

  1,117

  629

  810

  353

  557

  689

  534

  259

  5,544

  Westminster Underground Station
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Westminster Underground Station on the Jubilee Line will open. [101081]

  Mr. Hill
  London Transport aim to open the Jubilee Line station at Westminster shortly before Christmas. It is, however, a deep and complex station, being constructed on a constricted site. LT cannot therefore guarantee the opening date at present.

  Essex County Council Press Officer
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the oral statement of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) of 24 November 1999,Official Report, column 731, on what evidence the Minister based her statement that an Essex County Council press officer contacted newspapers and other media outlets in Essex, indicating the media outlets contacted and the dates and means of contact. [100844]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The statement was based on information received from the County Council and the Programme Officer. The media outlets contacted were as follows:

  Evening Gazette

  Evening Echo

  East Anglian Daily Times

  Essex Courier

  Epping Gazette

  Herts and Essex Observer

  Yellow Advertiser

  BBC Essex

  Essex FM

  Anglia TV

  BBC TV East

  BBC Newsroom Southeast

  434W
  All the above mentioned outlets were contacted on 3 November, by fax. Additionally, the Essex Chronicle was dealt with in the manner I alluded to in my oral statement.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has in place to help local authorities in relation to large-scale voluntary transfer of housing stock. [101084]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department has published comprehensive guidance on the stock transfer process, which is designed to assist local authorities who are transferring all or part of their housing stock to a Registered Social Landlord. Other measures in place include(a) the ability to use capital resources (i.e. provision for credit liabilities) rather than revenue to meet the cost of premium payments which arise when outstanding loans with the Public Works Loan Board are repaid early; (b) allowing authorities to capitalise for up to three years after transfer which additional rent allowance expenditure would otherwise fall on the general fund; (c) allowing authorities to value their stock using a discount rate of 7 per cent. rather than 8 per cent. as previously, thereby increasing the size of their capital receipt; and (d) guidance about warranties.

  M6
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for widening the M6 motorway between Preston and Birmingham. [101348]

  Mr. Hill
  I have no plans to widen the M6 between Preston and Birmingham.

  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for roads and road safety announced on 23 March the programme of multi-modal and roads-based studies proposed in the Roads Review. The West Midlands to North West Conurbation Study, including the M6 between

  435W
  junctions 11 and 20, is in Tranche 1 of this programme. I have pleasure in announcing that this study has recently been awarded to consultants and will be completed by the summer of 2001.

  The consultants will be asked to indicate a comprehensive range of strategies across all modes that could be used to tackle the traffic problems in the area, and encourage modal shift especially for freight.

  As regards the M6 between junction 20 and the Scottish Border, the Highways Agency are seeking to develop a route management strategy study starting in the spring of 2000.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what matters concerning air traffic control will be decided at the 9 to 10 December Transport Council. [101624]

  Mr. Mullin
  Although there will be an exchange of views on air traffic management at the Transport Council on 9 and 10 December, no decisions on any matters concerning air traffic control will be taken.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place a copy of the Commission Communication on air traffic delays which will be discussed at the Transport Council on 9 to 10 December in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [101610]

  Mr. Mullin
  A copy of the final version of the Commission's Communication on "the creation of a single European sky" will be placed in both Libraries of the House as soon as it is received.

  Eurocontrol
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the final decision will be made on the EU membership of Eurocontrol; and if he will make a statement. [101623]

  Mr. Mullin
  Negotiations between Eurocontrol and the European Community on the terms and conditions for Community accession to Eurocontrol are still in progress. It is hoped to conclude them early next year.

  Domestic Airline Routes
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government are doing to encourage competition in the main domestic airline routes in the United Kingdom. [101299]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government believe that the interests of UK consumers are best served by ensuring that a framework exists within which airlines can compete freely to provide services. The UK strongly supported the creation of the European Single Aviation Market for scheduled, chartered and air cargo services, which came into force on 1 January 1993.

  Within the Single Market, Community carriers may offer the services they wish and set fares according to their commercial judgment. It is therefore open for any
  436W
  Community air carrier to offer domestic air services on routes within the UK, if it considers that such services are commercially viable. It will often be the case however, in the UK as elsewhere, that demand on domestic air routes is insufficient to support competitive provision of services.

  Housing Capital Resources
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to make an announcement about the distribution to local authorities of housing capital resources for 2000–01. [101644]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Details of housing capital allocations for local authorities for 2000–01 will be announced tomorrow. I am arranging for tables giving individual Housing Investment Programme allocations to be placed in the Library of the House. These tables will also show the performance band in which each authority has been placed.

HEALTH

  Nurses National Register
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered nurses have been struck off the national register held by the UK Central Council for Nurses and Midwives and subsequently reinstated, and in what time period this reinstatement occurred, since the creation of the UK Central Council for Nurses and Midwives for(a) all disciplinary issues and (b) cases involving care of the elderly. [98469]

  Mr. Denham
  In the period since 1 July 1983, when the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting was first established, to 31 March 1999, 1,098 practitioners have been removed from, and 256 restored to the register. Further information on this and on cases involving care of the elderly is available from the UKCC.

  Nursing Vacancies (West Surrey)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurse vacancies exist in West Surrey Health Authority. [99911]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of nurse vacancies in West Surrey Health Authority area as at 31 March 1999 is given in the table.

  Total vacancies

  3 month vacancies

  Qualified nurses

  310

  260

  Unqualified nurses

  50

  40

  Notes:

  Total vacancies are those posts trusts were actively trying to fill.

  Hard to fill vacancies are those posts that were vacant for three months or more at 31 March 1999.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 as hard to fill

  Source:

  Department of Health Recruitment, Retention and Vacancies Survey March 1999

  Tooth Whiteners
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the removal of tooth whiteners from sale following its change of status from a medical device to a cosmetic. [100661]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have received 51 representations on tooth whiteners, comprised of 32 letters from Parliamentary colleagues, seven Parliamentary questions and 12 letters from industry and the public following the confirmation from the Court of Appeal that these products are subject to the provisions of the Cosmetics Directive.

  Avon Health Authority
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of Avon Health Authority's scheme to reduce out-patient waiting times by guaranteeing a number of out-patient appointments for each primary care group. [100641]

  Mr. Denham
  Avon Health Authority, working with local general practitioners and National Health Service trusts, is looking at ways of improving orthopaedic waiting times. As part of this work, the health authority is considering whether the successful pilot scheme, operated by North Bristol NHS Trust and North West Bristol Primary Care Group, which guarantees individual GP practices a specified number of out-patient appointments can be extended across the health authority area. No formal assessment of the North Bristol pilot scheme has been undertaken by the NHS Executive. We welcome local initiatives to reduce out-patient waiting times by involving PCGs.

  Denplan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists have required their patients to take out insurance with Denplan in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [100625]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available on the number of dentists who decide to de-register some or all of their National Health Service patients, and at the same time offer to provide future care and treatment under a private arrangement, which may include an insurance plan such as Denplan.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the work of the Multiple Sclerosis Society Young Carers Project. [100830]

  Mr. Hutton
  While the Department has made no specific assessment of this project, we are aware of the valuable work of the Multiple Sclerosis Society in this and other fields. The Department is however, working closely with local authorities, health authorities, the voluntary sector, and young people themselves to implement our commitment to young carers as outlined in the National Carers Strategy.

  Anaesthetists
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled in the last 12 months at Bolton Royal Hospital due to unavailability of an anaesthetist. [100921]

  Mr. Denham
  Over the last twelve months, no operations were cancelled at the Royal Bolton Hospital due to the unavailability of an anaesthetist. All consultant anaesthetist posts at the hospital are currently filled and two additional consultants are expected to be appointed early next year.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled at(a) St. Bartholomew's Hospital, (b) the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel and (c) the Homerton Hospital in Hackney due to the lack of availability of an anaesthetist. [101409]

  Mr. Denham
  Since April 1999, St. Bartholomew's Hospital has cancelled an estimated three operations, the Royal London Hospital an estimated 14 operations and the Homerton Hospital no operations, due to illness or absence of anaesthetic staff, or because an anaesthetist was called away to deal with a clinical emergency. Currently, all consultant anaesthetist posts within the Homerton National Health Service Trust are filled.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure the availability of anaesthetists, and to prevent operations being cancelled due to their absence. [101410]

  Mr. Denham
  At national level, numbers of higher specialist trainees in anaesthetics have been reviewed recently and we are satisfied there are sufficient to meet National Health Service demands for consultant anaesthetists over the next few years. Currently, there are enough higher specialist trainees in anaesthetics, for there to be around 1,280 extra qualifying for consultant posts by 2005. It will be for individual NHS trusts and health authorities who are accountable for the quality of the services they provide, to determine the number, grade and mix of staff they will require to deliver quality services in their location.

  Health Expenditure (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital projects have been approved in Leicestershire during(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01. [101056]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures are provided in the table. Capital schemes for 2000–01 are still awaiting approval.

  Year

  NHS Trust

  Capital project

  Amount £ million

  1996–97

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  Linear Accelerators

  2.7

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  Leicestershire Mental Health Services1

  Elderly Psychiatric Disorder/Elderly High Dependency Unit

  9.2

  1998–99

  Leicestershire Mental Health Services1

  Community Mental Health Teambase

  1.1

  439W

  Year

  NHS Trust

  Capital project

  Amount £ million

  1999–2000

  Leicester General Hospital

  Satellite Dialysis (Lincoln County Hospital site)

  1.1

  1999–2000

  Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare

  Loughborough District General Hospital (Phase II)

  9.4

  1 On 1 April 1999 Leicestershire Mental Health Services National Health Service Trust and Fosse Health NHS Trust merged to form Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the average level of increase in percentage terms for health authorities for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000; and what has been the percentage increase for Leicestershire Health Authority; [101055]

  (2) what level of funding would be received by Leicestershire Health Authority if it was funded at 100 per cent. of weighted capitation. [101054]

  Mr. Denham
  Leicestershire Health Authority's weighted capitation target for 1999–2000 is £530.78 million.

  The table shows the average cash increase for health authorities for 1997–98,1998–99 and 1999–2000 and the cash increase for Leicestershire Health Authority.

  Year

  Average cash increase in percentage terms

  Leicestershire Health Authority cash increase in percentage terms

  1997–98

  3.93

  4.28

  1998–99

  4.70

  5.19

  1999–2000

  6.60

  7.15

  Anti-bullying Policies
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by region, those NHS trusts which have implemented anti-bullying policies. [100937]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: Bullying of staff, in whatever form it may take, is unacceptable and should not be tolerated by any National Health Service employer. Information on local anti-bullying policies is not collected centrally, but may be obtained from individual National Health Service employers.

  The National Health Service depends on the skill and dedication of its staff. Providing staff with a good, safe working environment free from discrimination and harassment is a key priority for local managers.

  Radiation
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken on whether persorption and translocation expose certain subgroups of the population to increased radiation doses. [100861]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The Department has funded, and continues to fund, research into the phenomenon of persorption (absorption
  440W
  of particulate material through the gut wall). This research has demonstrated that particulate material can be persorped and translocated in some animal models under very specific biological conditions. However, further work is required to determine whether this would increase the dose to those tissues affected.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the risks associated with ingestion and inhalation of radioactive particles. [100854]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has a comprehensive programme of research on the biokinetics and dosimetry of inhaled particles, including human studies of particle deposition and clearance and animal studies of particle dissolution in the lung. Complementary studies on ingested particles have also been undertaken. These studies have the aim of improving estimates of dose and risk by providing information for the development of biokinetic and dosimetric models. In recent years, many of these studies have been carried out with partial support from the European Commission in multi-partner projects involving institutions in several member states. The NRPB has recently participated in a review of risks from ingested and inhaled particles, and in the development of a database of experiments on radionuclide biokinetics, undertaken for the European Late Effects Programme funded by the European Commission. The Department has also funded studies on the behaviour and effects of inhaled and systemically administered radioactive particles.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken on methods for assessing the relative biological effectiveness of Auger-emitting radionuclides. [100858]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The National Radiation Protection Board has undertaken studies of the biokinetics, dosimetry and relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of the Auger-emitting nuclide, zinc-65. The method used to compare the RBE of zinc-65 and x-rays was to measure chromosome damage in cultured prostate cells either incubated with zinc-65 or exposed to x-rays. The NRPB has recently contributed to a review of data on Auger-emitting nuclides, undertaken for the European Late Effects Programme, funded by the European Commission. The Department is also currently funding research into the effects of Auger emitters which is not yet complete.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the risks from low doses and low dose rates of ionising radiation; and what research his Department is(a) undertaking and (b) has commissioned on this subject. [100841]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: Since 1986, the Department and its predecessor, the Department of Health and Social Security, has administered the Radiological Protection Research Programme. The objective of this programme is to identify the research which is needed to inform policy development in the area of low level radiation exposure (both ionising and non-ionising), its effects, and the need

  441W
  to quantify the risk to public health and to implement appropriate preventative measures. The programme has funded many individual research projects designed to examine these aspects of radiation exposure. During that 14-year period, the Department has had a considerable number of representations on the effects of low level radiation exposure from both individuals and groups representing a large variety of environmental concerns.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will commission research into the health effects of(a) ingested and (b) inhaled uranium as a result of exposure to ammunition containing depleted uranium. [100842]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has not commissioned any research into the effects of exposure to depleted uranium and has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what epidemiological research his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned into the health effects of aqueous and atmospheric discharges of radioactive isotopes from licensed nuclear sites in England and Wales. [100843]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The Department is funding a project entitled "Geographical variations in childhood cancer incidence generally and in relation to nuclear installations." The contract is held by the Childhood Cancer Research Group in Oxford but is a multi-centre collaboration so that all cases of childhood cancer in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) between 1969 and 1993 can be included in the study. The study will be looking at variations in incidence rate in relation to socio-demographic factors, clustering, population mixing, nuclear installations and parental preconceptual irradiation.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken on the relationship between the chemical form of specific radionuclides and their localisation in the body. [100860]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The Department has funded research into whether the chemical form (speciation) of particular radionuclides effects their uptake. Currently, the Department is funding a study of the gastro-intestinal uptake by critical populations of certain radionuclides found in the general environment, such as strontium. The results, when available, will be used to test the validity of uptake models.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the radiation dose from plutonium incorporated in tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes is determined. [100853]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: There are two methods that are currently in widespread use by the radiation protection profession around the world. Both were developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The first is the ICRP 30 Lung Model, the second the ICRP Human Respiratory Tract Model for Radiological Protection (HRTM). The approaches in both are broadly similar to each other, but HRTM is based on more recent
  442W
  information and understanding. In particular, the parameters used in the HRTM to calculate the amounts of inhaled materials retained in the tracheobronchial lymph nodes (TBLN) were based on numerous measurements of radionuclides in lungs and TBLN from tissues taken at autopsies.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken to establish whether plutonium isotopes concentrate in human gonads. [100856]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The Department has funded research to establish whether plutonium concentrates in human gonads. The project, using extremely low levels of a very pure form of plutonium-237 in volunteers, demonstrated that plutonium does not concentrate in human testes.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into whether radionuclides concentrate in human gonads. [100855]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The Department relies on advice on this matter from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). As part of a programme of research on the biokinetics and dosimetry of radionuclides, NRPB have measured the retention of radionuclides in the testes of rodents and, in collaboration with the Paterson Institute for Cancer Research, studied mechanisms of uptake. Work has concentrated on the behaviour of naturally occurring and artificial alpha emitters and also Auger emitters, because of the importance of the relative position of the retained nuclide and target cells for these short range emissions. Most radionuclides do not concentrate selectively in the gonads. The NRPB' s Assessment of Internal Doses to Subjects in the Health and Safety Executive Follow-up to Gardner Study involved calculating doses to testes from incorporated radionuclides for a group of Sellafield workers. As a part of this project, information relating to radionuclide retention in the testes was reviewed. Particular attention was paid to plutonium. From the data available, it was found that only between one thousandth and one ten thousandth part of the plutonium taken up by the body ended up in the testes.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken on the interaction between ionising radiation and other environmental agents. [100857]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has funded research in an attempt to examine the interaction between ionising radiation and other environmental agents, specifically the interaction between gamma rays and benzene. These experiments proved very difficult to perform in realistic biological systems and the results were inconclusive. Further information on the mechanisms of interaction between radiation and other environmental agents remains a priority for research.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken on methods for assessing the relative biological effectiveness of natural alpha-emitting radioisotopes. [100859]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The National Radiation Protection Board has undertaken experimental studies of the biokinetics and dosimetry of

  443W
  naturally-occurring alpha-emitting radioisotopes of thorium, uranium and polonium, with the aim of improving estimates of dose and risk from exposure to these radionuclides. An NRPB study of the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of in-utero exposure of mice to plutonium-239 alpha emissions, chromosome damage in bone marrow cells of offspring was compared in animals exposed to either plutonium-239 or x-rays. This methodology is applicable to naturally occurring alpha-emitting nuclides and avoids large-scale studies of tumour induction. The Department is also funding studies in animals on the effects of inhaled radon. These studies, concentrating on dose and dose rate effects in the induction of lung cancer, will provide information for the assessment of RBE.

  Audiology Services
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made by the review into hearing aid and audiology services; and when he will receive the report of the review. [101142]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: The National Health Service Executive established a working group to take a closer look at hearing aid services and the part they play in a modern NHS. Ways of developing hearing aid services are currently being considered.

  Childline
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Childline; and if he will make a statement. [100945]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is committed to ensuring that voluntary organisations in receipt of section 64 funding gain maximum benefit from this financial support. The Department constantly keeps under review grants awarded, to check that the voluntary organisations such as Childline are performing effectively and the grants continue to take forward departmental policy priorities and objectives.

  As part of this process, during the autumn of 1997, Childline had a routine but in depth inspection by the Department. The report was extremely positive, describing Childline as a significant national organisation. The monitoring, evaluation and review arrangements attached to grants received by voluntary organisations such as Childline, requires them to provide us with an annual report on the way the Department's funding has been used. The report gives a detailed account of what has been achieved during the preceding financial year.

  Over its 10-year existence, Childline's achievements have been considerable. In particular, the agency has identified a previously largely unrecognised need; established a unique non-statutory service shaped from the start by children themselves in the way they used the service and the needs they expressed; built a good reputation becoming well respected and credible in the field; and maintained a very clear image to the public through the purity and consistency of its focus.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the(a) number of patients to be
  444W
  treated, (b) number of beds, (c) number of consultant surgeons and (d) revenue budget for the financial year 2000–01 for (i) the Royal Marsden Hospital in London and (ii) the Christie Hospital in Manchester. [101492]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not yet available. The National Health Service trusts responsible for the Royal Marsden and the Christie Hospitals are currently developing plans but are unable to give estimates due to the number of variable factors which will affect forecasts this far in advance.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the Government's response to the report of the Royal Commission on long-term care. [101351]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House on 2 December 1999,Official Report, columns 444–54.

  Nurses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have awarded the 12 per cent. pay rise to newly qualified nurses. [101355]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  All National Health Service bodies employing nurses on national contracts should have implemented the pay scales set out in Advance Letter (NM) 1/99 issued to the service on the 8 April 1999.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial incentives he has evaluated for E-grade nurses, ward sisters and charge nurses. [101356]

  Mr. Denham
  This year nurses got their biggest real terms pay rise for 10 years, and for the first time in five years the award is being paid in full without staging. Most E grade nurses, ward sisters and charge nurses received a 4.7 per cent. increase in basic pay.

  Our proposals for modernising the National Health Service pay system were outlined in "Agenda for Change" published on 15 February 1999. Our aim is for a new pay system which properly rewards responsibility, competence and performance. For nurses these changes will mean a new career structure to replace the current clinical grades, which will provide better career progression and fairer rewards for developing new skills, taking on extended roles and team working. This is under active discussion with the trades unions.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he will take to stop experienced nurses from leaving the NHS. [101357]

  Mr. Denham
  The human resources framework "Working Together" sets out the Government's determination to improve the quality of working lives for all staff in the National Health Service and requires NHS employers to improve retention rates for all health professional staff. "Making A Difference" sets out a new
  445W
  vision for the future of nursing in the new NHS to ensure that nurses are able to develop satisfying and rewarding careers, including the introduction of nurse consultant posts. Significant progress has already been made to improve pay, tackle racism and inequality and create safe and healthy work places.

  In September this year, Ministers launched a £1 million campaign called "Improving Working Lives in the NHS" as part of our wider agenda on supporting the family. Each region has appointed a high profile champion to lead a multi disciplinary task force to introduce more flexible and family friendly policies in the NHS. The "Improving Working Lives Champion" for Chorley is Kath Holbourn, Director of Nursing, Leighton Hospital, Middlewich Road, Crewe and can be contacted on 01270 612 351.

  Medicines
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he intends to take in order to stop the practice of making medicines available by postcode area. [101358]

  Mr. Denham
  We have said many times we recognise and will tackle unacceptable variations in access to care and treatment. That is why we have set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE will reduce post-code variations by issuing authoritative national guidance based on evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments.

  Primary Care
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will issue guidelines setting out which services primary care trusts will manage; [101411]

  (2) if it will be possible for new primary care trusts to provide (a) acute elders' services, (b) children's services, (c) maternity services and (d) services for those with learning difficulties. [101408]

  Mr. Denham
  Only Level 4 primary care trusts will be permitted to directly provide primary health care services. The range and nature of these services will be defined individually, by the outcome of local consultation. PCTs will not be able to provide acute services; however, a key part of their role will be to commission these services from a secondary care provider. As existing guidance ("Primary Care Trusts: Establishing Better Services") states, PCTs will adopt the commissioning role previously employed by Health Authorities.

  Guidance on the establishment, preparatory period and functions of PCTs is currently being prepared and will be issued in late December. This will further outline the PCT role in commissioning and developing community health services.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were employed in England's care homes and day centres(a) in each of the past 20 years, (b) on 1 May 1997, (c) on 9 March 1998 and (d) on the most recent date for which figures are available. [101310]
  446W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. Information is available on people employed by local authority social services care homes and day centres. The table sets out the whole time equivalent for staff employed in England's care homes and day centres on 30 September of each year since 1979.

  Local authority personal social services staff employed in day centres and residential care homes on 30 September, 1979 to 1998

  England

  Whole time equivalents

  Staff of day centres

  Staff of residential care homes

  1979

  11,356

  80,734

  1980

  12,103

  82,516

  1981

  12,781

  83,117

  1982

  13,522

  83,611

  1983

  14,468

  85,413

  1984

  15,035

  85,058

  1985

  15,680

  85,456

  1986

  16,383

  86,694

  1987

  17,766

  88,242

  1988

  18,440

  88,496

  1989

  19,423

  88,285

  1990

  19,720

  87,858

  1991

  20,220

  83,001

  1992

  20,864

  78,918

  1993

  21,591

  74,048

  1994

  22,504

  72,155

  1995

  22,488

  68,650

  1996

  23,139

  67,973

  1997

  23,092

  65,422

  1998

  23,170

  62,146

  Source:

  SSDS001 return

TREASURY

  Personal Pensions
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce his decision on the abolition of the carry forward/carry back tax rules relating to personal pensions; and if he will make a statement. [101382]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The proposal to remove the carry forward and carry back facility forms part of the current public consultations on stakeholder pensions. We will announce our intentions when we have considered the responses to the consultation.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the tax relief that will be saved as a result of his proposal to abolish the carry forward/carry back tax rules relating to personal pensions; and if he will make a statement. [101381]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The consultation proposal to remove the carry forward and carry-back facility is intended to simplify pension administration not to raise revenue. We would not expect the removal of carry forward carry back to save tax relief.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Exchequer is estimated to receive as pension contributions and compensation this financial
  447W
  year and in each of the following three years in respect of public sector employees who were mis-sold personal pensions between 1988 and 1994. [100917]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is estimated that receipts of between £100 and £160 million will be received by the Exchequer this financial year, and in each of the following three years, as a result of public service employees who were mis-sold personal pensions being reinstated into public service pension schemes. The amount of receipts paid in match future liabilities. Any compensation paid into public service schemes will be matched by future benefits to pensioners.

  Electric Shock Dog Collars
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many electric shock dog collars Her Majesty's Customs and Excise possess; and how many times they have been used, and on how many dogs, since July 1998. [101435]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  HM Customs and Excise do not use collars which administer electric shocks to their dogs.

  Appropriation Orders
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a list of the Transfer of Appropriation Orders applied for by the Commission of the European Union and approved by, or awaiting the approval of, a meeting of a Council of Ministers, indicating for each the(a) budget reference purpose and amount of the original appropriation, (b) reason why it was not spent on the proposed purpose, (c) purpose for which it is to be spent and (d) parliamentary scrutiny to which it was subject. [101625]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of all transfers of appropriations dated up to 30 June 1999 have been deposited and are available in the House of Commons Library. Transfers since that date will be deposited in compliance with the usual procedures.

  "Europe as an Economic Entity"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the Commission report, "Europe as an economic entity"; and if he will make a statement on policy thereto. [101027]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The 1996 Commission report "The mutually beneficial effects of greater co-ordination of economic and structural policies (Europe as an economic entity)" presented a study of the employment history of the EU. The report highlighted the importance of the European single market for growth and employment across Europe and underlined the need for further structural reforms to Europe's product and labour markets. A copy of the report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tax Rate
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire will benefit from the 10p tax rate; and if he will make a statement. [101139]
  448W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Almost all of the individual income taxpayers in Shrewsbury and Atcham and in Shropshire will benefit from the 10p tax rate.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire will benefit from the reduction in capital gains tax; and if he will make a statement. [101128]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My right hon. Friend announced in the Pre-Budget Report that he would be consulting on the detail of a number of possible changes to the capital gains tax treatment of business assets. Any changes to capital gains tax would apply to all qualifying businesses in the area, but we have no specific figures for these.

  Adlearn Foundation
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress of the Inland Revenue investigation into the Adlearn Foundation. [100862]

  Mr. Timms
  The Inland Revenue has a statutory duty of confidentiality in respect of all taxpayer's affairs. I cannot reveal details of the Department's dealings with any taxpayer.

  EU Pensions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current pensions liabilities of the European Communities; and what reforms to a private-based system are under consideration. [101035]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by the Economic Secretary on 3 November 1999,Official Report, column 238W.

  The Council has formally invited the Commission to present an assessment of future needs resulting from the pension scheme as well as a proposal to revise the scheme, by the end of June 2000.

  Any reforms to a private-based system would have to be proposed by the Commission and they have not yet made any proposals for us to consider.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are projected to benefit from the working families tax credit for each of the first five years. [101329]

  Mr. Timms
  It is estimated that for 2000–01, the first full year of the Working Families Tax Credit, about 1.4 million families will be in receipt of the credit.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many calls have been received by the Working Families Tax Credit Hotline since its inception from(a) Worcester, (b) Worcestershire, (c) from the West Midlands Region and (d) nationally. [100904]
  449W
  Mr. Timms
  The response line for the Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit had handled 780,000 inquiries up to the 30 November. In the Central TV region the response line had handled about 120,000 calls. A more detailed breakdown is not available.

  Children's Fund
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire will benefit from the new Children's Fund; and if he will make a statement. [101125]
  450W
  Mr. Timms
  In the 1999 Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government will set up a new Children's Fund in the spending review in 2000. The Fund will support pioneering work by voluntary and community sector organisations working with low-income children and their families, building on the sector's access to communities and families that the statutory sector struggles to engage. The review will take place in forthcoming months and as yet resources have not been allocated to the Fund, but we expect children from all over England to benefit from the activities it will support.

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 Derby.

Message from the Queen
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

Parental Leave
2.36 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdaleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Minister for Women is recommending the Prime Minister to take paternity leave.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, any decisions that the Prime Minister makes about his personal life are, of course, for him alone. My right honourable friend is well known as a devoted and attentive father, and I am sure that he will want to spend as much time as possible with his new child. I am equally sure that any suggestions from his ministerial colleagues will be outweighed by the wishes of Mrs Blair.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. I am sure that the whole House congratulates the Prime Minister and Mrs Blair on their productivity. As to the Answer, is It not government policy to encourage new fathers to take parental leave, and is there not a statute to that effect to allow them to do so without loss of pay?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government are about to introduce regulations in your Lordships' House—they have already passed through another place—which provide details of the new employment law and give parents of both gender the right to take parental leave within very wide boundaries. The notion of encouragement is perhaps too positive.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does this particular provision relate to people who work in relatively small companies? I agree wholeheartedly that parental leave should be encouraged, but I am
1006
aware that many small firms find it difficult to provide it. It would, however, be desirable if parental leave could be extended.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend is right that there are more problems for small firms with a small labour force than for large ones. That was why the Government conducted widespread consultation before introducing the regulations. The regulations, which are to be debated in your Lordships' House on Thursday, are flexible in operation to enable firms with smaller labour forces to take advantage of them and to use them appropriately. I agree with my noble friend that there are benefits to employers, as demonstrated by other countries which have introduced these provisions, including reduced staff turnover and greater commitment. I am sure that noble Lords agree that a happier, more motivated and more productive workforce is good for the economy as a whole.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I congratulate the Prime Minister and Mrs Blair on this excellent news. Is the noble Baroness aware that the travelling public would give a great sigh of relief if the Prime Minister took extended paternity leave, thus allowing the Deputy Prime Minister to play a fuller role and a massive unlocking of what has come to be known as "standstill Britain"?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall pass on to my right honourable friend and Mrs Blair the very kind congratulations of the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House. However, his question is wide of the one on the Order Paper. I also remind the noble Lord—I am sure that he is aware of this already—that the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister whether or not he is on parental leave.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I acid my congratulations to Mr and Mrs Blair on the future addition to their family. Can the opportunity be taken to remind adoption societies that anyone over the age of 35 is just as capable of looking after children as people under 35?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend asks a question or makes a request that I pass on his congratulations arid the point that he makes. He is right that the extended provisions for parental leave under the regulations include adoptive parents. They are flexible, as are the remainder of the regulations, and enable adoptive parents to take advantage of the provisions for rather longer than birth parents for whom the regulations apply only until the child is five.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I read the documents put forward by the noble Baroness, as Minister for Women. What advice does the noble Baroness offer her noble colleagues as to how a father in his 40s should operate in this area; indeed, does she believe that she needs to offer advice?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I stated in answer to the original Question of the noble Lord,

1007
Lord Skelmersdale, it would not be appropriate for Government Ministers to take a policy position on a personal aspect of the Prime Minister's life. As I said in response to a supplementary question, the Government believe, and as Minister for Women I believe, that anything we can do to enable people to have a more appropriate balance between their working life and their family, which means that we do not have the so-called "long hours culture" which has produced great problems for both genders and therefore for family life, is good for the whole of society and therefore the economy.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, if the Prime Minister takes paternity leave, will he leave John Prescott or Alastair Campbell in charge?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, there is some confusion. Under the regulations to be introduced, there is no such concept as paternity leave. There is so-called "parental leave". That is an entitlement for both parents of either gender to take specific forms of leave up to the time that any child is five years old. That may be worth mentioning because there is some confusion. There was some confusion in the original Question. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was kind enough to explain to me before asking the Question that he was referring to parental leave.
On the responsibilities for government, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister whatever he is doing, whether abroad or on parental leave.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, rather than the Minister for Women recommending that the Prime Minister take paternity leave, has not the provision been made available for families, in particular the children, who would otherwise be disadvantaged, so that those who do not require such leave do not have to take it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I repeat: the Government hope that it will become a more common practice for people who are able to do so to take this parental leave, and that that will lead to improved family cohesion at times of change in family life and reductions in the stress which often arises with parents trying to balance complicated lives where both may work outside the home but who still want to be, as they always have been, responsible and effective parents.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is paternity leave available for a minor?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness uses the phrase "paternity leave". We are referring to parental leave. Such leave is related to an individual's employment status. He has to have been employed by someone for one year. If he has been so employed, presumably he will qualify.

World Trade Organisation: Environmental Concerns
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they will make at the World Trade Organisation talks to ensure environmental concerns are addressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the United Kingdom and the European Union remain committed to ensuring that sustainable development is a key objective for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations. At the unsuccessful Seattle ministerial conference last week we proposed that environmental considerations should be taken into account throughout the negotiations and that negotiations should specifically include clarifying the relationship between WTO rules and trade measures stemming from multilateral environmental agreements; clarifying the relationship between WTO rules and eco-labelling schemes; and examining the role of the precautionary principle in WTO rules. We shall continue to press for these objectives in the further work of the WTO next year.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does the noble Lord agree that it is a matter of great regret that the message did not get across to some NGOs and many in this country that those issues were of great importance?
The Government say that they will take a lead in overhauling the WTO agenda: that it should reflect social, environmental and economic concerns in equal balance. Does the Minister believe that the failure to get that message across was the reason for so many angry protests at Seattle?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness. We are deeply disappointed that we have lost this opportunity to take forward the process of liberalising world trade which is in the interests of the environment and of developing countries. We shall pursue this week with the European Commission and other member states our proposal for an early ministerial conference to reform the World Trade Organisation. Clearly our environmental concerns will be at the forefront of that pressure.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government interested in making the World Trade Organisation somewhat more democratic? People are very concerned about the lack of democracy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I cannot agree with the noble Countess. In a sense the World Trade Organisation is too democratic. There are 135 member countries each of which has one vote. The outcome of a ministerial conference has to be achieved by consensus. It is precisely because it is governments,

1009
rather than multinational corporations or other organisations, who are the constituent members of the World Trade Organisation and who have to proceed by consensus that the ministerial conference had to be suspended rather than produce results. It is a matter of great regret, but it is not a failure of democracy.
Lord Elton: My Lords, were not the outbreaks of violence, not only in Seattle but also in this country, a worrying symptom of something which may grow larger? Is not the proper reaction of world governments to address the intellectual worry underlying those voiceless demonstrations so that they become no longer necessary? Is it not a function of the World Trade Organisation to render the world inhabitable by its environmental concern, and worth living in by its economic concern? Should not that debate be engaged in on newspaper front pages and in this Chamber rather than on the streets?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I have tried hard to look for intellectual and moral coherence in the views of the protestors on the streets of Seattle. I know less about the protestors here. There appears to be a great conflict between those who hold the high moral objective of pursuing environmental issues and the problem that much of the opposition to improved environmental standards and conditions for liberalising trade comes from the developing countries themselves. That is in part due to their suspicion of the protectionism of the developed countries. The issues are complex and the noble Lord is right to say that they need careful exploration.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that genetically modified food, which was discussed at the WTO, arouses intense feeling among young people in particular? Can he assure us that during further consideration of such food and the Government's study of it, environmental issues will be carefully considered along the lines suggested by your Lordships' Select Committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes. The Government are not opposed to GM foods in principle, provided that they meet our strict regulatory requirements. Those include environmental standards.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, notwithstanding previous answers, the developing world has historically been marginalised in WTO deliberations. Does the Minister see that altering as a result of the events in Seattle and, if so, how?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right; historically, the developing world has been marginalised. Despite the democratic structure of the WTO, there was an impression that the large developed countries, in particular the United States, were seeking to discourage developing countries from playing a full and active part in any future round. In the pressure we must exert to ensure that the WTO round of negotiations is revived, we must take care of the concerns of developing countries.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, will the Minister concede that while free trade is the best hope for prosperity and enables governments to invest in the environment, this Government are desperate to be popular with all the minority groups and liberals who do not understand that protectionism denies and stifles progress for poorer countries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that there is anything to concede. It is not true that this Government are desperate to seek the approval of any protectionist organisation. Our dedication to free trade and to the interests of the whole world, including the developing countries, has been consistent throughout. And it is not a party matter; I think that it was true of the previous government, too.

Speed Cameras
2.53 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are considering to make more effective use of roadside speed cameras and the penalties for driving at excessive speeds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government are close to finalising the details of a funding mechanism which will allow the more effective use of speed cameras wholly to improve road safety. I hope soon to be able to make an announcement on pilot schemes to test the new mechanisms, for which a number of partnerships based on police areas, comprising local authorities, the police and court services, have applied for inclusion. The issue of penalties for speeding is being considered within the speed policy review, which is due to report early in the new year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. He knows that I would support effective measures. As last month the media were briefed on such measures, reported to be announced soon, can he confirm the installation of hundreds of new, expensive cameras? If so, and presuming that they are kept in working order, which is not always the case, what will be the cost in addition to the sums produced in extra fines?
Lord Whiny: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's support for effective enforcement measures. The new funding system will cover the administrative costs of the cameras and road safety improvements associated with them. Cameras will be sited in areas of road safety difficulty and in areas with a potential for or a record of accidents. It is not the case that hundreds of cameras will appear all over the place, but it is one of the most effective forms of deterring those who ignore the current speed limits. Speed cameras have been shown

1011
substantially to improve accident records in the areas in which they are in place. The new financial regime will allow them to run continually.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while accepting the importance of speed reductions on accident figures, it is important that the word should not go out that the police are pursuing motorists simply in order to generate revenue? That would damage the police service.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. If the pilot schemes prove effective, the money that would be generated by the new financial regime would be recycled to cover the administrative costs. They would not be raising revenue for the police or local authorities. It is important that motorists understand that. They should also understand that the police are in the business of stopping accidents, not of raising revenue or catching out motorists.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in the review that the Minister mentioned, will his department consider the white lines on roads which draw people's attention to the cameras? It is a purely subjective judgment that that increases the likelihood of an interruption in the flow of traffic because motorists break immediately before the white lines and accelerate away from them.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are considering the various ways of signing the cameras. However, we know that the clearer it is made that cameras are in operation the greater the deterrent effect. After all, we are looking for deterrence rather than maximising the number of people who are caught.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I hope the Minister will accept the fact that many of us share the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in this subject and appreciate that at last the Government are taking it seriously and recognising the connection between speed, the rate of accidents—
Noble Lords: Question.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I did begin with a question. Are the court facilities sufficient to deal with an increasing number of cases? Can the Minister confirm that there is difficulty in processing current cases that arise from the use of speed cameras?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are convinced of the connection between inappropriate speed and accidents. The process is designed to avoid accidents and to deter people from speeding rather than to maximise the number of cases. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness is correct in saying that there has been pressure on the courts in terms of costs and time. The new financial regime we are piloting should address the issue of costs. However, as regards time,
1012
the more effective use of fixed penalties may be part of the solution. We are examining that and hope soon to make an announcement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Minister's assurance that the fines will be used only to cover administrative costs and not as a general revenue-raising power by the police or local authorities. However, will the Government consider the reasonableness of the new speed limits? They are acceptable to motorists only if they see them as being reasonable. Does the Minister agree that, for example, the speed limit on the elevated section of the M.4 was satisfactory at 50 miles an hour, particularly when there was less traffic about? Is it really reasonable to have a lower limit?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the whole question of the appropriateness of limits in various circumstances is being addressed in the speed review. In general, detailed decisions on speed limits are matters for local highways authorities. In the particular case to which the noble Lord refers, the roads are under the remit of the Highways Agency. The speed limit on that road seems to be the most appropriate for the volume of traffic involved at various times. However, I ask the noble Lord to await the outcome of the speed review to see the totality of our policy within that area.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, will the Minister give an indication of when we can expect to receive the speed review? It has been eagerly awaited for a large number of months. It is a matter of great importance and we should be glad to hear when it will be publicised.
Lord Whiny: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's concern. He initiated a debate on that very subject which was very informative to your Lordships. On the timing, the position is that publication will be early in the new year. I hope to interpret that fairly robustly.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern in some quarters that the administration of those cameras may be taken outside the direct control of the police and be operated by some agency, or even privatised? Will the Minister please reassure the House that that is absolutely not the intention of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Whiny: My Lords, in the pilot schemes that we are running there is no implication of any change in the control of the cameras.

Kensington and Chelsea: Electoral Register
3.1 p.m.
Lord Trefgarneasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many hereditary Peers who lost the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords on the enactment of the House of Lords Act are on the electoral

1013
register in the Kensington and Chelsea parliamentary constituency but were not entitled to vote in the recent by-election.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, we understand from the electoral registration officer of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea that there are 166 Peers on the electoral register in Kensington and Chelsea. Sadly, he does not know how many of them are no longer entitled to sit in your Lordships' House.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, while I confess to some disappointment in that reply, is it not reasonable to assume that a considerable proportion of them were indeed noble Lords who are no longer entitled to sit and vote in your Lordships' House? Does that not make a mockery of the assurances given by different Ministers during the passage of the House of Lords Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am quite happy to agree with the noble Lord's first point, that it is reasonable to assume that many of the hereditary Peers formerly entitled to sit in your Lordships' House are indeed on the register in Kensington and Chelsea. However, I cannot support his second point. The issue was raised during debates on the reform of the House of Lords. We gave an assurance at the time that the situation would be recognised. There is no question in our minds that it will be. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, fully accepted the position as stated during the course of those debates. He accepted that former hereditary Peers would be able to come on to the register next year. Indeed, he said,
"I am more relaxed about Kensington and Chelsea".—[Official Report, 26/10/99; col. 267.]
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not extraordinary, first, that the returning officer did not have the ability to turn up a public document which was freely available to him to establish the answer to the question that he was being asked?
Secondly, is it not the fact that when your Lordships discussed the matter of the possible disenfranchisement of some noble Lords, the Government gave it to be completely understood that that would not happen because powers were given to the Secretary of State to bring into force a statutory instrument; an order? I apologise if I am mistaken in that recollection, but I understand from the noises behind me that I am not alone in that regard.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is not the case. I shall read out what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said—
Lord Elton: My Lords, with respect, I am asking the question of Her Majesty's Government, not of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the remarks were made by the noble Lord in reply to my noble and learned friend Lord Williams. He made it clear that he was,
"grateful for the assurances that the regulations will come forward in time to enable those of your Lordships who will not be here to be included on the registers to vote in parliamentary elections from February".—[Official Report, 26/10/99; col. 267.]
We were absolutely clear at that time that the date would be from February. The noble Lord continued,
"I am more relaxed about Kensington and Chelsea".
I am sure that he assumed that there would be a comfortable majority in Kensington and Chelsea. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows something more than I do about the 166 Peers on the electoral register, my guess is that they would probably have been, in the majority, supporters of his own party.
We are quite clear about the issue and we intend to bring forward an order shortly to regularise the special position of hereditary Peers. They will be on the register from 16th February next year.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answers have been uncharacteristically shoddy this afternoon? The fact is that, as the Minister correctly said in his reply earlier, those hereditary Peers are already on the register. The question is not a new one; it was raised six or seven months ago. Why have the Government been so slow in coming forward with an order simply to remove the bar on those Peers who are already on the electoral register from being able to vote in the by-election?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that I have made it plain that it was always the understanding that they would be on the register from 16th February next year.
Noble Lords: They are!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I appreciate that they are on the register already to vote in European and local elections. We fully intend to bring forward an order in the fastest time possible to enable them to qualify to vote in general elections and by-elections. We were well aware of the issue back in May this year. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made the position plain. He said at the time that we accepted that it would be too long to wait until 2001 to go on to the register. We shall expedite the matter as quickly as possible. We did not control the timetable of the calling of the Kensington and Chelsea by-election. It was not our business at all.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it was open to those noble Lords no longer entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords to contact the electoral officer and to claim their right to vote?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, they would not have been able to vote because they were not qualified to do so. The House of Lords Bill received Royal Assent on 11th November. There was not time in the

1015
intervening period to process that order. We accept that there is an anomaly to be corrected and it will be corrected in time for the next electoral register. I am sure that Members of your Lordships' House will share our concern to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote at the next General Election does so. I welcome the support that we hope to receive from the Benches opposite when we bring forward our legislation to ensure that homeless people may vote. I hope that noble Lords opposite will afford them the same generosity of spirit.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Bassam will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on passports. The Statement is likely to be taken after the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the Local Government Bill.

Business of the House: Motions this Day
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, unless any Lord objects, leave be given to the Chairman of Committees to move the eight Motions standing in his name en bloc.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee Procedure of the House: Select Committee Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL) Statutory Instruments: Joint Committee European Union: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper be agreed en bloc.
—Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

L. Haskel,

L. Howie of Troon,

L. Jenkin of Roding,

L. McColl of Dulwich,

L. Methuen,

L. Oxburgh,

L. Patel,

L. Perry of Walton,

B. Platt of Writtle,

L. Quirk,

L. Rea,

L. Tombs,

L. Wade of Chorlton,

L. Walton of Detchant,

B. Warwick of Undercliffe,

B. Wilcox,

L. Winston (Chairman.)

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the Committee or any sub-committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out; and
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday 7th December at a quarter before eleven o'clock.
—Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

B. Anelay of St. Johns,

V. Bledisloe,

L. Burlison,

L. Burnham,

E. Caithness,

L. Carter,

L. Clarke of Hampstead,

L. Denham,

E. Ferrers,

B. Gould of Potternewton,

B. Hamwee,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

1017

L. Henley,

L. Irvine of Lairg (Lord Chancellor),

B. Jay of Paddington,

L. Kimball,

B. Lockwood,

L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish,

L. Mancroft,

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

L. Shepherd,

V. Simon,

L. Skelmersdale,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Tordoff,

L. Weatherill,

L. Williams of Mostyn.

—Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

B. Ashton of Upholland,

L. Brett,

V. Bridgeman,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

V. Falkland,

E. Liverpool,

E. Sandwich.

—Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Burnham,

E. Courtown,

V. Craigavon,

L. King of West Bromwich,

B. Thomas of Walliswood,

B. Wilkins.

—Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):

E. Erroll,

L. Flowers,

L. Oxburgh,

L. Winston.

—Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL):

L. Boston of Faversham,

L. Burnham,

L. Thomson of Monifieth.

—Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, that the Earl of Onslow be appointed a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in the place of the Lord Burnham.
1018
—Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union.
That the expression "European Union documents" shall include the following documents:

(i) Any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;

(ii) Any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;

(iii) Any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position under Title V (provisions on a common foreign and security policy) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council or to the European Council;

(iv) Any proposal for a common position, framework decision, decision or a convention under Title VI (provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;

(v) Any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;

(vi) Any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee:

V. Bledisloe,

L. Borrie,

L. Brooke of Alverthorpe,

V. Brookeborough,

B. Crawley,

L. Goodhart,

L. Hope of Craighead,

L. Howell of Guildford,

L. Hussey of North Bradley,

L. Lamont of Lerwick,

B. O'Cathain,

E. Selborne,

L. Tomlinson,

L. Tordoff (Chairman),

L. Trefgarne,

L. Wallace of Saltaire,

L. Williams of Elvel,

L. Willoughby de Broke.

That the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees, but that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;

1019
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the European Communities Committee or any sub-committee thereof in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday 7th December at a quarter past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motions agreed to.

European Union Proposals: Scrutiny Reserve
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It may be helpful to the House if I remind your Lordships that the Motion implements a recommendation of the Procedure Committee made in its 5th report of the last Session, to which the House agreed on 10th November.
Moved to resolve, That,
(1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common strategy, joint action or common position under Title V or a common position, framework decision, decision or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union—

(a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the European Union Committee has not completed its scrutiny); and

(b) on which the European Union Committee has made a report to the House for debate, but on which the debate has not yet taken place.

(2) In this Resolution, any reference to agreement to a proposal includes—

(a) agreement to a programme, plan or recommendation for European Community legislation;

(b) political agreement;

(c) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the treaty establishing the European Community (co-decision), agreement to a common position, to an act in the form of a common position incorporating amendments proposed by the European Parliament, and to a joint text; and

1020

(d) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 252 of the treaty establishing the European Community (co-operation), agreement to a common position.

(3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or which is awaiting debate in the House—

(a) if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;

(b) if the European Union Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending completion of scrutiny or the holding of the debate.

(4) The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting debate in the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons—

(a) in every such case, to the European Union Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and

(b) in the case of a proposal awaiting debate in the House, to the House at the opening of the debate on the Committee's report.

(5) In relation to any proposal which requires adoption by unanimity, abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like to be informed as to whether at this stage of our proceedings it is possible to express agreement with or dissent from the various Motions to be moved en bloc.
Noble Lords: They have been moved already.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Local Government Bill is intended to revitalise local democracy, to change the way in which local communities govern themselves and how they shape their future. The Bill gives new powers to local authorities to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their communities. It creates new executive arrangements for councils, involving separate executive and scrutiny structures with powerful roles for all councils. It introduces a new ethical framework for councillors and for council offices. It provides for more frequent local elections to improve councils' accountability to their electorates. It enables local authorities to fund support services for vulnerable groups via a new single budget, and it repeals what is commonly known as Section 28.

1021
Your Lordships will be aware that Parts II and III of the Bill were scrutinised in draft during the summer by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Government published their formal response to the committee's report last week. We have considered the committee's recommendations and accepted a significant number of them. I take the opportunity to apologise to noble Lords for the relative lateness of that response. Nevertheless, I thought it important to ensure that that response was put before your Lordships before we moved to Second Reading of the Bill.
The draft Bill was published as part of the policy document, Local Leadership, Local Choice, for debate and discussion in local authorities and local communities, as well as for consideration by the Joint Committee. We have found the exercise of publishing a draft Bill and having informed dialogue early in the parliamentary process extremely valuable, particularly when. considering the proposals for the new constitutions of local authorities and for the new ethical framework. Indeed, it is one from which I believe this House and another place can learn.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for chairing the Joint Committee. I regret that the noble Lord is unable to be here today and I know how much he regrets that. However, I pay tribute to his role in the Joint Committee. I also pay tribute to all the other noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and Members of the other place who played a full part in the committee. I recognise that their report was produced to a tight timetable. Yet it sets out a coherent and valuable set of recommendations for improvements to the draft Bill. I welcome the interest demonstrated by all members of the committee in ensuring that we have an effective, modern system of local government for the 21st century.
As I said, last week the Government published their response to the report of the Joint Committee. That response sets out how the Government propose to improve the Bill to deliver their policies most effectively in the light of the committee's recommendations. It also sets out how we plan to proceed in this House. Among other things, that means that we intend to bring forward amendments to the Bill. Most of them are in response to the significant number of committee recommendations with which we largely agree. We shall do so in time for debate in Committee in this House. By Committee stage we shall also bring forward further amendments to better reflect the policy set out in Local Leadership, Local Choice, and we shall produce as early as possible drafts of key regulations and guidance which we intend to make under the Bill. We hope and believe that by proceeding in this way we shall assist the House in its consideration of the legislation now before us.
In that context in particular, we shall bring forward amendments to the new executive arrangements to develop and clarify the following important policy issues: first, the options available should there be a defeat for a referendum on the establishment of a mayor; secondly, on access to information; thirdly, on
1022
payment of allowances and pensionable remuneration to councillors; and, fourthly, more flexible structures such as area committees and joint arrangements with other authorities.
In order to reflect some of the Joint Committee's other recommendations, a number of changes are also required to the provisions which establish the new ethical framework. Therefore, we plan to introduce amendments which will, among other things, clarify the role of the monitoring officer in relation to conduct issues, set out arrangements for handling misconduct in parish councils, and refine the requirements for standards committees and their functions. We also intend to amend the Bill to provide more detail of how the new ethical framework will be implemented in Wales. Those amendments will reinforce the basic approach to council decision-making already set out in the Bill and ensure that it will be more accountable, efficient and transparent.
The Bill will give local authorities the powers they need to respond to community concerns. It will give them the ability to work in partnership with other bodies and opportunities to build broad coalitions within the community and with local service providers to improve the quality of people's lives. At the same time, it will also provide for local diversity in the way in which councils function; it will reform the way in which local government makes decisions and is held accountable for them; and it will give local people more of a say in how their council is run, as well as what it delivers. Therefore, the Local Government Bill means that local communities will have more choice and a bigger say in their communities.
Part I of the Bill deals with the issue of well-being in community planning. The Bill gives local authorities a broad new power to promote or improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of their area and its inhabitants. It will enable them to take new action to support their communities and to build new partnerships with other local bodies to deliver real improvements in local conditions. And, crucially, it will provide the certainty that those other bodies may need in order to be incentivised to participate in joint initiatives.
Modern councils have a vital role to play if we are to meet the challenging objectives of tackling social exclusion and regenerating our most deprived neighbourhoods. The future well-being of their community should be the most important issue for councils. No one is better placed to give clear direction to their communities or to ensure that action is co-ordinated and responds to locally identified needs. That is what real community leadership is about. If local authorities are to fulfil that role, they must have the powers they need to respond to all sections of the local community and to work with them to improve local quality of life. Part I of the Bill will give local authorities the powers that they need.
Your Lordships will recognise that leading a community is a slightly different job from leading a council. Local authorities which work alone cannot tackle every problem. Community leadership means

1023
generating support for change and working with others to deliver that change; it means managing, negotiating differences, co-ordinating and facilitating action by others. In some cases, it also means giving up direct power in order to gain a wider influence.
Community strategies should play a vital part in that process and set out a shared vision for the community. We want to see local strategic partnerships bringing together councils, other public service agencies, local businesses, voluntary organisations and local communities. Those partnerships need to produce inclusive strategies that reflect local aspirations and concerns.
The powers in Part I of the Bill will make a real difference. However, we also recognise that the world does not stand still. As modernised local authorities begin to develop new approaches to tackling local problems, along with their partners, there is little doubt that some of the existing statutory regulations or limitations will be found to be inhibiting or preventing sensible initiatives to promote community well-being.
We do not want a legislative framework that cannot keep pace with best practice in local government. We need the maximum opportunity for responsiveness and for flexibility. Where experience shows that existing regulations or existing limitations are placing an unnecessary brake on the promotion of community well-being, Parliament should be able to remove or amend them. The Bill provides the powers to do so. The measures in the Bill will bring new life to local democracy and establish the vital role of councils in improving quality of life for all members of the community.
Part II deals with the new constitutions and needs to be seen together with Part IV, which deals with elections. Part II lays the foundations for more efficient, transparent and accountable Government: efficient, because decisions will be taken quickly, responsively and accurately to meet the needs of the community; transparent, because it will be clear what the decisions are, who has taken them and for what reasons; accountable, because those who take decisions will have to answer for them and they will be measured against the policies and plans on which they were elected.
Many noble Lords will recall the Bill in the last Session brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who I am glad to see is to speak later in the debate. In many respects, Part II is a development of the noble Lord's Bill. Under this Bill, councils will adopt new constitutions based on either a directly-elected mayor with a cabinet, or a cabinet with a leader, or a directly-elected mayor with a council manager.
Within those broad options, there is still considerable scope for local choice and diversity and almost all the options proposed in the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, can be achieved.
1024
All the new forms of constitution stipulated in the Bill include a separate executive responsible for most of the council's functions and held to account by overview and scrutiny committees. If other workable forms of constitution with a separate executive emerge, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will be able to make those available too.
Executives will be able to meet in private. Politicians need time for reflection away from the public glare. Without that, discussion will be driven back to unrecorded group meetings. But the executive must be accountable. Decisions must be recorded with the reasons for those decisions and the advice received from officers. Overview and scrutiny committees will hold the executive to account in public and may investigate any aspect of the council's policy or other matters of local interest.
All councils must bring forward the options among those set out in the Bill for a new constitution. Which option and the details will be matters for local choice. This Government are committed to giving local people a real say in the way in which they are governed. Councils must consult local people and other interested parties on their proposals.
In a situation in which a council opts for a directly-elected mayor, first, it will be necessary to obtain the consent of local people and that will be done through a binding referendum. A referendum for an elected mayor will also be triggered by a petition signed by at least 5 per cent of the local electorate. The Secretary of State will also be able to require individual authorities to hold a referendum on any of the forms of constitution under the Bill.
The Bill also includes powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the timing and conduct of elections for mayor and the conduct of referendums.
Your Lordships will appreciate that modern councils need modern systems of remuneration. We shall also be bringing forward amendments to abolish attendance allowances and, behind that, the whole "attendance culture". Many members of the executive will face increasing demands on their time. We hope to attract high-quality members to councils and it is right that they should receive a fair reward in those roles.
However, I remind your Lordships that we wish to ensure that local government can be efficient, transparent and accountable. Our proposals for pensionable remuneration for some members of the executive will therefore provide for that to be based on recommendations from an independent panel.
Part III deals with the ethical framework. Effective democratic government is based upon the bond of trust between communities and those who represent them, either locally, centrally or regionally. Restoring and strengthening that bond is vital. No case of unethical behaviour in local government is acceptable. In the few cases where that does occur in our local government system, we need to make sure that strong sanctions are available. Part III provides a clear framework for setting the standards that we expect of

1025
councillors and penalising those who fall short of those standards. That is an integral part of our plans to bring new life to local democracy.
The arrangements for that new framework include introducing new statutory codes of conduct to which all members of local authorities must sign; establishing standards committees within most councils to uphold standards within them; disseminating good practice so that members are clear about their roles and responsibilities; setting up a new, independent body—a standards board—which will have the task of investigating all allegations of misconduct by councillors; and providing the ability to impose suitable penalties ranging from censure through to disqualification from standing as a councillor for up to five years where allegations are upheld.
Alongside those arrangements, Part V includes the necessary provisions to repeal the surcharge. That is in line with the recommendations of the Nolan Committee and, more recently, of the Joint Committee.
Part IV deals with more frequent local elections. It deals with enhancing accountability through the ballot box. It contains enabling provisions to allow local authority elections to be held more often, allowing greater accountability through the ballot box. Local democracy and service delivery will be enhanced by giving local electors greater opportunity to give their verdict on the council's policy and performance. That will encourage councils to be more open and receptive and will reinforce the link between councils and their electorates.
The provisions on welfare services in the Bill are a small but important part of delivery of local services. They recognise the vital role which support services play in the lives of many of the most vulnerable of our citizens. The measures in the Bill aim to ensure, first, that vulnerable people will be able to have the services they need to be able to live independently in the community. Secondly, such people will be given immediate low-level help, which often prevents a future situation developing where they are in more acute need.
Those provisions are good news for the support services sector because, for the first time, we are giving support services a secure, transparent and sustainable funding framework. Provisions create a new grant which will be paid out to local authorities for support services for vulnerable people. Local authorities can then have the flexibility to direct that funding to high quality services for vulnerable people.
Local authorities will be able to take an important leadership role in the planning and commissioning of services for their communities. They will be able to plan support services effectively to address the needs of the community; they will be able to plan in partnership with other agencies and in step with local strategies; and they will be able to take account of the full range of people who are dependent on those services and the full range of their needs.
1026
Most important for those in need of support—the people at which the new arrangements are aimed—the legislation will mean that their needs and preferences will be put first. That policy promotes choice and recognises people's changing aspirations. The funding framework will help to ensure that support services are tailored to the needs of individuals. That is why 80 per cent of responses to our consultation paper Supporting People welcomed the recommendations and principles of the new framework.
That policy means that vulnerable people can live independently in the community and means that they will no longer be forced to move house. For example, funding for support will no longer be tied to a particular housing scheme or landlord. Instead, those people will be able to receive the support they need wherever they choose to live. That is particularly important for some of our older people. Research has shown that older people prefer to remain at home and receive support rather than having to move to a special scheme. Maintaining independence and control over their lives are central to the well-being of older people. This legislation provides the framework for meeting that need.
Finally, I turn to the repeal of what is known as Section 28 but which is, more strictly, Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. This Government are absolutely determined to tackle the reasons that certain groups of people are marginalised or excluded from society. As I said earlier, we want a society in which everyone is valued and in which everybody has the opportunity to participate, regardless of their race, their sex and also regardless of their sexual orientation. We need local authorities to help build such a society.
Yet they are in effect prevented by Section 2A of the 1986 Act from addressing the real needs of the gay and lesbian community and, in particular, from providing young people with information to deal with issues relating to their sexuality. That legislation has been seen by many sections of the community—not just the gay and lesbian community—as being less about the promotion of homosexuality than about the institutionalisation of intolerance.
In the past it effectively stopped authorities from funding support and counselling services to young gay men and lesbians and from giving advice to young people who are concerned about their sexuality. Nor, in reality, does it do anything to help protect schoolchildren, as its proponents claim that it does. It does not apply to school governors and schoolteachers. It is they, not education authorities, who are responsible for sex and relationship education. However, it has caused grave concern throughout the education field to governors, teachers and pupils who find themselves unable to turn to their mentors for information. This was an unfortunate piece of legislation. Rather than protecting children, it does exactly the reverse. It caused confusion and created a climate of fear. Many teachers feel that they cannot even discuss homosexuality with their pupils for fear of being accused of promoting it. It meant that many teachers have felt inhibited from providing the

1027
help and support needed by young people who are, or think they may be, gay at what can be a crucial and confusing time of their lives.
It has stopped local authorities and schools from addressing many of the issues which arise around what I regret to say is probably a growing phenomenon of homophobic bullying. One in five young gay people will inflict serious harm on themselves or attempt suicide. The removal of this pernicious piece of legislation will at least help to improve the atmosphere in which they grow up and come to adulthood. The Bill will therefore repeal what is in every way a very bad piece of legislation.
The Bill builds on the local government White Papers for England and Wales which we published in 1998. It is the next step along the path set out in the Local Government Act 1999 and looks forward to the next millennium for local government. This Government were elected to provide opportunity for everyone to fulfil their potential through education and employment, to create a fair and inclusive society in which communities are healthy and secure, and to create the platform for higher productivity and sustainable economic growth. This is part of a radical programme. It requires change not only to policy but also to the institutions of government at all levels and to their relationships with those they serve. Local government is absolutely central to delivering this vision. This important Bill, in turn, places local people at the heart of local government reform. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Lord Whitty.)
3.32 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for his now customary clear and concise exposition of the content of the Bill and the reason it is before us.
I think I am right in saying that this is the first Bill before this House to have gone through the whole gamut of pre-legislative scrutiny with consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses before appearing here. The way in which that procedure clarifies the issues within putative legislation and sees that they are well discussed before the legislative process formally begins appears to be well worthwhile. I join the Minister in placing on record my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who I am sorry is not able to be in his place, for chairing the Joint Committee. I am grateful also to his fellow members on the committee, two of whom are to speak today—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I am sure that the House will be interested to hear what they have to say about the Bill. They have perhaps greater of experience in examination of its detail than I have.
The House should understand that I first read the Bill when in bed with a high temperature suffering from flu. My state of mind at the time was probably febrile. It is not perhaps surprising that I did not find
1028
the Bill to be everything I had hoped. However, it is rather disconcerting to find that after reading the Bill again in what I thought was a rather more calm frame of mind my view of it has not improved. The intentions behind the Bill, as always with intentions, are impeccable. However, it is always the detail that causes a problem. The Minister made much of the power in the Bill to promote well-being: promotion of the improvement of the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area. Those are highly desirable aims which local government has sought for a long time. I am bound to say that I welcome their presence in the Bill as statements of principle. At the very least, that may, on occasion, prevent a local authority or its members being accused of acting ultra vires. To that extent the proposal is wholly to the good.
Clause 2(4) states that the power under subsection (1) includes the power for a local authority to incur expenditure, give financial assistance, enter into arrangements, and so on. If one is to have such powers, all rational thought leads to the conclusion that one must have power to incur expenditure. That is perfectly straightforward. However, Clause 3(2) then states:
"The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money (whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise)".
I found myself wondering what is the use of a power, even a power to incur expenditure, if there is no power for a local authority to raise such money in the first place. An expert in such matters—someone with a slightly more devious mind than mine, although I had been chairman of a local authority finance committee and was well aware of the situation—pointed out that a way round the procedure might be found by building up balances. In that way, money would not have to be raised for a specific purpose; it would be spent on these functions from balances. One might therefore avoid a charge of acting in an ultra vires fashion. However, any competent auditor would quickly see through a build up of balances with that as a potential purpose.
I find myself in some confusion. I am not sure that I see a reason for arguing that Clause 3(2) is consistent with Clause 1(4). I therefore ask myself what is the purpose of the Bill. Clause 3(3) includes some of the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State. I understand, in this instance, that they are negative procedure regulations in order to make provision preventing local authorities doing, by virtue of Clause 2(1), which we have just discussed, anything which is specified or is of a description set out in the order. That is a very heavy prescription indeed. We have not seen the regulations, and Clause 2 is meaningless without them. It is to be hoped that the regulations will be published before we reach Committee stage so that we can perhaps consider what it is we are actually talking about.
A separate but important consideration should be borne in mind as the Bill passes through the House. Article 4, Part 4, of the European Charter of Local Self-Government says:
"Powers given to local authorities shall normally be full and exclusive. They may not be undermined or limited by another, central or regional, authority except as provided for by the law".

1029
That is what we are today creating. I strongly suggest that the way in which the Bill is drafted is outwith the intentions of the European Charter of Local Self-Government which this Government signed up to only two years ago.
Article 4, Part 5, states:
"Where powers are delegated to them … by a central or regional authority, local authorities shall, insofar as possible, be allowed discretion in adapting their exercise to local conditions".
That becomes important when we consider Part III of the Bill. Therefore we have a strategy without the power to implement it; and we have a conflict between what appears at the beginning of the Bill and the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
Part Il of the Bill deals with arrangements for executives. I found myself wondering, until I read the Government's response to the Joint Committee's report, what had led the Government to take this action. If I understood the response correctly, it is because the Government believe that it might rejuvenate local government. I should like to know what their evidence is for that belief. I have seen none. If we had had a period of evolution; if a swathe of local government had been experimenting with executive arrangements and there was clear evidence that it provided an improved system of local government, then I could understand a government at that point wishing to legislate to make such a procedure general. We do not have that. We have the Government's belief. I believe that the Government are wrong, and there is just as much chance of my belief being correct as theirs. That is the tenuous basis on which Part II stands.
According to the Minister, among other things Part II is supposed to speed the power of decision and the clarity with which decisions are made. I have had intimate experience of the workings of a large administrative county council, as have others in this Chamber, and it is neither necessary nor proper for me to go into the decisions we took. But under the traditional arrangements we could take any action we pleased within the law with a speed which was often greater than that with which private industry, with whom we were required to work, was prepared to move. The decisions were obviously taken by a small executive group, albeit it did not go by that name, with the absolute certainty of the full backing of the council. So one could be sure of absolute clarity in the lines of communication and responsibility. I have seen nothing in Part II of the Bill which leads me to believe that the situation will be any better under the new arrangements. The French have a phrase,
"Plus ca change; plus c'est la même chose",
which fits the position perfectly.
The presumption behind the creation of an executive is that it will improve decision-making and the clarity of business and that the second class of councillors who are created by the division will be happy with a scrutiny role. It also presumes that a council's business divides neatly between executive action and that scrutiny role. I regret to say that it is my belief that, as a matter of practice, that will not be
1030
the case. Even if scrutiny committees were confined exclusively to post-decision scrutiny, it would not be possible. In this era of best value, of constant reports swirling around in the pool of local government comparing what everybody else is doing and how they are doing it, the scrutiny committees are bound to take such matters into account. It can only be a matter of time before a scrutiny committee, which is bound to develop expertise, takes a view and recommends to an executive committee a certain course of action. When that happens, who is taking the executive action? Is it the executive body, which does as it is recommended, or the scrutiny committee which did the work and told the committee it ought to do it? There is no clear dividing line between black and white; it is a murky area of grey.
Clause 11 states in subsection (1):
"The Secretary of State may by regulations specify functions of local authorities which may not be the subject of executive arrangements".
Subsection (3) states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations specify circumstances in which executive functions of a local authority under executive arrangements must be discharged by the authority and not in accordance with section 12, 13 or 14".
Those clauses set out the provisions under which executive arrangements will work. Again, we do not have the regulations.
The Bill says that there will in future be two councils in one body. One will carry out some of the council's existing functions. The second and new council will undertake functions under a new executive-type system. At the moment we have no way of judging—apart from some comment in the Joint Committee's report and the Government's response to it—where the dividing line will be and where it will be drawn. The Minister referred to regulations that he would bring forward. To the best of my recollection, he has not brought that one forward.
Clause 30(3) states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the conduct of referendums".
That is an important point. The case has been argued before the House on a number of occasions that there should be a referendums Bill to set out the basis on which referendums are held. In the case of local government, would it be satisfactory to have a referendum with a simple majority in favour of something, in which 12 per cent of the electorate vote and 7 per cent say "Aye" and 5 per cent say "No"? Is that the basis on which we should change the whole constitution of an authority? I doubt it.
When we considered a referendum for Scotland, we had a referendum Bill. When we considered a referendum for Wales, we had a referendum Bill. When we considered a referendum for London, we had a referendum Bill. We should at the very least have regulations for these particular referendums set out in the Bill as well.
I could go on picking holes in the Bill but that would not be particularly helpful. It is clear that there are deep reasons for disagreeing with some of the detail of

1031
the Bill. This is a flawed Bill from a flawed Government. We have a great deal of hard and immensely detailed work before us. It is time that I let others get on with it.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister gave a clear explanation of the Bill, for which I thank him. I do not enjoy starting this speech with a complaint but I will. My speech could be very short. I could say that those of us on these Benches will comment on the Bill once we know what Bill the Government wish to promote. I must disappoint your Lordships and not confine my remarks to that one sentence. That may not be as much of a disappointment to some of your Lordships as the fact that we do not yet know the proposals that the Government will bring forward.
When the Bill was published, I read Part II of the draft that the Select Committee had examined with increasing puzzlement and fury—and I was not suffering from flu at the time. There were one or two changes, so clearly it was not the same Bill as we had seen in draft, but what happened to the alterations that we understood would be made? Were the Government so dismissive of the consultation on the draft with people outside Westminster as well as the Select Committee that their response to almost every point was no response?
I tripped over a planted—I do not say that pejoratively—Written Question and Written Answer in another place. As the Minister and the Whip in this House are so courteous, perhaps we would have learned informally that the Government's formal response to the Select Committee's report would be published shortly after 26th November. The Written Answer said that the Government will bring forward as early as possible during the passage of the Bill such amendments as are necessary to give full effect to their response. We have had the response and await the amendments.
During the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill, we on these Benches took the view that it was more important to concentrate on the issues rather than complain about late—sometimes, very late—government amendments. This Bill indicates that the Government do not want to learn from that unhappy experience. If this is the way an executive treats its scrutiny body, it is not a good example for the other spheres of government that the executive is seeking to regulate.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, turned himself and his committee inside out to consider the draft Bill, take evidence, deliberate and report in two months before the committee's demise. That is the terminology of the report. I must tell the Government that members of the committee are very much alive and kicking. What progress has there been four months later plus—and what is the betting that the Government will say that your Lordships' House must get a move on with the Bill and progress it very fast?
1032
Can the Minister confirm that, as recommended by the Companion, the period between Second Reading and the first day of Committee will not start running until publication of the Government's amendments? In other words, will the proper period elapse before we start the Committee stage? I ask that not just as a criticism but to suggest that the next stage will be much more effective if that arrangement is observed.
What reassurances can the Government give on the timing of the publication of draft regulations and guidance? The Select Committee called the draft a skeleton and the Bill has not put much flesh on it. Much of the Bill is dependent on regulations. The Minister was not specific today about when we will see drafts. It is important that Parliament gives proper scrutiny to the Bill. Can the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to propose amendments other than to Parts II and III of the Bill?
We welcome many aspects of the Bill, although in many cases the Government have fallen short of that for which many people had hoped, because of their refusal to give up control from the centre. One aspect is the new powers as regards well-being. We agree with the Minister that they will make a real difference.
Those who have not seen how the Government operate have been surprised that after offering so much, the Bill then says that the Secretary of State can stop a local authority doing what he proscribes. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith said, the powers will enable a local authority to raise money, which is at the heart of what local authorities can achieve. Liberal Democrats would prefer a power of general competence but we accept that Part II goes a long way towards it.
Everyone in local government knows that if one is strapped for cash, one can go whistle to achieve some of one's aspirations for the community. If the cash is earmarked, with someone else making the mark, one is also in trouble. Specific grants, as distinct from general revenue or borrowing—were that possible—restrict local authority autonomy. Next year, the revenue support grant will fall by 4.8 per cent after inflation. Specific grant will rise by 14 per cent after inflation. That is in the context of increasing obligations on local authorities. We are most concerned about the restrictions on decisions, authority by authority, because of the nature of the Government's approach to making specific and general grants.
We often come up against the dilemma of ensuring flexibility for good authorities and support and direction for those which, in any judgment, are less successful. The approach to the new powers illustrates this. We, instinctively, would be more comfortable with a power than a duty but we understand the concerns about the shortcomings. The RSPB has cited Local Agenda 21 activity, which indicates that up to one third of local authorities will not have an LA21 strategy in place by next year. I would be glad to hear the Minister's explanation as to why the legislation provides a power rather than a duty. Perhaps he could also explain the Government's thinking behind allowing local authorities to cherry-pick between the three powers.

1033
We are still concerned about the restrictions which will remain in place on local authorities; for example, what is regarded as "trading"? We will wish to explore those issues in Committee. We shall also table amendments in Committee to deal with racial and other discrimination and the promotion of equality, along the lines of what was achieved by co-operation around the House during the progress of the GLA Bill.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill. The draft regulations, which we await, include those explaining the nature of "executive functions". We understand that there are and will be no criteria on the face of the Bill. The debate which the Government's White Paper sought to encourage, but which I believe is not as much reflected in the response as the Minister seemed to indicate, has shown the range of views as to what executive functions are and where the boundary is between the proper responsibilities of the executive—if that is what a local authority is to have—and its scrutiny and over-view body.
The Select Committee heard with interest suggestions that scrutiny can include policy advice to the executive. I confess that I am still not clear whether the Government intend policy—the "what"—to be the responsibility of the whole council, or whether it is to be confined to the executive, which would clearly deal with the "how". The arrangements would also include a councillor, who has primarily a scrutiny role, sitting on a cabinet committee, or having a cost-cutting, coordinating role. These concerns about demarcations also arise in Wales where, in the National Assembly, members of the executive are members of committees. We will consider in Committee in this House whether the Bill adequately recognises the devolution to Wales. Certainly, if there is to be central control, the centre for Wales should not be London.
In giving evidence to the Select Committee, Professor Stewart had some wise words about the models that we considered, including the statement that many of our current problems arise because of party discipline, which prevents adequate, open discussion. He said—and I agree—that the same problems could occur in the new models with the same results. We have heard that the Government's objectives are "transparency, accountability and efficiency". I would have preferred "effectiveness", which I believe to be more compatible with transparency and accountability. But the "how"—the method by which a local authority chooses to work within the chosen model—will be critical to good government.
Her Majesty's Government are intent on the separation of powers, though from their response to the Select Committee they seem to accept that these are not fully explained. The rejection of the status quo, even—apparently—if a community is happy with it, seems to smack of a "not invented here" syndrome. We believe, as does the Local Government Association, that it is important to identify the criteria for outcomes of an approach to a new model and to allow a structure which meets them. First, that may mean an executive mayor, though I confess that I am not an enthusiast. Secondly, it may mean a mayor, plus a council
1034
manager, but I doubt that the public will easily see the distinction between the two models. Thirdly, it may mean a cabinet model, with a leader who is "strong" or who disperses power. We believe that the Government have failed to recognise just how much power an indirectly-elected leader may have, especially if the checks and balances of the council are not effective. Fourthly—perhaps fifthly, sixthly, and so on—our approach might mean other models.
We recognise that the Bill fulfils the Government's promise—possible "threat"—after the rejection by the Official Opposition in another place of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, that, if it was rejected, change would come nevertheless and there would not be the opportunity for experiments. We regret that there is no place for pilots nor for incremental change.
We worry, too, about the unforeseen or, perhaps, unacknowledged side-effects—the career structure for both councillors and officers. In both cases, if they are not on or serving the executive, there is the danger of them being regarded as "second class". There is also the likelihood of parallel groups, both of officers and councillors, who cannot easily swop over to the other career path. We believe that the models risk losing the valuable contribution of back-bench councillors. Like others who have commented on the Bill, I do not much like the term "back-bench" but none of us has been able to suggest a better term. By seeing the committee papers in advance and being able to attend meetings where their role is very much that of representing the community, those councillors can contribute at an early stage.
There is much talk of the new structures meaning that everything will be open, but, unless the law precludes councillors talking to one another outside the council chamber, there will always be private discussions. We will want to make certain during the course of the Bill's proceedings that the new structures are all transparent.
The Government have clearly rejected one aspect which concerns us; namely, the power of recall of a directly-elected mayor. This was an issue upon which we fought within the context of the GLA Bill and we shall do so again. We will do so in the knowledge that we must address not only the issue of incompetence but also matters which may come to light six months after, not six months before, an election.
I move on to Part III of the Bill. This is less contentious, but the detail will certainly deserve examination in Committee. For example, I have in mind the involvement of opposition members on the standards committee and ensuring that trivia do not clog up the system. In particular, we must ensure that the code of conduct commands support and—to use the management jargon—is "owned" by local authorities: all else in this part of the Bill hinges on that. Indeed, those issues will detain us a little. We very much welcome the abolition of the surcharge.

1035
Part IV of the Bill deals with elections. We have some concern here about the scope for the Secretary of State to impose the patterns of election. We are also worried about how the elections for councillors and for the mayor—the mayor is to be a councillor but he will be directly elected—will fit together. We regret that the Bill deals with the dates, not the methods, of election. The view that the first-past-the-post system means strong leadership ignores, we believe, the damage that a one-party state can do, though not always. That will not be solved, for example, by a scrutiny committee of the same political persuasion, especially where the tradition in the authority is for the opposition to be kept on the side lines. I shall confine my questions on fair electoral systems to one question. Can the Minister say whether the Government are at any rate open to paving the way for PR elections in the future?
Part V of the Bill relates to grants for welfare services and certainly raises interesting issues, especially as regards the difficulties of properly establishing the funding required and how partnership funding will operate. We shall seek reassurances in that respect. I have to say that the prospect of charging and means-testing rings alarm bells with us. Any new scheme will only support the fight against social exclusion if the grants do not slip between the cracks.
I turn now to my final point. I should stress that my few words in this respect should not be taken to underplay the significance of the section, nor our support. The repeal of Section 28, as we always call it, was in this party's manifesto. We shall support the Government in repealing a measure which has led to no prosecutions but to much confusion and difficulty for teachers and pupils, as the Minister has said. We are sad that the Official Opposition—the leadership, at any rate—have chosen to flex their muscles over this issue.
When I was first elected a councillor, my mother said, "There will be an awful lot of meetings, dear." There were, but many of them were necessary to take forward the modernising programme of the group to which I belonged to ensure the wide support of councillors and those whom they represented.
Change for the sake of change is not good, but to resist some change does not necessarily indicate a mind-set against improvement. We hope that we shall end up with a Bill which better supports local government than we believe parts of this version do.

Business
Lord Bach: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on passports, I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Passports
4.10 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement to explain why passport fees are to increase by £7 to £28 for the standard passport and by £3.80 to £14.80 for the child's passport.
"I am also publishing the Passport Agency's corporate and business plan for 1999–2002, together with a separate recovery plan. I am placing both documents in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.
"As the House is aware, the agency encountered major problems last summer. I greatly regret the severe inconvenience caused to the public and would like to repeat my apology for what happened. However, the emergency measures which I authorised in the summer have proved effective. Turnaround times for passport applications have been within 10 working days since August. The current position is that all offices are processing work within a maximum of four working days. The current total backlog is 47,000 applications, which represents about four days' work.
"A report from the National Audit office, published in October, found that £12.6 million had been incurred meeting the exceptional costs involved in remedying the position. I think that the whole House would accept that it would not be right for these costs to be met by a fee increase, and I have therefore agreed with the agency's new Chief Executive that they will be met instead by a programme of efficiency savings.
"The NAO report also makes clear that some fundamental changes are necessary to improve the quality and reliability of the agency's service to the public. To effect these changes will require significant investment. That investment is the reason for the increase in the passport fee, given the fact that successive governments have rightly determined that the agency must be self-financing.
"Madam Speaker, the Passport Service became an executive agency in 1991—a change which has undoubtedly delivered improvements.
"While the agency has been successful in driving down unit costs, its record for customer service has in fact been less consistent and, as the NAO report makes clear, some of the causes of last summer's problems were deep rooted. While the agency has sought to reduce the maximum time taken to process applications from the four weeks norm in 1991, it has had problems in consistently delivering the more recent two-week target.
"Since the early 1990s up until last summer, the time taken to process applications has in fact risen significantly above two weeks to a maximum of about four weeks in the busy season each year. As a

1037
result, there have been queues at our passport offices each summer and increasing problems in responding to a rising volume of telephone queries.
"Our strategy for the agency takes full account of the NAO report and seeks to deal with these problems.
"First, new performance targets are to be set to ensure that the two-week turnaround means what it says throughout the year.
"To ensure that the agency can in practice meet these targets I have agreed to increase its capacity by 25 per cent to enable it to issue an additional 1.3 million passports each year. This extra capacity will be met by the opening of a new regional office for the North East of England, and by a 30 per cent expansion of the existing Peterborough office.
"The new North East office will create 500 additional jobs and will be based in Durham. The Peterborough expansion will mean the creation of an extra 100 jobs.
"Other improvements to be made include the following. From March next year there will be earlier opening arid later closing for all the agency's offices and Saturday opening as well. This will deliver a 45-minute maximum waiting target.
"The renovation of public counter areas in all offices will take place. A new public counter service will be provided at the new office in Durham from next July. The London Passport Office will be relocated in spring 2001 from Bridge Place adjacent to Victoria Station to new premises where there will be a major improvement in facilities for the public. The forms and accompanying notes are to be redesigned to make them more customer friendly, and to reduce error rates. Payment options will be improved; and the quality of the telephone inquiry service is also being raised. A new call centre is being established in Bristol involving the creation of a further 60 jobs. The agency is being set a target to answer 90 per cent of calls within 20 seconds, seven days a week, throughout the year. No more than one call in 50 should receive an engaged tone even at the busiest time of year.
"Demand forecasting, contingency and manpower planning are being strengthened to make sure that the agency can cope better with unexpected fluctuations of demand and other uncertainties in process.
"Changes have also been made to improve the operation of the new computer system. But only when Ministers and the new Chief Executive are satisfied with the productivity of the new system as implemented at Newport and Liverpool will it be extended to the other offices, and then only on a phased basis.
"Altogether this investment will cost an estimated £25 million per year.
"The fee for a standard passport for an adult with 10-year validity will therefore be increased by £7 to £28; the fee for a child's passport for five years will
1038
be increased by £3.80 to £14.80; and the fee for amending a passport will be increased by £6.00 to £17.00. The additional fee for customers seeking a personal service at the UKPA offices will he increased by £2.00 to £12.00. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has decided that the higher fees which the FCO charge for passports issued by British posts abroad are also to increase.
"All the changes will come into effect on Thursday, 16th December.
"Madam Speaker, of course I understand that fee increases are never popular. However, the increase has been restricted to the minimum necessary to ensure that the crucial service improvements I have described today are delivered. I do not anticipate the need for any further increase in these fees for at least two years.
"Even with the increase, the fee for a British passport is among the lowest in the world and will remain well below the level of other countries where, like the UK, there is no taxpayer subsidy. For example, the equivalent 10-year adult passport fee is £34.50 in the USA, £46.00 in Canada, £47.50 in Australia, and £74 in France.
"This fee increase should ensure that the agency is put on a proper financial footing and is able to put in train the essential improvements to customer service. It will help ensure that this year's problems do not recur, that the modernisation programme is driven forward and that the agency is able to provide a significantly improved service to the public".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, now that the Minister has seen the business plan—which he told us on 23rd November he had not seen although his colleagues approved it on 27th September—can he confirm that the plan published today anticipates an overall deficit of £17 million this year whereas the equivalent plan last year anticipated that this year would see an overall surplus of £19 million? So the total deterioration in performance is £36 million on a turnover of £100 million in this financial year.
The Minister says that efficiency savings will he found to cover the £12.6 million cost of the crisis. Can he confirm that, if there had been no crisis, these efficiency savings would have been available to ensure that the increases would be nowhere near the one-third increases which he and the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary have announced today?
Thirdly, can the Minister confirm that the new computer system—which, along with the introduction of child passports, caused the problem—was chosen and signed for by the honourable gentleman, Mr O'Brien, the Under-Secretary of State in the department?
I read in the Sunday Telegraph that a document circulating within the agency and the Home Office called A Blueprint for the Future envisages a new

1039
strategy for a five-tier system of priorities under which there will be even higher increases for those wanting a passport quite quickly and, according to the newspaper, a worse service for the majority of travellers in the lower priorities. Will this document be published in the near future in order that we can consider, first, whether the report in the newspaper is correct, and, secondly, whether that is a desirable way to go?
Finally, as a matter of interest, what has happened to the £16,000-worth of umbrellas which were bought for the protection of the public—I suppose that is the right phrase—during the crisis? Will they be available for the next fortnight? I assume that until 16th December, when these increases take place, there will be another massive rush, for which I hope the Passport Agency has prepared.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has asked a number of the questions that I would have posed—except for the one about the umbrellas. I am sure that we could all find better uses if we knew what precisely had happened to them.
Last summer, members of the public faced inconvenience because of the passport fiasco. Those of us who walk from Victoria to Westminster found a large queue of people. When we returned home, a number of people were still in the queue. All this was because of inefficiency on the part of the Home Office.
We are now told by the Home Secretary that the extra costs involved in dealing with summer emergencies will not be recovered by means of increasing the passport fees but by means of efficiency savings over the next few years, particularly when the new system is fully rolled out. No amount of pleading of this kind will convince the general public that they are not paying the price of the Government's failure. No matter how the Government have worded this announcement, it will add to the public's dissatisfaction by allowing an increase in charges, particularly when it amounts to 33⅓ per cent. The question we need to pose to the Minister is where within the system was this failure produced?
Will the Minister tell us the reduction in staff dealing with passport matters since the Government came to power and before the summer fiasco? Was any warning received by the Government about the chaos that would result from a shortage of staff? Can the Government give an indication that such chaos will not arise on future occasions?
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, mentioned the National Audit Office report. It stated:
"The passport delays of summer 1999 show that the Agency. Siemens Business Services and in turn the Home Office were responsible for what happened".
Perhaps I may ask if any disciplinary action has resulted. If so, what contribution is expected from Siemens to recover the extra costs incurred by the Government? Is it still to provide the computer services? Are there any penalty clauses in the contract to deal with computer failures?
1040
Overall, we are asking a family with two children to bear an additional cost of £21.60 for passports. That is a substantial increase. There is always a concern that the Passport Agency will be exploiting unacceptably its position as a monopoly supplier. Obviously the public have no choice but to use the agency's services; therefore they will be forced to pay the extra charges.
The message that comes out clearly as a result of this particular failure is that if you want additional resources, create more chaos. By the Government's own admission, service standards have fallen significantly during busy times. We need an assurance that this will never happen again. We need some guarantee that the additional resources and charges will help to solve the problem.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer all the points raised in the helpful contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Dholakia.
It is fair to say that we believe that the improvements to the service we have announced today should ensure that we no longer face the kinds of problem experienced last summer. I think people generally will welcome that. They will welcome the promptness of the service. There will be widespread understanding and acceptance that the cost of improving the quality of the service has to be paid for. We have given an undertaking that members of the public will not have to foot the bill from what has been described as the summer crisis, the chaos that was there for a brief period of time.
Today we are announcing real and genuine quality of service improvements. People will be very pleased to hear that. These, of course, come with a cost. It is accepted that there will be no taxpayers' subsidy for the Passport Agency. It is for that reason that we have announced the increase in fees today. I understand that people never welcome increases in fees—who would? But these costs have to be paid for.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about carrying past deficits forward, the costs of past deficits are not included in the fee increases. We expect that the fee levels, with the contingency element, coupled with efficiency savings, will recover all past and current year deficits over the next few years. We will obviously continue to review the impact of these fees in the first few months of next year. We will seek parliamentary authority for the recovery of deficits if and when that is appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about disciplinary action. I am not aware that we have taken disciplinary action. If it were appropriate in individual circumstances, where there was clearly a disciplinary matter, we would have to take action. That would be right and proper. That would be the case for any service we cover.
I am grateful to the noble Lords for making their contributions. We are now back on the right track. I am happy to follow up in writing the points made by the noble Lords. I believe that we are now well on the

1041
way to delivering the kind of UK Passport Agency service that we should be offering so that the public may go forward and enjoy their holidays in the confidence of knowing that their passports will be processed in due course and on time.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what the public want from the Passport Agency is a prompt, efficient and courteous service? Unfortunately, the public have not always been able to get that of late. However, if the public receive such a service, the extra price they are being asked to pay—which amounts to only about a penny a week over the lifetime of a passport—is a price well worth paying.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I, too, believe that it is a price well worth paying. As I said in the course of the Statement, even with these increases the cost of a UK passport compares extremely favourably with international rates. A passport costs £34.50 in the US, £46 in Canada, £47.50 in Australia and £74 in France. My noble friend makes an important and telling point. We are introducing improvements to the quality of service. That means that when people call the agency, they may expect a prompt reply. Similarly, when they write, they may expect a swift response, and when they pursue their application in person, they may expect to receive an effective and prompt response delivered with the courtesy and respect people rightly and properly deserve.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, because we have a few minutes left, perhaps I may thank the Minister for answering a question that I did not ask and offering to write to me on the questions I did ask. First, has the Minister had time to consider whether Mr O'Brien, the Under-Secretary of State, was in fact the individual who chose and signed for the new computer system? Secondly, can the Minister tell me whether the document, A Blueprint for the Future, mentioned in the newspapers at the weekend, will be published?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that I had answered the point on efficiency savings raised by the noble Lord. I apologise if I have given the noble Lord more information than I would otherwise have done, but I always try to be helpful on these occasions. I cannot respond to the newspaper article referred to by the noble Lord. It is often wise to reflect on the content of newspaper articles because they are not always entirely accurate. However, I take the point that the noble Lord has raised. I shall be happy to respond by way of correspondence and to place that response in the Library.
Furthermore, I am not in a position to respond to the point raised by the noble Lord concerning my honourable friend Mr O'Brien. While Mr O'Brien took some of the brickbats thrown during the summer, he should be credited with the fact that he was deeply involved in coming to an understanding of the nature of the problems facing the Passport Agency during that difficult time. I know that he alerted Members of the
1042
other place to those problems and that he was extremely assiduous in following them up and seeking solutions. Part of the package that has been announced today should reflect credit upon my honourable friend because he powerfully argued the case for improvements in the service which I believe we all have a right to expect. For that reason, while I cannot respond to the noble Lord's precise point today, I am content to write to him with a detailed answer.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it would be unfortunate if these exchanges were to close leaving the impression that those who undertake the very difficult job of working in passport offices should be the subject of unfair criticism? Does my noble friend agree that the public themselves have a part to play in the more efficient delivery of services from passport offices? It is simply not right for people to apply for passports, tell the officer behind the desk that they will be leaving on holiday next Thursday and then expect to receive new passports within 15 minutes. Will my noble friend broadcast a message to the general public—including myself—that people ought to apply for renewal of their passports in good time?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important contribution. We should all be grateful to public servants for the hard work they do on our behalf. No doubt staff working under great pressure did find it difficult to deal with the huge influx of applications that occurred during the summer months. Those staff are to be congratulated on their efforts to bring the situation under control. The current happier situation that pertains in the Passport Agency is due in no small measure to the strenuous efforts of its staff. Ofcourse my noble friend is right to say that we all have an important role to play in making the life of those who undertake this important processing work that much easier. If we all work together towards that single objective, I am sure that we will have a more efficient, effective, timely and much-respected passport service.
Indeed, over time the service has improved immeasurably. When I applied for my first passport at the tender age of 17, I waited some three months before I received a response from my local office in Peterborough. Nowadays, we never have cases outstanding for that length of time without receiving proper attention. The improvement in the quality of service that we currently enjoy and will enjoy in the future as a result of today's important announcements on increased staffing and improved efficiency targets will, over time, benefit the whole of the public in the UK.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
4.35 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I very much welcome the broad intention that lies behind the Local

1043
Government Bill; namely, to ensure that local government works more effectively. However, before commenting in more detail I should like to give my apologies to the House that, due to an inescapable engagement, it may not be possible for me to return in time for the Minister's response. If that is the case, I shall of course read very carefully both his and other speeches that I miss. Together with other speakers, I look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, who is to follow me.
Particularly to be welcomed in the Bill is Part I setting out the community leadership role that is to be given to local authorities. I believe also that there is widespread support for the code of conduct proposed in Part III. The new election arrangements in Part IV are also judged on the whole to be helpful. Obviously, Part II is controversial and a good many councillors are opposed to the proposed changes. There is also the question of whether, given support for a change of some kind, the three choices on offer are not too restrictive. Other models may be better able to respond to local needs.
The Church of England has a particular interest in Clause 15 of Part II. We very much welcome the fact that a local authority must include provision for the appointment of,
"one or more … overview and scrutiny committees".
For many years the Church has had a very fruitful relationship with local education authorities. We believe that it is particularly important that there should be an overview and scrutiny committee when a local authority has educational—that is, school—responsibilities. The chairman of our Board of Education, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, and Bishop Vincent Nichols, chairman of the Catholic Education Service, had a meeting earlier this year with the relevant Ministers and received a positive response to some of our particular concerns. However, although the Bill states that there should be one or more overview and scrutiny committees, it does not specifically state that where an authority has educational responsibilities there must be an overview and scrutiny committee that relates specifically to those responsibilities. We believe that such an obligation should be put on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, we welcome the requirement that such a committee, if set up, would meet in public, would be able to determine its own agenda, would be able to call officers and executive members to account, and would report direct to the council and the executive. These provisions are, of course, all on the face of the Bill in Clause 15(1)(b) and subsections (3) and (4).
However, there are some concerns that we hope might be met by government amendments in due course. These primarily concern the rights of Church and parent governor representatives to sit on and be elected to chair such a committee. In the past the very fruitful relationship between the Churches and local education authorities has been underpinned by Churches' representatives being appointed with voting rights on education committees. They have not usually exercised their vote on controversial political issues
1044
but have frequently been a respected voice in the committee room and have sometimes voted to good effect. Obviously, there is widespread concern about the loss of that voice and vote under the present Bill. Our concern is not just for Church representatives but for those parent governors to whom legislation only last year extended the power to vote on education committees.
We also have concerns about any such committee being dominated by considerations of party balance. We believe that the directive contained in Clause 17(b) of the Bill—that is, freedom not to allocate seats to political groups—should apply also to any overview and scrutiny committee responsible for education in order that independent voices are properly heard and taken into account. We believe that the Government understand these concerns and, as I say, we hope that there might be government amendments in the future to meet them. Alternatively, we shall bring forward amendments of our own.
On Clause 68—the repeal of Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986—I believe that the main concern of the Churches is that there should be high quality sex education in schools, setting it within a firm ethical framework and looking to marriage as the proper context for full sexual intimacy. In that connection, we warmly welcome the Government's announcement on 9th September that they had decided that pupils,
"should be taught about the importance and nature of marriage and family life and bringing up children".
At the same time it needs to be recognised that in any class there are likely to be one or more pupils who feel attracted to members of their own sex. For some, this may be a passing phase; for others, as we know, this will be a lifelong orientation. The feelings of such pupils need to be taken into account and handled with great sensitivity. Adolescents are very vulnerable in their sexuality, particularly if they are conscious of not conforming to the norm of their peers. Such pupils are likely to have a very hard time anyway. A survey in 1996 revealed that one in two gay adolescents under the age of 18 had experienced violence; 61 per cent recorded harassment; and 90 per cent recorded verbal abuse. Obviously, we need to be very careful not to have legislation which will reinforce such cruelty.
So when we come to consider Clause 68 and any amendments in relation to it, I hope that we might be able to bear in mind two criteria: first, the need for high quality sex education in all our schools, one which will give people a clear ethical framework and which looks to marriage as the proper context for full sexual intimacy; and, secondly, legislation which will help teachers deal sensitively and supportively with those pupils who are conscious of being attracted to members of their own sex. I do not claim it will be easy to maintain both those objectives but I do think it is desperately necessary to try to do so.
This is an important Bill, widely supported in some of its parts, controversial in others. We from these Benches certainly support the intention to strengthen local government, with which the Churches have friendly relationships. We will also be particularly

1045
concerned with Clause 15, dealing with the overview and scrutiny committees, which we certainly welcome in principle but which we think need to relate in particular to local authorities with educational responsibilities. Finally, as I have just indicated, I believe that there are two criteria that we will need to bring to bear when considering Clause 68.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, with my experience as a councillor for more than 21 years and as leader of a metropolitan council for the past nine years, local government has always been challenging and never dull, whether dealing with the problems faced by ordinary people in their everyday lives or dealing with the changes, some more welcome than others, introduced by successive governments. But I must say that the Bill offers change that is welcomed by local authorities as a whole. The evidence for that statement is the recent survey by the LGA which showed that by 1st October, 87 per cent of authorities had already implemented changes to their political structure; 75 per cent were considering such changes; 41 per cent already had a standards committee; and a further 30 per cent were in the process of forming one.
Local authorities come in a variety of different shapes and sizes, differentiated by location, by their responsibilities, by composition and by their culture, but they should share two overriding responsibilities: first, to serve and to secure, where they have direct responsibilities, the best quality services for local people; and, secondly, to act as community leaders, working with local people, business and other organisations to create a better community. The aim of the Bill is clarity, making it clearer where responsibility lies and making sure that local authorities can perform.
I shall concentrate on Parts I, II and III of the Bill. I certainly welcome the promotion of economic, social and environmental well-being. That will give clarity with regard to the current position of the law, amending the very narrow permissiveness given by Section 137 of the 1972 Act and by the further constraints put on that Act by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The law is catching up with the practice in many authorities, which are responding to real local needs. In my authority, we are currently establishing seven partnerships concerning the whole range of our different activities. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we have set up one on lifelong learning in which the Church of England and other faiths will be fully invited to participate as partners.
By coincidence, last Friday evening I hosted a dinner at my town hall for the first meeting of what we call the leader's forum, which is a. partnership of partnerships. It is not just to be a talking shop, although I think that the partnership will develop the community plan, which will be an important part of the judgment of local authorities in the future. We need to work more closely together to change things in concrete ways. In my authority, if I may echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, we have already had a business partnership for a number of years.
1046
We have merged economic development staff of the local authority with the TEC, Business Link and the chamber of commerce to provide an effective one-stop shop for local business. In terms of health, we are currently creating an assessment centre for old people which will reduce bed blocking and allow a full and proper review of the position and capabilities of each individual in order to assess whether he or she is able to return to independent living. Last week we had the publication of some statistics on health inequalities. They will not be tackled by putting more money into medical treatment. These inequalities can be tackled only by looking at the underlying facts of social exclusion.
Part II of the Bill will make for clearer decision-making. The responsibility for making decisions will be clearer both to the council and to local people. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who were concerned about there being two classes of councillor. I think that that concern is felt by people if they do not understand what is happening. I had a busy day last Friday. In the morning I attended a seminar for my own members which tried to explain what the Bill will mean for them. A new and productive role is being offered. There will be lots of things for councillors to do. I refer not only to scrutiny, although that is very important, but to involvement in the future development of the local authority and working in more ways with local communities. We will have a system of special responsibilities, which will enable people to become expert in specific areas and provide a career path so that people can move forward.
In discussing whether we should have elected mayors or leaders in local government perhaps I should declare an interest. I am still the leader of the council. I am willing for such decisions to be taken by local people. However, I think that two factors should be mentioned. First, if we change to a system of elected mayors for some local authorities, there are implications for council staff which we need to bear in mind. The role of chief executive in an authority will inevitably change. We need to understand that. Secondly, if I may say so as a new Member of this House, it is somewhat ironic that as a local authority member I am accused of acting in a 19th century manner when I understand the ways of this House and the other place, which as a result of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, could be defeated by a single voice of objection. There may be lessons that we need to learn about modernising.
Part III of the Bill, dealing with standards and ethics, arises from the third report of the Nolan committee. Despite a number of highly publicised cases, the behaviour of most of the 20,000 councillors and over 2 million council staff has been of the standard that we should expect in British public life. I welcome the proposal to abolish surcharges. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I was for a time chairman of the finance committee and they were sometimes an effective stick to wave at people in order to remind them of their responsibilities.

1047
I am pleased that there will be new codes to clarify what local councillors can and cannot do. The declaration of pecuniary interest is important to local authorities but can be taken, given the current state of war, to extremes. Again, to give an example from my own experience, I am appointed by my council to be a director of Manchester airport, because the local authorities of Greater Manchester are all shareholders. But because I am a director that is seen to represent a pecuniary interest, although the position is unpaid. That prevents me from reporting back to my council on the affairs of Manchester airport or offering it advice as a shareholder on what decisions to take.
The new standards committees will clearly be welcome; many have already been set up. The fact that there will be independent representatives should give greater assurance to the public that things can be done properly. The standards boards will also allow for further independent investigation and adjudication. In the interests of justice, a fair and full inquiry plays an important part, and the Bill provides for that. We also need to make sure that justice is achieved with some speed. We shall need to remember that some people who go through that process will inevitably be innocent of the allegations made against them. It should not be necessary to wait for an undue length of time for the process to be completed.
Overall, the Bill commands respect throughout local authorities. It demands detailed investigation in Committee. I ask the House to support it.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, on his maiden speech. I understand that he first started as a councillor in Wigan in 1978 and since then has been continuously in local government in a number of different authorities. From the way he spoke, it is clear that he has had wide experience. We were most interested to hear what he had to say and look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
It is a long time since I was in local government, but I began my political career there, and remained there for 15 years. I welcome the Bill—but with the notable exception of Part II, which has a great deal to commend it, I cannot say that I am not critical about other parts of the Bill.
I welcome the proposals on conduct, both for councillors and officials. Of course we shall need to examine the detail of the proposals. Unfortunately, there have been many well-publicised examples of corruption and fraud in local government. I hope that these proposals will help to reassure the public on that front. That said, I should like to concentrate my remarks on Part II of the Bill and on Clause 68.
Over the past two and a half years we have learnt that when this Government use the word "modernise" we need to watch out. It actually means "destroy". Part II of the Bill does that. All the constitutional arrangements of local government, some going back
1048
hundreds of years, others amended and changed by numerous local government Acts, are to be overthrown for new structures based largely, so far as I can see, on continental and American models. There is no evidence to show that their local government is that much better than ours; it may be different.
Furthermore, under the Bill it is not possible to maintain the status quo, even in those authorities which the Government say have done a good job. They might be beacon authorities; nevertheless, they have to change. And nowhere is it made clear that the services that local government provides will be improved. The right reverend Prelate touched on education. A key issue is how to raise educational standards. How will the Bill do that? Shall we see some great change? Or indeed, how will vulnerable young people be helped? For example, in the case that has been well publicised this weekend of the 13 year-old boy with a 17 year-old mother and the twins, will they be better off under these circumstances? The Bill certainly does not make that clear.
I agree with those who have said that the Bill will create two tiers of councillors. There will be those at the top—the mayor, the council chairman, possibly the city manager, certainly the cabinet or the group around them—who will all be very powerful. Then there will be the rest. The others will make up the scrutiny committee, but that will not be a decision-making body. One must ask oneself whether one would not as an individual be better off as a powerful member of a pressure group rather than as a second-class councillor. It is not at all clear what advice the scrutiny committee will receive. Will it be from the same officials who advise the cabinet? Or will it be from another set of officials? How will that help discussion?
In the end, I think that we all agree that the quality of people who enter local government and become officials is the most important issue. The question that needs to be addressed is: will the Bill improve the quality of intake? Who will stand for the all-important post of mayor? Will it be a full-time job? If so, will he or she be quite unrelated to the community in which he or she serves? What about the relationship between the powerful elected mayor and the local Member of Parliament? One has the impression that, as in so much government legislation, those important questions have not been answered and have not been thought through.
Then there are the referendums which must precede the election of a mayor. Little is said in answer to the major criticisms arising from, for example, the referendum on the mayor for London. In that case, there was a very low poll—I believe, some 30 per cent of the population voted—and an even smaller percentage was in favour. Will that be good enough for the whole of local government? I do not believe that it will be. I believe that referendums are a very serious business. We need to have the rules set out in detail as to what percentage must vote for change, and what percentage of the whole population must vote if there is to be change. These issues are too big to be left to a fringe of people committed to one cause or another.

1049
We gather that the cabinet must be of one party. How opposition members are to be informed about what is happening is by no means clear. Nor is it democratic. New Labour is changing the meaning of words. Re-reading the White Paper that preceded the Bill, I noted that it talks increasingly about a "participatory" form of democracy. I am interested in that. I visit Cuba on a number of occasions. It defends its democracy by describing it as a participatory democracy. I am a traditionalist. I believe in representative democracy. I believe that we are seeing a change coming about by means of a rather skilful manipulation of words. I regard it as a dangerous development, one masquerading under a welter of words from the spin doctors. There will be much to debate when we examine that part of the Bill.
I now turn to Clause 68. There are a number of reasons why I am against the clause. The first is that it has nothing to do with the main purposes of the Bill. Like the issue of lowering the age of consent for homosexuals, which the Government tried to slip into a crime and disorder Bill by a last-minute amendment in another place in the summer of 1998, they now slip a repeal into this Bill. There was very little openness or transparency about it until we heard the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, defend it this afternoon. It was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech nor in the summing-up of the debate on it by the Lord Privy Seal. Yet it is an enormously important piece of social legislation. I looked in vain to see whether the Prime Minister would mention it in his Romanes lecture on education at Oxford. No doubt it is not mentioned because Alastair Campbell has told the Government that it will upset the middle-class vote and therefore they must be very careful. To slip it into this Bill in the hope that no one will notice is something that will not have any effect in this House. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that it will be a very hard fought issue.
I turn to the issue of principle. Let us look at the verb that is used. The intention is to promote homosexuality. With all due respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, that was not what he said in his remarks about the clause. To promote homosexuality goes far beyond the brief from Stonewall which talks about bullying and helping young people who are uncertain about their sexuality. I am second to none in deploring bullying wherever it occurs and for whatever reason. It is the job of the school to deal with it. Any school with which I have ever been associated, maintained or independent, has had a policy on bullying. The school should deal with it.
It is right that teachers should give help where pupils are uncertain about their sexuality, and they can do that under existing legislation. One only needs to read the circular from the Department of the Environment (as it was then) that accompanied the 1968 Act which makes quite clear what teachers can do. Nor would it make it possible to say that marriage is best. It tells young children—remember that it applies to both primary and secondary schools—that a homosexual relationship is the same as a heterosexual one. It is not. Nor do I believe that the overwhelming majority of
1050
people in this country believe that it is the same. But if Clause 68 is agreed it will promote something that children are far too young to understand. Above all, it goes against the tradition of family and undermines responsible parents.
If anyone doubts what will happen he should look at some of the material that is currently being produced by health authorities. I have with me a copy of Colours of the Rainbow published by Camden and Islington NHS Trust. That sets out for children at key stage 2 (seven year-olds) what they should be told right the way through school. That promotes homosexuality and does not teach children what a homosexual is, which is a major difference. I believe that that is wrong and dangerous. Nor does it make clear the very well known medical dangers of this kind of behaviour, particularly among the young. This is not the place to go into those dangers; nor am I in any way an expert. However, I have read a great deal of research and evidence on the subject, and it is an undesirable practice from the medical point of view. To introduce that to children is something which no responsible adult should undertake. Furthermore, is it right that when there is a shortage of money for a good many projects general taxpayers' and council taxpayers' money should be used in this way? I believe that it is a questionable use and not one that we should support.
There will be much argument on the point. I have been told that I am being intolerant over this matter. I am intolerant about some matters. I am always intolerant when I believe that anyone is playing politics with children. I suspect that there is a great deal of that in this particular clause. This is a nasty provision which will have a damaging effect on vulnerable children. If we support it we shall all bear a great measure of responsibility for setting children off on a path that possibly they may come to regret subsequently in life. In this matter children who are too young to understand the position are likely to he manipulated by others who know only too well what is happening.
The proper use of teaching and sex education—to prevent bullying and to answer proper questions from those who are worried or unhappy—can be conducted under the present law. But of one matter I am certain: if Clause 68 is agreed it will open the floodgates to very unsuitable material appearing in schools for the use of children. It will encourage many children to pursue a path which most responsible parents do not believe is right. As a responsible person in public life, I cannot possibly support this clause. I shall table an amendment and hope that when the House comes to debate the matter it will support me.
5.6 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith, a fellow member of a large finance committee, on his speech today. I hope that we shall hear him speak often on the problems of local government. I shall not refer to Clause 68 to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has referred. I am sad to the extent that this is a very

1051
important Bill, but this particular clause has been hijacked by the media. Interest has focused on Clause 68 and not the real Bill which was considered by the Select Committee of which I had the honour to be a member, together with the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Hamwee.
It is unusual for me to be aggressive to the Government but in this instance I shall be. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is aware of this because I warned him in advance. I believe that the situation is a disgrace. It was a good idea on the part of the Government to set up a Select Committee of both Houses to consider the draft Bill before it came before the House. I do not necessarily criticise the Government for failing to agree with the Select Committee. My criticism goes to the fact that the committee interviewed a mass of witnesses between June and July and its report was available in August in order to be considered by Members of your Lordships' House. However, I understand that it was only on Thursday afternoon that that report was available in the Printed Paper Office. I went to the office with the Clerk of the Parliaments at three o'clock on Thursday afternoon and it was not there. I managed to get it at home only on Friday afternoon. If this is the new method for handling important draft Bills, it is certainly not the right way to present the matter to this House. I feel strongly about that. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, nodding in agreement.
There were 16 members of the Select Committee: eight Members of this House and eight Members of another place, eight of whom were Members of this Government. We were unanimous in our recommendations. Having got my anger somewhat out of the way, I wish to turn to some of those recommendations.
I refer to the structural issues under Part II. We interviewed people for many days, discussing the important issues referred to on page 32. The majority of witnesses argued that the three proposed models were insufficiently accommodating and wished to see further models added to the face of the Bill. The Local Government Association stated that, if it has a criticism of the Bill, it is that it is unduly prescriptive and confines models of local government to three. I very much agree.
In their response the Government say:
"The Committee noted that some authorities believed that none of the three kinds of executive arrangements which the draft bill provided would work in their circumstances. The Committee also noted the power in Clause 2(5) of the draft bill for the Secretary of State to specify by regulations further kinds of arrangements".
They therefore recommended further amendments. What is the Government's reaction as regards the unanimous report of the Joint Select Committee? The Government state:
"The Government does not intend to change the approach of the draft bill in order to permit the Secretary of State by regulations to allow councils to adopt forms of constitution which do not involve a separate executive linked with separate and rigorous arrangements for overview and scrutiny".
1052
Clause 10 of the Bill published 10 days or so ago states:
"An executive of a local authority must"—
I underline "must"—
"take one of the forms specified in [the following] subsections".
Here is the executive telling the locally elected people how they should run their business. Clause 10(6)(b) refers to,
"a form of executive some or all of the members of which are elected by those electors but not to any such post".
I believe that that may be agreed as one of the ways forward.
I have been involved in local government for nearly 50 years. I am in agreement with the idea of an executive. I was vice-chairman of the old Hampshire County Council and chairman of the new county council at the same time as being chairman of the finance committee. Our budget was £1.6 billion a year. We employed 55,000 people. It was an honour and a great experience to run a major authority which stretched between Bournemouth and Aldershot and from Petersfield very nearly to Newbury.
The council worked extremely well; it is working extremely well. It has worked with an executive and a committee system. The Government want to do away with that. The committee system has two major inputs. It enables back-benchers and leaders of the different groups within the authority to work together in areas of special interest. From where will we get new local authority members? Who wants to stand for a local authority when they know that in the first two or three years of their membership they will meet for perhaps five county council meetings a year? With 100 members of the council, 15 will be on the executive and perhaps 20 on the scrutiny committee. What will all the others be doing? They may be on other scrutiny committees. They will not learn about education, social services or the police force. How did I learn about planning? It was by working on the planning committee, finally becoming chairman. After that I became chairman of the County Councils Association Planning Committee. I was then chairman of the South-East Economic Planning Council. I still serve as chairman of SERPLAN, which involves all the local authorities in the south-east today.
I believe that there is a great danger. We saw it when the Select Committee met with two London boroughs which are working on the basis that the Government intend for all local authorities. One back-bench member of a London borough said that he had the greatest difficulty as a governor of his school because he was unable to get in touch with any member of the education committee or the education officer. He knew that as a manager he would be asked questions which he could not answer. He thought that the new approach was a rotten idea. Previously the council had an education committee and he was on it.
Finally, to ask the public about the structure of local government is a very big question. While I was chairman of Hampshire County Council, unfortunately I was eternally on television and attending meetings talking about rates. People wanted

1053
to know why we were spending money on education and not enough on roads, and so on. They were interested in the results of the local authority; they were not interested in its structure. Perhaps with better information, and talks at schools about local government, young people may give up some of their time to local government. I very much hope that they will. However, I cannot believe that they will if, for most of the time, they are not involved in any way. I speak about all political parties. Two years ago I visited Bedfordshire County Council. The chairman of the planning committee is not briefed by the planning officer. He is elected on the day because there is no overall political majority on the council. Conservative, Liberal and Labour members are equal.
How will local government work with a scrutiny committee composed of one political party, with a majority party only on the executive? There are many problems ahead. In his reply, I hope that the Minister will tell us why the Government do not wish to allow an authority to set up an executive, a scrutiny committee and some standing committees of the county council or education, police, planning, social services and the like.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, with whom I have worked so closely on London local government matters. It is also A pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, whose maiden speech made an important contribution to our debate. It demonstrated the value of the experience that he brings to the Chamber.
First, I declare an interest as a London borough councillor for the past 21 years; as a member of the executive of the Local Government Association; and as the current chair of the Association of London Government. During my time as a councillor, I have seen a decline in the standing of local government, but that decline is not just a phenomenon of the past two decades. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Hattersley, in a splendid written evocation of his youth, records:
"At the end of the war, the counties and the county boroughs were responsible for hospitals, police, water and a major part of the welfare budget, which was appropriately enough called 'local assistance'. Some of them generated electricity and distributed what came to be called 'town gas".
Clearly, there has been a reduction in the size of the responsibilities and powers of the local authorities since the halcyon days described in his article. But I believe that that reduction has contributed to the decline in the public's view of local government, the turn-out in local elections and the willingness of people to put themselves forward for election.
The profile of local councillors is in no way representative of the population at large. There are some 25,000 elected local representatives, setting aside for the moment the 70,000 parish and local community councillors. Of those, only 27 per cent are women; a mere 3 per cent are from minority ethnic communities; and only 38 per cent are employed either full time or part time. The average age is 56. I have to admit that
1054
I find it a sobering thought that after more than two decades as a councillor I am still 10 years younger than the national average. I suppose that that makes me a representative of youth in local government, but I am not sure that I should be recognised as such by many young people.
That situation cannot be allowed to continue. Indeed, how can councillors truly represent their communities if they are not part of that community and reflect that community? So it is important that we give serious thought to encouraging more of our young people and more ethnic minority residents to participate in the democratic processes and to stand as councillors. And, of course, the same is true for women in order to equalise the gender balance.
We have to prove that being a councillor is a worthwhile way to spend your time; that what they say can influence decisions and bring changes; and that the community will benefit from their involvement. We can do that only by making changes to the way local authorities work; by stressing the representational and representative role of local councillors.
Let me put that in context. Hitherto, much time has been spent in a round of unproductive committee meetings. Concerns about this are nothing new. In 1967, the Maud Committee commented:
"The [committee] system involves the production of increasing volumes of paper … which often overwhelms members … [and] … discourages the type of person … who is prepared to give time to the consideration of major issues but who is not prepared to spend it on matters which specialist staff should deal with themselves."
When I first saw that quotation, I thought that it was from the latest government White Paper. The words must be saved on the word processor and appear in a slightly changed form every few years. Despite the condemnation in 1967, the system has changed hardly at all. By 1990, the Audit Commission produced a report entitled, We Can't Go On Meeting Like This, and followed it up with a further report two years ago which concluded that under the committee system:
"too much of a burden is placed on councillors, often unproductively, by committee meetings which focus on detailed issues."
And, more importantly, it stated:
"the degree to which councillors have been supported in developing other aspects of their representational role (aside from committee work) is limited, so an opportunity for councillors to have a stronger voice on behalf of local communities is being missed."
What is more, as far as concerns the general public, the arrangements have been opaque and obscure. People assumed that the real decisions were being taken elsewhere and usually they were right to think so. This was as true of Conservative councils as it was of Labour and it is applied just as much to Liberal Democrat administrations as to councils where no party had overall control.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, speaking fondly of the emergency procedures in his local authority when he was involved. I could not help feeling that he was describing an arrangement under which decisions were being taken rapidly behind closed doors and the

1055
reasons for them and the forum of their discussion would not have been apparent to members of the public.
The Bill provides an alternative model: one where decision-taking is clearly located and where accountability is explicit. By encouraging local councils to adopt an executive/scrutiny split, the Bill addresses some of the problems with the existing arrangements. This should be positive for the image of local government and may begin to lead to an improvement in the level of civic engagement by the public at large. By cutting down on otherwise pointless meetings, the role of individual councillors is enhanced as more time will be available for them to carry out their representative role in their local communities.
The Government have emphasised that both the executive and back-bench roles of councillors are vital to the health of local democracy. The executive role will be to propose the policy framework and implement policies within the agreed framework. The role of back-bench councillors will be to represent their constituents, share in the policy and budget decisions of the full council, suggest policy improvements and scrutinise the executive's policy proposals and their implementation. Incidentally, I thought that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggesting that somehow it would be the end of the Bill when it came to a review and scrutiny committee putting forward a policy proposal, reflected a misunderstanding of what is proposed.
Suggesting policy improvements and scrutinising policy proposals is central to the role of the overview and scrutiny committees outlined in the Bill and it is very different from making the decision. It creates a process which will allow much more flexibility of thought and is much less likely to lead to a particular viewpoint being pushed through by a majority party without significant discussion.
In the same way as the Select Committees of your Lordships' House and of another place can raise issues, can challenge orthodoxy, can perhaps criticise the majority party of government and can certainly recommend improvement, so, too, can the overview and scrutiny committees clarify the position and explore the implications of proposals within a local authority. Those proposals are contained within the Local Government Bill.
At first, most of the discussion and emphasis was placed on the introduction of directly elected mayors to UK local governments for the first time. That is important, but less attention has been placed on the newly-defined and regularised role of the executive outlined in the White Paper, first, to translate the wishes of the community into action; secondly, to represent the authority and its community's interests to the outside world; and, thirdly, to build coalitions and work in partnership with all sectors of the community, and bodies from outside the community, including the business and public sectors.
This is all about community leadership; a new and important concept which enhances local democracy. While government are not perhaps proposing a return
1056
to the heady days described by my noble friend Lord Hattersley, it is clear that the new power to promote the economic social or environmental well-being of a local authority area, contained in Part I of the Local Government Bill, gives much greater freedom. It may not be a power of general competence, but it enables councils which wish to go beyond the narrowly-defined limits placed on them by statute so to do. That is important in terms of giving body to the role of community leadership.
I want to move briefly to the role of the backbencher. Clearly, back-bench councillors will be spending less time in council meetings. Therefore, they will have more time to spend in the local community, at residents' meetings or at surgeries. They will therefore be accountable in a direct way through encountering their communities on a day-to-day basis. They will be strong local representatives for their area. They will bring their constituents' views, concerns and grievances to the council through the council structures. Their role will be to represent the people to the council rather than to defend the council to the people.
In effect, they will be able to offer community leadership at a ward level and relate to their communities in a positive way without having to bear the responsibility or blame for the day-to-day decisions of the executive. That is an extremely positive and valuable role for all involved.
All in all, those changes are fundamental. They are part of a true modernising agenda which will bring about a fundamental transformation of the roles of elected members, of the status of councils and councillors as community leaders and in the way in which local authorities take decisions. That is not some cynical rearrangement of the deckchairs on the Titanic, but an opportunity for local government to renew itself as a reinvigorated champion of the communities it represents.
I therefore welcome the Bill. However, I should like to mention a number of specific points where it could be improved. First, I have already indicated that the new power is welcome. It would be even more welcome if Clause 2(3) required local authorities also to have regard to the achievement of social inclusion in the area and to the importance of harmonising race relations and achieving equal opportunities in the area. Secondly, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I should like to see maximum flexibility in terms of options for the executive/scrutiny split. Thirdly, I welcome the arrangements to pay allowances and pensions to local authority members. I trust that that will extend to all members and not only to those who happen to sit on the executive.
Finally, I cannot close without referring to Clause 68. I was a member of my local authority—although not at that time its leader—when it was at the forefront of debates on the matter in the mid-1980s. I remember well those discussions and I believe that Section 28 was introduced to set up an Aunt Sally. It was set up to attack local government, in particular Labour local government, which at the time did not

1057
much need to be set up as an Aunt Sally because there were plenty of other issues on which it could be criticised.
However, I believe that Section 28 was set up to do exactly that. It attacked a mirage; something which was not happening. In my local authority an extremely lengthy, learned and detailed report was presented to the council. It was entitled, if I remember correctly, Mirrors Around the Walls. It was about recognising the position of individual young people who are perhaps uncertain of their sexuality—an issue referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—or are children who are not part of conventional families in the sense that most of us would understand.
I find some of the comments which have already been made extraordinary. I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She talked about the clause being "slipped in". There has been debate and discussion about the repeal of Section 28 for a number of years. It has clearly been government policy. She referred to Section 28 as being an enormously important piece of legislation. I do not believe that it is so. As a piece of legislation it has never led to a successful prosecution. It is a piece of legislation that was extremely badly drafted to make a political point a number of years ago. It was extremely badly drafted because it is difficult to define what "promote" actually means in that context. It was badly drafted because it was clearly about education, but it related to local authorities rather than recognising the position in terms of schools, the role of governors and the role of teachers.
The most worrying part of that badly-drafted piece of legislation is that it creates a climate of fear and uncertainty. The extent of the lack of clarity as to what it does or does not cover has meant that initiatives which would tackle homophobic bullying and the uncertainties and difficulties of young people coming from non-conventional families have not been implemented. Teachers, governors and local education authorities did not know what could or could not be clone without falling foul of that particular provision.
The Government are right to repeal that section. I am delighted to see Clause 68 included in the Bill. It is not something which has been "slipped in", but enhances the Bill. The Bill is important because it presents the opportunity to renew local government. It presents the opportunity to renew the role of local authority councillors. The inclusion of Clause 68 is important because it renews the opportunity to ensure that those issues are addressed properly and appropriately—not to promote homosexuality, but to ensure that young people are clear and that they are advised and counselled accordingly. That is why I am such a clear supporter of this piece of legislation.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I rise to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, because I am not an expert on local government. When I make a few remarks about
1058
Part II, I do so with some diffidence and in the hope that it is sometimes helpful to have a layman's perspective. It certainly seems somewhat strange to me that even before there is a mayor in London and we have seen the consequences of having a mayor in London, we should be hurrying on to consider having mayors elsewhere.
Looking at the situation in London at the present time, I am not encouraged to believe that the post of mayor is bound to fall to someone interested in good administration and the delivery of efficient service rather than a demagogue bent on political posturing and confrontation with the government of the day. We shall have to see. However, when I read in the papers who is supposed to be the front runner for the Labour nomination, I am not exactly encouraged.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said that there had been a decline in the public's view of local authorities over the years. I am told by many people that it has been quite difficult in recent years to get good people to stand as councillors in some of our cities. There may be a number of reasons for that, but one reason represented to me not long ago is that when one has sought election in order to ensure that the street lights work and that one's children receive a decent education, it is fairly dispiriting to have to sit patiently while one is harangued night after night about gay rights. It is hard to see how abolishing the committee system is going to solve that difficulty.
Furthermore, having an inner circle of councillors serve on an executive, relegating the rest to second-class status with no part in decision-making, will not—in spite of all that was said by the noble Lord—improve democratic accountability, which Labour say is their aim. It is hardly likely to encourage those who do not get into the magic circle to continue to serve.
We are told that those who serve on the executive may be paid pensionable salaries. It is important that the public should be aware that that new idea is not a no-cost idea and that it may cost council tax payers dearly. Clearly, higher remuneration does not necessarily guarantee the involvement of higher quality people any more than paying expenses, however justified, resulted in better councillors at that time.
In other contexts, I believed that the Government rather liked the idea of power-sharing. There is much to be said for the committee structure in which all councillors can be involved in decision-making. Surely the Government should therefore think again about the unanimous conclusion of the Joint Committee and allow an authority to choose arrangements other than the executive arrangements on the face of the Bill. Otherwise, with the abolition of the committee system, absolute unfettered power really will be given to one party in many of our big cities. That is not desirable.
I turn now to the repeal of Section 28 by Clause 68. As my noble friend Lady Young said, the matter was not mentioned at all in the Queen's Speech, and when the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the matter in debate in the other place on 18th November at col. 127 of Hansard, he was almost apologetic, admitting that

1059
the intention behind Section 28—that is, to prevent the promotion in the classroom of homosexuality as a way of life—was,
"a fair and proper intention".
My noble friend Lady Young pointed out that, although both she and I mentioned the proposal for the reduction in the age of consent and Section 28 in our speeches in this Chamber during the debate on the gracious Speech, and although the Lord Privy Seal did us the courtesy of replying to our comments about the reduction in the age of consent, not a word fell from her lips about Section 28.
I am not surprised at the Government's diffidence because the arguments which they have been able to muster in support of repeal range from the tenuous to the trivial. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that there have not been any prosecutions under Section 28. But according to Mr Nick Seaton of the Campaign for Real Education, neither has there been the same volume of complaints from parents. Even Mr Peter Tatchell seems to think that Section 28 has had a deterrent effect. In an article a year or two ago he said that he had identified,
"at least 35 instances of self-censorship by local authorities fearful of prosecution".
According to the Christian Institute, there have been many instances where local authority officials have used their powers to block expenditure which would have been illegal under Section 28. Therefore, quite clearly it has had a deterrent effect.
That is the whole point. Section 28 is aimed at local authorities and the spending of money by local authorities on material which promotes homosexuality. It is not aimed at and poses no threat to teachers. I believe that the right reverend Prelate, who is not in his place at the moment but who will be able to read Hansard, can be assured that it does not affect what is taught in sex education lessons. That is decided on a school-by-school basis by the governing body with guidance from the department. It clearly allows counselling of pupils who are concerned about their sexuality.
It is said that the present law prevents teachers from dealing with bullying about which, of course, all teachers are rightly concerned. But it goes without saying that no teacher has ever been prevented by Section 28 from dealing with a bully. It is perfectly absurd to assert that a teacher cannot check bullying and cannot counsel young people about their feelings without promoting a gay lifestyle.
I submit that the Minister was wrong and that his remarks were in no way based on any evidence or on the wording of the section. He was quite wrong when he said that the legislation prevented local authorities addressing the needs of the gay community, still less from funding counselling services. The very limited scope of Section 28 was set out in DoE circular 12/88
1060
and an extract is quoted in the excellent paper by Care. If the House will bear with me for a moment, I shall read the relevant extract:
"The provision will be relevant in cases where a local authority in exercising one of its statutory functions proposes to do something for the deliberate purpose of promoting homosexuality. Local authorities will not be prevented by this section from offering the full range of their services to homosexuals on the same basis as to all their inhabitants. So long as they are not setting out to promote homosexuality they may for example include in their public libraries books and periodicals about homosexuality or written by homosexuals and fund theatre and other arts events which may include homosexual themes".
The circular went on:
"Section 28 does not affect the activities of school governors nor teachers. It will not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom nor the counselling of pupils concerned about their sexuality".
The Minister was clearly ignoring entirely that circular, which must have been brought to his attention by a government department when he made his remarks. Those remarks are in complete conflict with what he and this Government know to be the position.
We were told by the noble Lord who last spoke that when Section 28 was introduced it was set up as an "Aunt Sally". I can assure him that nothing could be further from the truth. When Section 28 was introduced, the Government were acting in response to the genuine concerns of parents that local authorities were using their money to teach children that there was no meaningful difference between a family headed by a man and a woman and two homosexuals living together. Section 28 seems to have had a beneficial effect in the education service and in local authorities.
Unfortunately, again as was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Young, the activists who caused so much trouble in the late 1980s seem to have found other ways of pursuing the same agenda. That is obvious from the actions of a number of health authorities. For the sake of brevity I shall mention just two. The Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority has funded a guide to the etiquette of "cruising" and "cottaging". The North Bristol National Health Service Trust has funded a so-called educational pack which encourages children as young as 14 to act out homosexual scenes, including pretending to be a married man who had sex with other men in secret.
As I received no response from the Lord Privy Seal when I spoke in the debate on the Queen's Speech, perhaps I may put the same question to the Minister today. How can the Government countenance young children being taught that it is all right to indulge in homosexual activity, and promiscuous homosexual acts at that, when they know perfectly well that if that lifestyle is adopted by those children, it will mean at the very least an increased chance of HIV infection and a reduction in their life expectancy? How can they countenance money being spent on that kind of material when it has been voted by Parliament for the treatment of sick people?

1061
Last Tuesday night Stonewall put on a star-studded show attended by the Prime Minister's wife to advertise gay rights. Apparently, it included a scene in which male dancers dressed as cub scouts gyrated suggestively and made obscene gestures while the audience clapped, cheered and stamped their feet. Some people could have been excused for thinking that the dancers were signalling that cub scouts were proper game for adult homosexuals. But Mr Tim Telman, himself gay and a journalist who writes for a homosexual publication, was surely right to say in an article in the Daily Mail on 1st December that that scene, far from reminding us that homosexuals are an oppressed minority, was symptomatic of a wider gay triumphalism in public life.
I say in all solemnity that it is our job to see that that triumphalism does not infringe the right of children to be brought up knowing what is right and what is wrong, understanding that sodomy is not the moral equivalent of sexual intercourse between a man and a wife, and appreciating the importance of marriage and of children being brought up by a man and woman bound by their marriage vows to a lasting relationship.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I somewhat regret that I must follow the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I wish to address my remarks in particular to the modernisation of local government. However, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, tempts me to stray into what I believe is a small area of the Bill. My two daughters sometimes sit in the public gallery to listen to your Lordships' debate. I believe that had they been here this evening, they would have been asking themselves where some noble Lords get their information from. From their experience of the playground, they see that bullying is very much an issue which needs to be dealt with.
I turn now to the Local Government Bill. We have heard that it is a fundamental and renewing Bill. I do not believe that those descriptions are entirely accurate. I believe that it is an evolutionary Bill which takes a small step towards improving local government.
I heard the Minister's remarks when he introduced the Bill and I hope that the recommendations of the Joint Committee will be incorporated. Their incorporation will mean that structures become more flexible. At present, the Bill still includes some features which have made local government less than desirable in the public perception; namely, a small clique of people, meeting in private, who make decisions which are fundamental to public life. If the Bill continues to retain the executive's ability to meet in private, then that public perception will scarcely change.
I should declare an interest as a county councillor for Somerset and as a former district councillor. As such, I cannot understand why councillors fear meeting in public. Sometimes it is more difficult when the public hear the debates which are held and, of course, sometimes groups meet beforehand. But it should he possible to debate in public most decisions
1062
which are made. Some noble Lords may say that I am an idealist to expect that that should be so. But I worked within a system in which debates—and sometimes heated debates—were held in public and conclusions were reached. The public believe that to be a satisfactory way in which to conduct business.
In particular, I wish to address the role of area and partnership committees. Those are not yet contained in the Bill although I understand that the Government look favourably upon them. The area committees of which I have experience are based on a natural geographical area. The councillors for the area meet in public with the public able to ask questions on all matters concerning the area. In relation to social, economic and environmental well-being, such a committee—a scrutiny committee or whatever— would be extremely powerful. It would be extremely important in terms of community planning and enabling communities in the area to address what are described in the jargon as cross-cutting issues. In the past, committees have concentrated far too much on, for example, housing while disregarding planning and environmental health issues when all those issues are fundamentally entwined. Area committees have been successful in many authorities. I am extremely anxious that they should be allowed to continue. to build on their strengths, and to receive great community support. They enable communities to understand what local authorities are trying to achieve for them.
I turn now to partnership committees—a different animal. I believe that the Bill has been drafted with unitary authority areas very much in mind. Partnership committees address the need for district and county councils to work together. Some measures provide that executive decisions can be made only by one local authority or another. If the Government's agenda of best value and community planning is to be achieved, those committees must be not only encouraged but enabled to delegate decisions, if the executives of those authorities agree, to a partnership committee. In that case, areas such as waste collection and disposal and planning in its broadest sense—issues which cut across the work of both authorities—can be considered jointly by those authorities, with budgeting provisions being made by the two of them together. In that way, we should avoid the rather messy situation left behind by the last government, who failed to address the Local Government Commission's initial brief which was to rationalise the structures of local government so that the public could understand it.
I have some fears that under the Bill as drafted the executive and scrutiny split will be extremely divisive. The situation may arise that the opposition members are placed in charge of scrutiny while the executive members are a ruling group. If so, the old game of political football will then ensue. One of the reasons that the public are so turned off local government is that they see that that game of political football is being played at the expense of addressing local issues.
It may cause difficulties in relation to the natural progression of councillors, who are elected to represent their communities and who enjoy doing so, to becoming members of the executive. It may

1063
encourage the career politician rather than the community leader. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Bill. But it will be important that councils are given help in addressing the problem of councillors moving from the scrutiny to the executive function. Training through the improvement and development agency should be available to all members so that they can make what has been in the past a natural progression; for example, through being a vice-chairman of a committee. When the Government table their amendments, I hope that they will address some of those issues.
Part IV deals with electoral arrangements. The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, referred to young people being able to represent their councils. I am sure that I do not need to remind your Lordships that people of the age of 18, who are adults, are still not able to represent their local councils. One has to be 21 to stand as a candidate. That is a great shame. Although there would not be large numbers of young people wanting to be councillors, those few who are thus motivated are precluded from doing so, sometimes until they are 24, should their birthday fall at the wrong time.
I have a question to ask on Part V dealing with welfare services and support for the vulnerable. I know that this is a difficult matter. I am closely connected with my local women's refuge and I am concerned about whether the measures will affect the way in which such refuges are funded. I heard the Minister's introduction. At present, such funding is heavily dependent on housing benefit. Those provisions may be extremely suitable for the elderly who are less mobile. But I wonder whether they will be of benefit for those who must move from, for example, shelter to shelter. Perhaps the Minister will say how wide the consultation has been on that issue.
I look forward to the Government introducing their amendments. I look to them to increase flexibility in the structures. With much increased flexibility, the Bill is a small, rather than a large, step towards modernising local government.
6 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, it was a great honour to be part of the team from your Lordships' House which served on the Joint Committee to examine the draft Bill this summer. I join with others in saying what a pleasure it was to serve on a committee so excellently and capably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. Two of my fellow members of that committee have made contributions to today's debate: notably, the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, with whom it was a great privilege to serve and from whose perspective I gained a great deal, as did the committee; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom I sat next to several times. I confess to shamelessly cribbing from her greater knowledge of these matters. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh on his maiden speech. He will bring enormous experience and practical intelligence to your Lordships' House and to our consideration of the Bill.
1064
As some of your Lordships may be aware, I am an unashamed moderniser of the new Labour variety. I am keen to see our public institutions and democratic bodies tested against the criteria of whether they match up to the needs of today's world and are fitted to be flexible in the rapidly changing economic and social context in which they inevitably exist.
The Bill seeks to address long-overdue reform. However, whatever structures are found to be most appropriate, in whatever setting, the one constant which has to apply to all and which cannot be found wanting is that of proper standards, probity and ethics. I therefore intend to address my remarks to Part III of the Bill, which deals with the conduct of local government members and employees. The Joint Committee made a number of recommendations in that regard. I welcome the fact that many of our recommendations appear already to be taken on board; indeed, they are referred to in the Government's response.
Nothing discredits more the work of the vast majority of local councillors and officers in their legitimate public service than corruption and abuse of public trust by a small minority of councillors and officers. I welcome the measures in Part III of the Bill which establish a new ethical framework for local government. It will help to improve the standing of local government in the community and ensure that councillors and officers have the tools to get their own house in order and, indeed, clean up local politics.
This is not a party political matter. I do not wish to dwell upon, nor intend to mention, the antics of any particular authority, be it Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour. We have all been diminished by the activities of a handful of councillors who have failed to live up to the high standards of probity and integrity. The important point I welcome is that this Government are taking action to deal with the matter, to reassure the public and ensure that the strongest possible framework is in place to ensure higher standards in local public life. It is clear that the existing measures set out in the Local Government Acts of 1972 and 1974 and the 1989 legislation along with the National Code of Local Government Conduct have not been sufficient to deal with the small number of abuses we have witnessed.
Under the Bill every council will be required to adopt a new code covering the behaviour of elected members and officers. Every authority will have to create a standards committee. More importantly, the new standards board for England and the standards board for Wales will appoint ethical standards officers to ensure that the allegations of misconduct are thoroughly and, most importantly, independently investigated.
I am pleased to see that Clause 43 of the Bill enables ethical standards officers to investigate allegations even if the person concerned is no longer a member of an authority. That will help to ensure that councillors cannot evade an investigation by resigning from the council having already brought it into disrepute. It is

1065
vital that the ethical standards officers have teeth. The Bill gives them the teeth they need to carry out their work effectively.
Clause 44 gives wide scope to the ethical standards officer to conduct an investigation as he or she sees fit. It also sensibly ensures that the investigations need not give local authorities excuses for not acting while matters are being investigated. Clause 45 is particularly important in that regard. It will ensure that ethical standards officers have access to all the information they need to investigate the allegation. Fines will be imposed for failure to provide them with the information they need to further their investigations.
It is important that the process is transparent from beginning to end. Clauses 45, 47 and 48, which govern the publication of reports in the local media, will be welcomed. It is also vital that action can be taken quickly where interim findings of the investigations of the ethical standards officers are damaging. Clause 48 enables the ethical standards officer to conclude that the person being investigated should be suspended from being a member of the authority for up to six months with a possibility of extension, if necessary.
That will help to ensure that if it is felt by the ethical standards officers to be in the public interest to prevent a councillor from continuing to participate in decision-making, they will have the powers to do so. We might say that this "sin bin" approach is a further reassurance that the issues are being properly addressed.
I imagine that councillors will welcome the provisions in Clause 53 for regulations regarding the disclosure of pecuniary and other interests as this area requires clarification. It is right that councillors should declare such interests. However, as my noble friend Lord Smith illustrated so well in the example of which he spoke, under the existing arrangements there are anomalies. It is indeed the case that as a result of councillors representing their council on one body they cannot report back and carry out their public duties. That is plainly absurd and does not make for effective local policy-making. I look forward to the regulations which will tidy up the situation.
In conclusion, I welcome the approach of the Government to this issue, upon which the credibility of local representation rests. The approach is holistic, can even be said to be "joined up" and greatly enhances the Bill.
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long but I feel that I cannot let this moment go by without stating where I stand. I have many concerns about the Bill. However, the one clause which really horrifies me is Clause 68 with its intention to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. I find it inconceivable that any government would wish to go down this route. I was interested to see that the issue commanded all of three lines in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. I do not accept the premise that the repeal is necessary to enable local
1066
authorities to tackle homophobic bullying at school. I have to say that that is a practice which I abhor wholeheartedly. However, there are other ways of coping with the problem.
In January this year the Government's Green Paper stated that marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children. Since then, statements made by some Ministers and measures taken are in direct contradiction to the Green Paper. The family is the bedrock of society and we need to strengthen it all we can. Listening to some descriptions of the family makes me realise how the understanding of an issue is so different for different people.
My father died, so I grew up in a one-parent family. My mother was wonderful but I longed for my father; that could not be. I believe most sincerely that where both parents are alive everything should be done to help that union survive. It does not help anyone to be told that it does not matter if you have a peripatetic father who has other liaisons or that life is wonderful if your parent has a live-in lover. If you have to live out of a suitcase because you have your time split between your parents who have other relationships. it does not help to be told that that is fine. It must be hell for everyone, even if no one says it aloud. Marriage should be promoted in schools so that children can grow up, wherever possible, with two parents living together under one roof. Those of us who feel passionately about that must stand up and say so.
I have always felt that homosexuality is a sensitive and personal matter between consenting adults. I have friends who are homosexual and I do not discriminate in any way against people on sexual, religious or gender issues. But I am emphatically against promoting homosexuality. Children have enough problems when they reach puberty coming to terms with their sexuality and to have someone in authority encouraging them to accept alternative lifestyles as normal is abhorrent and against natural teaching.
I want to mention girls because often this is seen as a male problem. Reducing the age of consent will lead to problems for girls as it would legalise consensual buggery with girls of 16 to 18 for the first time. It is a physically harmful practice. It can lead to the spread of infection as well as traumatising girls at a tender age. One wonders if normal, loving relationships could ever succeed after such abuse.
This Government have an obsession with modernisation. In the past, under a Labour government, we had a permissive society. The legacy of this Government may be an "anything goes" society; "Forget about standards, just go for it. Do it your own way. We will back anything you do". If that is where we are going in the Government's so-called modern society, I fear for future generations.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak as a former local authority chief executive in the face of so many distinguished council leaders for whom I have a great deal of respect and affection. Nevertheless, I want to speak clearly on this issue.

1067
I shall advance the argument that the Bill is necessary because local government is fundamentally in crisis. The evidence for that statement comes from the public themselves, which must be the central focus for the legislation. There are voluminous data from MORI opinion polls and elsewhere showing that the public hold local councils in low esteem. At the last election only 29 per cent bothered to vote in local elections in England; that is the lowest figure we have ever seen. In a recently published British attitude survey, 60 per cent of the public said that they had no interest whatever in local politics. It is said that 95 per cent of the public cannot name their council leader. For many, particularly the young, local government is seen as being largely irrelevant to their concerns and interests. Local government committees are seen as talking shops. I say that with sorrow because I am a passionate supporter of local government and had a satisfactory personal career in it for between 25 and 30 years. The arguments that we do not need change have no foundation in the face of that evidence.
The debate should involve how we change and reconnect with the public. We are not talking about a static society. We are talking about a society where we expect substantial continuing economic growth. If the rate of growth is at a level of below 2 per cent, within a decade GDP will have risen by 20 per cent. That level of increase and the consequent effects on local communities will be profound. At the same time we are aware that technology and society changes are under way and are looking therefore at how a governmental system, whether at national or local level, is capable of addressing the needs of a fast-changing society and economy rather than hankering to get back to the world that we have lost. That is why we must be concerned as to how we can reform and modernise local government on a cross-party basis. if we are not capable of doing that and the public continue to see local government as being largely irrelevant to their needs, the only option left will be for central government to run things through their bodies and agencies.
We have seen over the past decade or so that there has been virtually no opposition from the public to the loss of local government functions. That matters. Locality still ought to matter to us. The argument is sometimes made that the issue of locality has gone; that people move around more frequently; they live in different places and work in different places from where they live. Yet if one takes a practical look at the situation, to most of us where we live and where our children go to school matters; locality still has impact. The debate therefore is how, in a more mobile society, we can reconnect people back to a governmental system at a local level.
One of the components of that debate has to be the issue of leadership. No one would argue that leadership is the simple or sole issue necessary for change in the local government agenda; but it matters in terms of organisations being better able to address the needs of the communities they serve. So, unashamedly, I should like to speak for a few minutes
1068
about why the structures and systems of local government matter as well as its powers and functions, while welcoming the long-overdue recognition of the power of well-being that the Bill brings forward.
It is known to all in the Chamber that every year a leader must secure a vote in his or her majority group to continue as a leader in that council. I do not want to make too much of that, but in essence leaders are forced to have an internal as well as an external focus. They are forced to ensure that, by and large, back-benchers are comfortable with what they are doing and that there is an opportunity for back-benchers to play a part in the process, however minor.
It might be said that there is nothing wrong with that. But surely the central focus of leaders should be to have a strong connection with the interests and needs of their community. That is why we should look with an open mind at one of the options that the Bill offers to indicate that a direct relationship between a leader and the community is important. It is nothing new. Members on the Benches opposite have, in the past, argued for such reform strategies, and done so well and persuasively.
The Bill offers basically three options. What is not an option is the status quo. I hope I have indicated some of the reasons why that should be so and how much I commend the work of the Joint Committee in its deliberations in the summer. Those who went to the LGA briefing before this debate were heartened to hear the chief executive of that organisation say that the Local Government Association did not support the status quo. I commend it for that; it is a progressive move.
We should look also at where local government is in relation to this debate and the option of a directly-elected mayor. The committee system has been spoken of fondly. Members of the House are well aware that the committee system has virtually disappeared in local government in the rest of the world. No doubt it has a role in some places, but does not appear to have adherence in the rest of the world. It was clearly appropriate for the 19th century, but that is in the past.
The debate therefore is how councils will choose the options. They will not be imposed by government; it will be an issue of choice for a local authority and its community. There is cause for concern in that regard on two fronts. If we ask the public the straightforward question—it has been asked in numerous polls over the past year or two—"Are you interested in having a directly-elected mayor for your area?", between 60 and 70 per cent will say "Yes". That is a remarkably high figure for a reform option. If we ask local councils how many are interested in having a directly-elected mayor for their area, only 2 per cent will respond with a "Yes". The difficulty is that if there is to be a genuine debate about new structures that will better serve the interests of the public, it must be a debate involving the public rather than one held in the smoke-filled rooms of the ruling party of the council. So far we have not been overwhelmed with enthusiasm by local authorities wanting to have that debate with their communities. There have been impressive exceptions.

1069
Lewisham, Liverpool and one or two others have sought a genuine discussion with their local communities about a system that would best suit the needs of the public rather than those of the current local political elite. One hopes that the Bill and its subsidiary legislation will make such full and open debates an essential part of the process. Again I pay tribute to the Local Government Association. When asked, "Should a local authority put all options before its public and debate them?", the unequivocal answer was that of course it should do so.
We are all saying that scrutiny is vital. I may not have been paying attention in all my 25 years in local government, but I did not see a great deal of evidence of scrutiny. That is best exampled by the deputy leader of a council, for which I was chief executive, when we were forming a performance review committee. He said, "You can look at anything you like whatsoever, as long as it doesn't cause us any embarrassment in public."
Past practice on scrutiny in local government is not very impressive. which is why we should keep an open mind on the need for change. The current system whereby all decisions on policy, practice and scrutiny are in theory made by one body—the committee—has failed to deliver clarity on policy making, clear strategic leadership at times or much evidence of vigorous challenge to what a council has done in the past.
I warmly commend the Bill and support many of its measures. I hope that we can have serious debate on how the Bill can best serve the interests of the public, rather than on the world that is behind us now.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, began by saying that local government is in crisis. That may be but I cannot agree with him that the Bill addresses those serious matters. I make it plain that to question the Bill should not be seen as an indication that one is opposed to change. I suggest that change is equally a responsibility for central government as it is for local government.
My response to the Bill follows closely the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade me and others that we should not feel terribly disappointed that this is a Bill of lost opportunities in achieving the Government's wish to revitalise local government. At this time, the Government could have set clear, new and modern objectives for local government and concentrated on outcomes and impact. Instead, the Bill concentrates on structure and process, which are not central to the issues on restoring local government.
Over the years it has become commonplace for Governments to advance the cause of strong local authorities while strengthening the grip of central control. In a healthy democracy there needs to be a proper distribution of power. The best way to tackle social exclusion—I pay tribute to the Government for giving that a higher priority—or economic regeneration is to empower local authorities to engage
1070
local people and to identify new ways of encouraging local communities to take a strong stake in their quality of life.
At a time when the Government have a large majority in the other place, there is even more need to take proper regard of checks and balances on power and control. It is ironic that we are discussing these matters on a day when the Prime Minister is in the north of England addressing the north-south divide. I suspect that few people in Whitehall would be able without hesitation to identify the location of Sefton, Knowsley, Tameside and Kirklees—let alone Three Rivers or Dacorum—yet Whitehall is able to set priorities for local authorities and to determine through the standard spending assessment how much each should spend on the services for which they have responsibility.
The Bill seems to take even more control to the centre by interfering in internal structures and management arrangements. Clause 18 even requires each local authority to report to the Secretary of State on its executive arrangements. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how many local authorities will need to do that. Is the number really in excess of 400? What is the population range of each authority? I suspect that it is something between 30,000 and 1 million. Do the Government really want to get involved in the internal management structures of every local authority in this country?
There was a time when local government raised most of the money it spent in its own locality, with a small top-up from central government. That position has reversed. About 80 per cent of local government expenditure now comes from central government, with a large number of strings attached. Is it any wonder that local authorities are often thought of as being agents of central government rather than separately elected public authorities with rights and responsibilities and having wide discretion over local decision-making?
If one of the local authorities visited today by the Prime Minister made a thorough assessment of the social and economic needs in its area, for the most part it would have to go cap in hand to Whitehall or to Europe in the hope of changing the distribution formula or attracting a special grant. Is it any wonder that the turnout for local elections is so low? Electors know where the power lies. If the Minister's ambition to revitalise local government is to be realised, it is necessary to release local government from the tight grip at the centre and to encourage good-calibre local people to present themselves for election and become leaders of local communities, feeling that they will have a strong influence on the way that local authorities address the issues they confront.
It is more than a question of structures and processes. In this day and age, it is vitally important to find new ways of involving local people to combat areas of alienation and feelings of resignation that are so evident in some communities. Too many local communities reveal clear signs of disillusionment and disbelief that they can do anything about their

1071
environment or life opportunities. We need to find ways to engage local people and to stimulate and motivate local communities. Gone should be the days when the state does things to and for people. We should be finding ways of working with people in a genuine and equal partnership, supporting initiative and innovation. We should be finding ways of bringing together individuals, groups and organisations—voluntary and private—and public bodies to shape the future of local communities. Local government will not be able to perform that leadership role effectively if it does not have greater flexibility than the Bill allows.
Clause 2 gives powers to local authorities to promote the "well-being of their area" but Clause 3 prevents them from raising money to be used for that purpose. The Bill ratchets up further the Secretary of State's control and I cannot help but observe that the enthusiasm for referendums at local level seems not to be shared by central government, who wish to keep a firm grip on their own agenda.
Although I welcome the wish to improve standards in public life, as I am sure all your Lordships do, even at local level power will be concentrated in the hands of the few and many elected members will feel marginalised—even in the authorities to which they have been elected. I fail to understand why the time-honoured practice of political balance being reflected in the decision-making process is to be reduced. Some parts of the Bill are welcome but overall it is far too intrusive and allows too little flexibility for local government.
Will the Minister indicate whether he is aware of the real concern about Clause 64—particularly the financial arrangements for supporting people in sheltered housing? That is such an important part of fulfilling government policy on care in the community that I hope care will be taken to ensure that sheltered housing and tenants of sheltered housing are not put financially at risk.
I hope that I have managed to convey that, although this is a time when we should be seeking to revitalise and empower local government and help local communities to feel that they have greater influence over their quality of life, the Bill increases the powers of the Secretary of State to interference in the way that local authorities go about their business and adds to central control. I shall be a happy man if the Minister can convince me that I have got it all wrong.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am glad that this is not my maiden speech because I want to support the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. I shall limit my remarks to the relevance of this section to schools and young people. The section is only a small part of the Bill, though it may attract a disproportionate amount of attention; I hope not. I shall try to convince your Lordships that Section 28 is simply outdated and unnecessary, for it has been overtaken by new guidance. I shall also argue that it is actually counter-productive.
1072
The section has always been a confusing piece of legislation. Of course, in truth, it applies only to local authorities, which are not in fact responsible for the management of schools and colleges: power lies with the governing bodies. However, I do not intend to spend time on this anomaly; nor do I intend to go over old and sensationalist arguments relating to Section 28. My main argument is that the section has been rendered obsolete by guidelines to schools from successive governments since 1988.
As your Lordships know, this section was written into—I almost said slipped into—the Local Government Act 1988, a long time ago. Much has happened since then in the fields of education and health. I shall not go into a detailed description of this, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some significant interventions which, whatever one thought of Section 28 before, now make it unnecessary, and as counter-productive as ever.
In 1990, the National Curriculum Council published its guide to health education in schools for five to 16 year-olds. For the first time, and after much consultation, the content and organisation of health education was spelled out for the four key stages of schooling. Sex education falls under health education and biology, and age-appropriate topics are given. There is no promotion of homosexuality; rather an emphasis on responsible decision- making and the expectations of parents. These guidelines are widely respected.
In 1993, the National Curriculum Council published its report, Spiritual and Moral Development for schools. It aimed to demonstrate that spiritual and moral development belongs,
"to every area of the curriculum and to all aspects of school life"—
the school ethos, the curriculum and collective worship. The Education Act 1993, since subsumed into the Education Act 1996, stated that the Schools Inspectorate must inspect and evaluate schools' provision for spiritual and moral development. This same Act required school governors to ensure the provision of sex education (including HIV and AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases) for all pupils.
The Act also established the rights of parents to withdraw children from all or part of sex education. except the biological aspect of the national curriculum, both in primary and in secondary school. In addition, school governors are required to provide a separate statement to parents on the teaching of sex education and to present it at the statutory annual meeting of parents. Of course, parents now constitute, numerically, almost a third of a school's governing body.
Prior to these discussions and curriculum documents, a seminar was held in 1992, funded by the Health Education Authority, where people representing 24 different religious faiths discussed sex

1073
education, values and morality. Consensus was reached and the report found that young people need sex education that,
"encourages self-awareness, self-esteem, a sense of moral responsibility and the development of social and communication skills essential for making informed decisions and maintaining personal relationships".
The seminar concluded that,
"values cannot he imposed, but children can be equipped with the skills needed to allow them to develop their own".
It was agreed at the seminar that pupils have the right to age-appropriate and accurate information on all aspects of sexual health, a right to learn communication and social skills and the opportunity to discuss attitudes, values and beliefs in order to develop a mom] framework for action.
At this seminar, differences between the faiths were acknowledged in an open and accepting way. Differences included issues of abortion, celibacy, cohabitation, disability and sexuality, and homosexuality. It was recognised that for some faiths,
"homosexuality is unacceptable, whilst others are struggling with the tensions of wider acceptance".
This is not to say that homosexuality cannot be discussed—the seminar certainly discussed it—but that religious and cultural viewpoints should be made clear. Many Roman Catholic schools discuss contraception, but make the Catholic faith's position apparent. Discussing is not promoting, but the semantics have confused teachers, doctors, school governors and young people.
I hope that the examples I have given will waylay some of the fears that I have heard expressed about the teaching of sex education. Those fears include: first, the view that there are not enough controls over school sex education, but this is counteracted by the provision of curriculum guidance, inspection and the role of school governors; secondly, that vulnerable children will be corrupted, taken advantage of, or manipulated by inappropriate teaching or teachers, but guidelines emphasise age-appropriate teaching and the safety of children.
Thirdly, there is the fear that religious faiths will be ignored or contravened, but guidelines take account of this. If parents are truly worried, they can withdraw children from lessons. I am a school governor of a primary school. I have just arrived from a school inspection meeting where these issues were discussed. My school has parents who represent around 20 faiths. No one has ever withdrawn a child from any lesson.
There is an extreme view that sex education has been rampant in this country for years and has done untold harm. In fact, sex education has mainly been in the spotlight with very little to see. It was introduced to the school where I am a governor six years ago by a new head teacher and introduced in the context of personal, social and health education. Nothing but good has come out of the programme, including dramatic improvement in the behaviour of the children and in academic results.
Of course, lurid examples sometimes hit the newspaper headlines, but every institution has its lurid examples. It does not mean that they are the norm.
1074
A headline I saw at the weekend was about a boy who has fathered twins. I understand that he was a perpetual truant from school. If he had attended, he might have learned something to his advantage!
If the examples that I have given are not enough, perhaps I may go on to quote more recent guidelines from the Department for Education and Employment (on the National Curriculum for Schools) where sex education is now, I am glad to say, firmly within personal, social and health education. The guidelines are clear about what should be taught and when. They are based on wide consultation, including consultation with young people. The young people were clear that they expected schools to help them sort out dilemmas related to drugs, friendship, sex, smoking and crime. Parents in many surveys have overwhelmingly supported efforts of schools in these areas. The guidelines also support and emphasise home-school relationships and the role of school governors. A new framework for inspection comes into force in January.
Again, I have no time to go into detail, but there is an emphasis in these guidelines for primary schools on developing confidence and responsibility, keeping safe and learning to reject pressure to behave in unacceptable ways. In secondary schools, issues of sexual health are placed,
"within a context of the importance of relationships".
In each curriculum document there is a statement of values from the National Forum for Values in Education and the Community. The word "promote"is used once—it refers to marriage.
I turn to why I believe this section to be counter-productive. Children ask questions about sexuality; they deserve honest responses. They deserve information and a place where they can discuss relationships and moral issues in safety. One of those places is schools. Parents appreciate this. Some children, from all religious groups, will be lesbian or gay, not because they have been taught to be lesbian or gay but because they are. These young people are entitled to information and protection.
As Shaun Woodward said in yesterday's Independent newspaper,
"At such a sensitive time in the development of young people's lives, they need understanding and acceptance, whatever their sexual orientation".
Finally there is the issue of HIV, AIDS and sexually transmitted infection. This cannot be discussed without reference to sexuality (heterosexual as well as homosexual) and to drug misuse. It is vital that we give young people the information and skills to protect themselves. At the beginning of concern about HIV and AIDS public education campaigns in this country were successful. We have fewer cases of AIDS than predicted. However, the medical profession is becoming worried that today's teenagers missed out on those campaigns and urgently need education. We cannot afford to discourage teachers, doctors and school nurses from giving that education. Therefore I suggest that we get rid of Section 28. It is not necessary, if it ever was. It is potentially confusing and damaging. It might be more productive to direct our attention to

1075
some media treatment of sexual issues where violence, exploitation and inaccurate information are rife. Responsible sex education can, of course, counteract these influences.
Agreeing to the repeal of Section 28 would show that your Lordships have taken into account new curriculum guidelines on personal, social and health education, inspection frameworks, parental involvement and the responsibilities of school governors. To retain this measure denies the integrity of organisations and individuals consulted about the guidelines, and the common sense of teachers, parents and young people themselves.
Baroness Young: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she accept that when you are legislating the use of words is not just a matter of semantics; it has to be precise? The word that is used in this context is "promotion". The noble Baroness mentioned that word when she referred to the promotion of marriage. I agree with a great deal of what she has said and have no quarrel with much of it. However, the argument is whether or not a homosexual lifestyle should be promoted as being as good as a married lifestyle. This is not a question of semantics; it is an important issue of the words that are used.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I respect what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. However, the word "promote" is used in Section 28. That word is unclear and has always been said to be unclear. Teachers, doctors and school governors agree that it is unclear and are sometimes put off teaching about HIV and AIDS because the word is unclear.
6.42 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, it will not surprise noble Lords to hear that I disagree with practically everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has just said. I strongly support the comments on Clause 68 of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Seccombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I wish to hammer home the need for Clause 68 to be repealed as it would allow local authorities to promote homosexuality in schools or elsewhere.
Why am I against homosexuality? I am against homosexuality because, in the first place, it is unnatural. One must go into frank details in this matter. The male body is made to go with a female body, not to go with another male body. That is how the male body has evolved. The human species is the highest order of species. Christians believe that Christ sent his son in our species on this earth. Lower orders of species, such as animals, do not practise homosexuality. That is a fact. If you go to see a herd of elephants in Kenya, you do not find homosexuality. If you see a stag and a hind in this country, you will find that they live together, but two stags do not. As regards birds, a cock and a hen live together, but two cocks do not. As I say, homosexuality is unnatural.
1076
Secondly, all the religions of the world ban homosexuality. Christianity, the Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists all ban homosexuality. Most parents want their children to grow up, marry and found a normal family. They do not wish their children to set up a "gay" lifestyle as a pretend family relationship.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is not the noble Duke making a Committee stage speech when we should address the principles of the Bill? Admittedly, he is following the bad example of many other noble Lords, but is that not the case?
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I disagree entirely with the noble Lord. I shall continue with my speech. It is not a Committee stage speech; it is a Second Reading speech.
I note that there are some cases of homosexuality, especially in boarding schools and among young teenage boys, but normally those concerned grow out of it—the same applies to girls—and I want to see schools encourage them to do so. I do not want the lives of those boys and girls to be arrested and directed down homosexual channels which lead nowhere. It is the duty of schools to direct their pupils with regard to a proper sex life. There is no question of my advocating homophobic bullying or anything of that kind. As I have said, most boys and girls grow out of these practices and lead happy, normal lives. I know that some boys and girls remain homosexual. I wish to see all our efforts directed to encourage them to grow into normal beings. In no way do I wish to see schools trying to retard their lives when they are at school.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, many noble Lords may be grateful to hear that I do not intend to mention Clause 68 other than to say that I support my noble friend's comments and those of others; namely, I support the repeal of what has been an unnecessary law which has caused difficulties.
Like many others I wish to make some general comments about local government and then concentrate on the style of government and housing welfare support services. Many of us have reminisced today but that is probably because many of us are here as a result of our past experiences in local government and in life.
Over 30 years ago as a newly qualified teacher I settled in Southampton. The school in which I taught provided every young person with their own textbooks in the subjects that I taught; namely, geography and maths. The grounds and the buildings were well cared for and our exam results were good. City buses regularly took children to the fairly new swimming baths to give every child the opportunity to learn to swim. Buses also took us to concert workshops with the local Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra. Our chief education officer was well known nationally. Local people appreciated the good local services and, whatever the political control, Southampton council aimed for good quality services, particularly decent

1077
housing, and good education and public transport. There was great interest in local elections and in what the council was doing. The well-known, sometimes rather colourful, movers and shakers in the community tended to be members of the local council.
I am possibly painting a rather over-rosy picture, but the reality today is that if one talks about local government it is not that kind of picture that comes to people's minds. Life moves on, the world changes, and institutions have to change. In looking back, I am aware that many of us in the Chamber who have been involved in this area have failed to value and safeguard much of what was and has been good in local government. Most of all we have failed to value the democratic role of local government as a building block for our national domestic democratic institutions.
For me, the test of the Bill is how much it will do to put back some of the cornerstones of our local democratic society—a society so very different from the one I have described. No longer can people read daily in their newspapers full accounts of what is happening in their council. As other noble Lords have said, often people no longer know the names of their local councillors and their local leaders. As we all know, no longer do many people even bother to vote.
Many noble Lords have expressed a desire for things to change. Many in your Lordships' House have expressed concern that although the intention of the Bill is to address some of these issues, some of us—I count myself among them—share concerns about whether it will do so.
As has been said, the Bill opens with a section which gives more power to local councils, particularly to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. I am not ashamed to say again that, although we on these Benches welcome this, our policy is that it would be very much better to give a power of general competence. Here the power to promote well-being is very specifically limited. As has been mentioned, it does not allow authorities to raise money by precepts borrowing or other methods for any of those issues.
The power to promote may sound very good in principle but it is still quite restrictive in practice. For example, it will facilitate partnership working on economic development and on home energy conservation, which I particularly welcome, but it does not give the freedom for local authorities to act.
I listened with interest to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, who is no longer in his place. I was particularly interested in what he was saying because, when I heard of his background, I realised he has probably voted money for books in my school many years ago. He made a comment about the powers of the Secretary of State and not enough power in the areas that we all want to change being left in the hands of local authorities. It is always disappointing to see how many extra powers are given to a Secretary of State when new legislation comes forward. I shall not
1078
bore your Lordships with them all, but I have particular concern that Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to,
"suspend, disapply or repeal any enactment … which requires a local authority to prepare … any plan or strategy".
Having piloted through this House and another place the Home Energy Conservation Act, which was about preparing plans—and to which your Lordships agreed—I should like the Minister to reassure me that that area will not be repealed by the Secretary of State under this legislation.
Turning to the arrangements for executives, several models have been put forward. Like other noble Lords, I hope that the Minister will come forward with other models—but not only models put forward by the Government. Experiments have been going on in local government and I hope that if amendments come forward they will reflect local communities' ideas about how we can run local government and how the structure should be set up.
I do not quite understand why the Government and the Local Government Association together are so against local councils being allowed to maintain some of their working practices, particularly if people feel that they are working satisfactorily. As other noble Lords have said, if we are to have cabinet forms of government it is important that we have scrutiny. The crucial part of the new arrangements will be the relationship between the cabinet and the scrutiny committee. In broad terms, the greater the power given to the cabinet and the fewer checks there are at cabinet level, then the stronger the scrutiny function needs to be.
Local government reform offers the possibility of bringing about a great cultural reform in local government—the breaking down of the tribalistic loyalties often seen from back bench councillors. This matter has been touched on by other noble Lords. A strong scrutiny role can give great power to councillors, just as in another place and here the Select Committee system has given great power—particularly in another place—to Back Bench Members. As we have seen over the years, party loyalties get put aside on Select Committees, which have delivered some fairly damning criticisms of government policy. The big test is for scrutiny committees to develop that kind of independence.
Whatever a local authority decides to set up, it has to put its plans in a referendum to its local communities. I am very interested that, although this is about modernising local government, on the face of the Bill councils are required to put in the newspapers whatever model they take up. There is no mention of the web or any other kind of modern technology. I hope that that matter will be examined during the passage of the Bill.
Clauses 64 and 65 are only two clauses in a 73-clause Bill. However, they deal with matters which have consequences for a very large number of the most vulnerable people in our society. I refer to support services.

1079
The Bill will affect quite a number of areas, some of which have already been mentioned: sheltered housing, community alarm schemes for the elderly and vulnerable, foyer schemes, supported housing for people with learning disabilities or physical disabilities, supported housing for people with mental health problems, probation hospitals, women's probation hostels, women's refuges and other hostels that provide support. The Local Government Association and I are concerned as to how these matters will be dealt with. I hope that we will be able to discuss them during later stages of the Bill.
Shelter seems to think that grants, rather than payment through housing benefit, may be a better system. Perhaps the reason that some people in local government and myself are concerned is that however well-intentioned the Government's plans for block grants to go to support services, some of us have seen how that has worked out in practice in the past. That may be why I and other members of local authorities are concerned about the Government's proposals. As the Bill progresses, I hope that we shall be able to address those matters more satisfactorily.
In conclusion, there is much that we do not yet know and there is a great deal of bureaucracy in the Bill. I wish that the Government trusted local people and local councillors a little more. Councils could then be given the right to have general competence and we could have a fair voting system. That would have meant spending a deal less time than we are going to have to spend trying to improve the Bill.
7 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen, I wish to concentrate my brief remarks on Clause 68 of the Bill and to welcome the repeal of Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 and what was to become Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
There were a number of points of detail that I would like to have raised on other aspects of the Bill, not least those that deal with referendums and elections. But I thought that I could leave those until Committee stage. However, there was one point that I could not resist taking the opportunity to raise. The turnout at local elections in this country is the lowest in the European Union. Many measures in the Bill are designed to help to rectify that position, as will the provisions of the Representation of the People Bill currently in the other place. But greater voter participation might have been further aided by an examination of our voting system for local elections.
It is now too late to make a change to our voting system in the Bill before us. But there has been at least a move in the right direction by the fact that mayors will be elected by a supplementary vote. I hope that that indicates that the Government are prepared to consider how local councils are elected and that they are not closing the door on changing the voting system. I should add that I do not expect a reply from the Minister on that point, unless he has some good news to impart.
1080
However, what I did not expect was that Clause 68 would play such an important part in the selection of candidates for mayor of London. I say that not to make a party political point but rather the reverse; namely, to illustrate that across the parties there is support for the removal of Section 28. I hope that the debate on the issue, when we discuss it in more detail as we pass through the various stages of the Bill, will concentrate on the principle and not party political issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said—this is probably the only point on which I agree with her on the issue—we must not play politics with young children.
The debate should be about removing any climate of prejudice and discrimination against gays and lesbians. It should be about keeping a sense of perspective and understanding that homophobic intolerance does exist and that it is not acceptable. It must be about a more caring and compassionate society and about equal treatment for everyone. It must not be about seeking political gain from aiding and abetting bigotry and discrimination, nor do I believe that it is a debate about marriage versus homosexuality. That is a red herring that has been drawn across this issue.
I have read with interest reports of the previous debates in your Lordships' House when Section 28 was introduced. It seemed to me that the then government had latched on to homophobia as a means of attacking certain Labour councils. It was said then that it was a necessary measure to restrain the activities of a small minority of councils that had gone too far in using their discretionary powers. As a consequence, local authorities, school teachers and pupils have all been affected. The fear of how Section 28 might apply has served to create a climate of prejudice and bigotry that has affected a section of the community up and down the country.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton—I am pleased to see him in his place—warned at the time that
the clause
"will inhibit a young person who will wonder where he or she can get advice as regards his or her sexual orientation".
A further telling statement was made by the noble Lord, Lord Habgood. I paraphrase what he said:
"
It is important to see the long-term implications of this clause … it does not defend human rights, it is dangerous and unnecessary".
It is clear that those warnings have been vindicated at considerable personal cost to many young men and women attempting to come to terms with their sexuality.
So what have been the implications and what have been the long-term consequences? There is no question that one of the immediate effects of the implementation of Section 28 was an increase in hate crimes against both individual gays and lesbians and organisations they were associated with. It has stopped libraries from stocking books on homosexual issues and the ambiguity it has created has meant that some teachers have used Section 28 to avoid discussing the issues of sexuality. It was not that they could not but

1081
rather that they would not because of the confusion over what would be their position. It has also meant that some teachers who are homophobic—and they do exist—have found Section 28 has given their prejudice a legitimacy. Furthermore, it has almost certainly meant that in many cases homophobic bullying has been tacitly tolerated.
All these factors, and the confusion or unwillingness to tackle the issue by teachers, coupled with a flourishing intolerant sub-culture in schools, has had a detrimental effect on young gays and lesbians, who are often treated as being of a lesser status. The section's message—that lesbians and gay men are less acceptable in our society—continues to haunt schools and local authorities. We must change that culture, but the current patchiness of sex and relationship education provision in general means that many young people are not developing the knowledge, skills and attitudes they require to form positive and tolerant relationships, sexual or otherwise. To do that, the provision needs to include discussions of emotions, relationships, different sexualities and lifestyles. A memorandum sent in October 1987 to teachers and governors of Church of England schools stated:
"In order to love effectively, one must understand and hence it is vital that any good education programme must include some treatment of homosexual relationships alongside any treatment of heterosexual relationships.
I am sorry that the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, is not in his place to hear that statement which was sent to Church of England schools.
I should also like to quote the words of Shaun Woodward MP who, when speaking on LBC Radio recently said that:
"Teachers need to be able to talk frankly about homosexuality to help those pupils taunted as 'gay' and 'lesbians"'.
Section 28 prevents that from happening. It is the biggest obstacle to teachers tackling homophobic bullying in schools. Many debates have been held in your Lordships' House on the extent of bullying in schools and many concerns have been expressed.
A Family Planning Association project—here I must declare an interest as the president of the Family Planning Association—was conducted this year called "Gender Issues in Secondary Schools". It found that bullying is primarily about difference, in particular difference related to gender and sexuality. The extent of that bullying was highlighted in a study carried out in 1997 by the Institute of Education entitled "Playing It Safe". It found that only 6 per cent of schools surveyed had a bullying and discipline policy relating to homophobia. and that 56 per cent of schools had difficulties meeting the needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils because, as the survey also showed, 82 per cent of teachers admitted that they found Section 28 confusing. There is a direct correlation between homophobic bullying and Section 28.
There is no question that there have been no prosecutions under Section 28, but its psychological impact has eliminated freedom of discussion and penalised a minority group made up of large numbers of individuals from all social classes who play a vital role in our society. That psychological impact has
1082
considerably hindered the work of local authorities in providing support and services to the gay and lesbian communities. It is difficult to assess the effect on people's lives of the closing down or never coming into being of such services, or how many young, vulnerable men have experienced negative health consequences because they have been unable to speak to the right people who could guide them. The effect of Section 28 has been to shut the door, resulting in despair and tragedy; and, as my noble friend the Minister said in his opening remarks, one in five gay people attempts suicide.
In conclusion, the Local Government Bill is about the promotion of economic and social well-being and about improving the quality of life of people in any given locality. The repeal of Section 28 will improve the quality of life of a very vulnerable section of our society. It is time it was repealed, and the Government are to be congratulated on attempting to do so. I, along with many others, hope that they succeed.
7.10 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I, too, shall concentrate on Clause 68, so anyone bored with it had better leave now. First, the clause was not in the draft Bill which came before the Joint Committee. It was put in—I was going to say "sneaked in"—later. It was not in the manifesto; nor did it form part of the gracious Speech.
Clause 68 repeals Section 2A—better known as Clause 28—of the Local Government Act 1986. Some of your Lordships may be interested in the story of its birth. It started very soon after the opening of Parliament in 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I were having a drink together in the Bishops' Bar. He said to me, "Well, what are you going to get your teeth into this Session?" I said, am very worried about the fact that some local authorities are promoting homosexuality in their schools, teaching children that it is better to be homosexual than heterosexual, and using taxpayers' money to do so. What is more, parents who object have not only been ignored but subjected to every kind of unpleasantness and even to violence". So we decided that probably the best way to deal with the matter would be a Private Member's Bill.
We discussed the issue a little further and decided that the best person to take the Private Member's Bill through this House would be the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who was so greatly loved and respected on all sides of the House and is sadly missed by all who knew him. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, drafted a Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, believes that it was abominably drafted, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would be the first to agree with him. It was a DIY job and the noble Lord is not a parliamentary draftsman. The Bill was amended by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, also took a great interest in it. The Bill passed through this House but was talked out in another place. That was the end of

1083
the story for a short time. But then in 1988 the Bill was subsumed into the Government's Local Government Bill as Clause 28.
The repeal of Section 28 will remove the small amount of protection which it has provided for the past 11 years against the manipulation of even quite young children against their parents' wishes by a small but vociferous and determined minority, which has recently been trying to get round the limitations imposed by Section 28 by proselytising under the pretence of giving health education or counselling. Section 28 needs to be strengthened, not abolished. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that he really should not believe all he is told by vociferous lobbies with vested interests. To say that Section 28 has led to the "institutionalisation of intolerance" is nonsense. There is nothing in Section 28 to prevent any teacher checking bullying or giving advice when asked. If there have been no prosecutions under Section 28, which is another indictment of it that I have heard today, perhaps I may say that Section 28 was not devised in order that people should be prosecuted: it was devised in order that people should not need to be prosecuted; and they were not because they paid attention to it.
So what is wrong with teaching children that it is better to be homosexual than heterosexual, because that is what promoting homosexuality means? Well, quite a lot is wrong. First, there is the health risk, particularly to boys, from many homosexual practices. I really am not going to go into the unedifying details. Most noble Lords know perfectly well what I am talking about; and if they do not, I suggest that they read either page five of Bankrolling gay Proselytism, the booklet which the Christian Institute has probably sent to many of them, or else ask the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who made a speech on the subject not long ago.
Then there is the sadness in the lives of many homosexuals, particularly in later life, that they have no children or grandchildren. Yes, they may be able to adopt, and some lesbians may be able to have in vitro fertilisation, but it is not the same as having children who are your own flesh and blood, quite apart from whether or not it is desirable for the children.
We all know that boys are prone to hero worship older boys or men and that girls have crushes on older girls and women. That is caused by the hormonal changes of puberty. As a result, many young people in their teens are ambivalent about their sexuality and can be manipulated into homosexual relationships which may do permanent damage to their health, whereas had they been protected, they would have grown out of their homosexual leanings without any damage to themselves. It is a time when young people are very vulnerable—that is about only the point on which I agree with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said. The homosexual lobby knows this. There is no such thing as a "homosexual gene", as some have tried to pretend, and they know that too.
So why do homosexuals proselytise? I think it is rather in the same way that drunks try to persuade everyone round them to drink too—because they feel
1084
more comfortable if all around are the same as them. If I were purple with orange spots, I should probably want every one of your Lordships to become purple with orange spots, so that I should feel at home. But there is another aspect with homosexuals. They are a minority, and so their choice of "partner", which I suppose is the word I shall have to use, must be restricted. But the more converts they can make, the wider their choice will be.
The various Christian denominations, the Jewish faith and other religions which forbade homosexuality, or used to, did not do it just for the sake of saying no, any more than they forbade the eating of certain food just for fun. They did it for very good reasons—mainly health reasons. I am sorry that the Christian Churches, and especially the Church of England, seem to have weakened their stance recently. I had hoped to see a bank of Bishops here today to support me, but in vain. There is some quite powerful stuff in the gospels about the consequences of corrupting children, but perhaps they do not read the Bible any longer, or only in some new fangled translation where the meaning has been watered down. Perhaps that is why churches are getting emptier and emptier. There is not much point in belonging to a church which has no morals and believes in nothing.
I really cannot understand why the Government want to do this. From where is the money coming for this proselytising? It comes out of the education budget, at the expense of paying teachers, having enough books and so on; or it comes out of the health budget, at the expense of such things as adequate nursing staff in hospitals and necessary drugs for elderly people. What is most important, it is going against the wishes of the vast majority of the people of this country, who are decent people who just want their children to grow up healthy and have a chance of a normal, happy married life. They do not want their children to be manipulated and pressurised at school, and they certainly do not want the taxes they pay to be used to pay for it. Why flout their wishes at the behest of a small, vociferous and sometimes violent minority?
At Committee stage, I hope to join the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in any amendment that she may choose to table to Clause 68. Since this is a moral question, I hope that this House at any rate will be allowed a free vote. It should be. Such matters should not be subject to the dictates of party policy, fashion and political correctness.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I hope, in a brief speech, to bring the debate back from Committee stage consideration of one clause to a discussion of what we should be discussing, as we did to a certain extent earlier; namely, the principles behind the Bill.
The Bill bears all the hallmarks of this Government. Its aims are irreproachable, but the machinery provided is "control freak" machinery. I welcome the increased powers for local government. They are long overdue and have long been advocated by many of us. I support the pleas made by the noble Lord,

1085
Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that they should be backed up with fund-raising powers, so that it will not be nugatory to say that local authorities have the increased powers given that they may have no means of putting them into practice.
The Bill is good in principle. However, it runs into problems in Part II, where the executive options tend to concentrate power too narrowly either in a single person or a single party, and presently rule out the committee system—which seems a pity, to put it mildly. I hope to support any effort to include that as one of the options.
It seems that it would also be possible—a view supported by a number of speakers—for a single party executive to meet in closed session. That view was supported by a number of speakers. That must be wrong. It must be a move away from the visibility and openness for which the Government say that they stand. It must be a retrograde step. I shall table amendments to improve that part of the Bill.
The provision in Part IV which enables annual accountability at the ballot box is surely to be welcomed—although I hope that we shall be able to insert a possible option for election by single transferable vote, which is the only decent form of proportional representation and is badly needed in local government.
I shall say nothing more about the cause célèbre of Section 28. Far too much has been said about it already. I shall certainly vote for the repeal of what seems to me a pointless and ill-drafted section—in spite of what has been said—which goes against all the principles that we hold as regards the provisions that should be included in that kind of Bill.
My party, the Green Party, is growing in strength at local level. In common with the Liberal Democrats, but not many others, we support any provision that encourages grass roots power. The Bill could be a very good measure were it to be made more democratic. Let us endeavour to make it so. At the same time, if we can devise a way to make it work more gradually so that we can see the result of some of the experiments before laying them down and ruling others out, that would be a good thing too.
It is necessary that we do not make major, drastic decisions that will bind too many people for too long without flexibility. There is a certain amount of flexibility in the Bill—I pay tribute to those who have included it—but there is not enough. We should have the ability to see how systems involving elected mayors work before encouraging people to plunge unduly, and too early, into them.
This is not a bad Bill. I am delighted to know that the normal practice of the House will be followed in giving it a Second Reading. However, there is a great deal of work to be done in Committee and I hope to play my part.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, the House will be relieved about one thing: I have left my prepared notes
1086
at home. I want to say at the outset that I strongly agree with my noble friends Lady Young, Lady Seccombe and Lord Waddington. I am tempted to become involved in local government matters in regard to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. However, I shall leave that to my very able colleagues on the Front Bench.
One of the disappointments I have registered during the debate has been a lack of the support that we seek to oppose the repeal of Clause 28—from the Church (from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford) and from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. When considering the protection of young people, I expected the Church to be loud, clear and unequivocal in its support.
I have no doubt that the repeal of Section 28 has been slipped in as a distraction from what is otherwise an unpopular and anti-democratic Bill. It is also important to counter the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who is not in her place, that Section 28 was slipped in in another place. I do not regard amendments to any Bill as being slipped in, but as matters placed before Parliament for proper consideration. Parliament as a whole accepted the provision. My noble friend Lady Knight, who will speak later, cannot be considered guilty of slipping something in. She picked up a mood; she picked up on something that was happening, and was widespread, in local authorities and among local councillors across the country. I shall refer to certain local authorities during the course of my remarks.
There is a great deal of misinformation. We have been accused of peddling misinformation. But Section 28 does one thing unequivocally: it prohibits the promotion of homosexuality. Whatever noble Lords opposite and all those who support the repeal of Section 28 say, if the prohibition is repealed, we allow the promotion of homosexuality. It will free up local authorities, local councillors and all the vociferous and tenacious outside bodies that place people under enormous pressure to promote homosexuality.
I went to the Library to look up the word "promote" in case I was guilty of the accusation by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that there is a great deal of confusion about the word, and that our wonderful professional teaching staff are confused about what it means. If I promote myself, I am selling myself. If I promote a product, I am selling a product. If I promote an idea, I am selling an idea. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the definition as,
"to move forward, advance or raise to a position of honour, dignity or emolument, to raise to a higher grade, to prefer".
There is no confusion about the word "promotion". If you promote homosexuality, you are advocating it; you are saying something positive about it as a lifestyle.
I want to return to first principles. We are talking about children of school age to whom Section 28 is pertinent. There is copious literature about the activities being undertaken by local authorities and local councillors prior to the introduction of Section 28. I have with me for the noble Lord. Lord Harris of

1087
Haringey, a copy of Mirrors Around the Walls: Respecting Diversity which makes pretty awful reading. I read it from cover to cover in 1988 when it was produced and I have re-read it. All I can say about the London Borough of Haringey and many other London authorities that followed suit is that if at that time they had been as assiduous about educational standards as they were about promoting homosexuality they might have been more successful, and Mr Blair might not have been so preoccupied with the issue of raising school standards particularly in many inner city authorities.
The main plank of the argument of those who advocate the repeal of Section 28 is that somehow or other it will address the whole issue of bullying. Like my noble friends Lady Young, Lady Seccombe, Lord Waddington and no doubt Lady Knight, who is to speak later, I abhor bullying, whether it is because a child is too fat, too thin, is not clever, comes from an ethnic minority or is homosexual. Whatever the issue, it must be addressed by schools, parents and any of us who care passionately that people should not be discriminated against because of background, race or creed. Bullying is not an issue. Those who advocate the repeal of Section 28 because they believe that somehow bullying will be addressed and melt away are sadly mistaken. I suspect that there will be more vociferous promotion of homosexuality and the lives of many young children will be much more unhappy as a consequence.
My noble friend Lady Young made the very real point that as young people grow up many go through a period of great uncertainty about their sexuality. Those of us who care about young people—parents, friends, families and teachers—have a responsibility to help them through that stage. To advocate homosexuality, or even sexual activity, at any stage while young people are at school is wholly irresponsible. Certainly, to advocate homosexuality as a desired lifestyle is reprehensible.
The Government cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they say that to promote the importance of marriage and the family is now orthodox Labour Party policy. We support that. We rather forced upon the Government the importance of recognising the family as the cornerstone of our communities. On the other hand, the Government want to remove Section 28 to permit LEAs and schools to promote homosexuality. For example, in another Bill the Government seek to make it a criminal offence for a 24 year-old male teacher to have a relationship with a 17 or 18 year-old pupil and at the same time they advocate the lowering of the age of consent to 16, which will encourage even more promiscuity and same sexuality activity among young school children. There is no consistency here.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said that what happened before Section 28 was introduced was a mirage. I have given one example of the reality of the situation. I have educational books produced at that time and comments made by councillors and policies put before committees of councils at that time. Much
1088
of that material will be used during the Committee stage of this Bill. It is said that the repeal will not allow the promotion of homosexuality. What else can the repeal mean if it does not mean that?
Peter Tatchell himself agreed that Section 28 had had an effect on the promotional activities of schools and LEAs. What better endorsement can one have of Section 28? The way in which health authorities exploit the promotion of homosexuality with our school children is of concern. As Section 28 does not bite on health authorities I hope that amendments will be tabled—if possible, I shall attach my name to them—to ensure that whatever the promotional activities of health authorities they do not impact on young people at school.
Apart from the moral aspect—I recognise that there are varying opinions on what constitutes the moral issues in sexual activities—I believe passionately that this is an issue of child protection, and on that there should be no difference between us. I care about the moral and spiritual dimension of education. Without it, education can be no more than an arid and clinical experience. It cannot be right to permit schools and local authorities to use time and precious resources to promote homosexuality or to publish material with that intention. Nor can it be right to teach that a homosexual partnership provides an equal, or even more desirable, family relationship. Are the Government saying that the repeal of Section 28 will resolve the bullying issue in schools? If so, as I thought, the Government are more interested in gestures than in genuine solutions. I shall support any amendment that opposes the Government's intention to repeal Section 28, and I hope fervently that it will be successful.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Smith on his maiden speech this evening. Among other matters, this Bill seeks to increase the transparency and accountability of local government processes with two ends in mind: to increase further its efficiency and effectiveness and to raise the level of awareness, interest and involvement in local government. There is much in the Bill, but I shall confine my remarks this evening largely to Part II.
Perhaps I may first reflect on some of the problems that this piece of legislation seeks to address. Often the question is asked: why is turnout so low in local government elections in this country? Why do electors say that they believe there is too much politics in local government? In my experience the electorate has a mixed view of what it wants. Often it says that it does not want a great deal of politics in local government and yet highly respected local councillors find themselves displaced in elections when the electorate votes entirely on political grounds without regard to the excellent service of those individuals. I believe that in their everyday lives people value the work of councillors as representatives of their local communities. I make that observation because later in my speech I shall suggest that, just as it is important to consider the executive/scrutiny split and whether or

1089
not elected mayors and others add to the richness of local government, it is equally important to seek ways to strengthen the role and reputation of local councillors. While we look elsewhere in the world at patterns of local government to give us new ideas on how to be attractive to electors, so we should have the confidence about some of the very good things in our own local government. The role of local councillors as local representatives is one of the very good things seen in our local government.
At the outset I pay tribute to the work of councillors and officers who serve their communities through work in or on local authorities. There have been deeply regrettable lapses in some authorities from the normal high standards of conduct to be found generally in local government; and those cases should not be minimised. I welcome Part III of the Bill which seeks to strengthen further the rules of conduct. However, that should not blind us to the unstinting, valuable and valued work of all those involved in local government contributing, as they do, to the well being of their communities, whether rural or urban.
Local government plays an important part in the democratic processes of our country. Any legislation in this area should be judged by its impact upon the health and vitality of local government as a whole as well as upon its efficiency and effectiveness. Central government is neither all seeing nor the fount of all wisdom. I trust that that is the spirit in which the legislation is brought forward and in which its many regulatory devices will be applied in due course.
Changes over the years have brought new challenges to local government and the need for new approaches and processes. Councillors work hard for their local wards and constituents but have faced many difficulties over the years. It is difficult to get joined-up government or action in local communities. The number of employers who will give generous time off for local government work has reduced greatly over the years. The demands of committee work and of work for the local council as a whole have been increasingly pressing, reducing time and energy for the work of councillors in their communities. In practice, despite attention to volumes of paperwork and time spent in committees, decisions in the larger authorities are often rubber stamping proposals for action from officers and from increasingly full time chairs of committees.
Within councils, especially the larger ones, it has often been difficult to develop and maintain strategically driven and coherently implemented policies and actions. The very virtues of having 60 to 100 voices on a council and its committees have at times been a handicap to clarity of direction and resolution in implementation. Faced by the need to get things done, many councils have de facto given a great deal of power to leaders, committee chairs and officers. The consequent lack of transparency and clear lines of public accountability frequently mean that it is difficult for people outside the process to know how or why decisions are reached.
1090
Many local authorities around the country have recognised those problems and have been seeking different ways to improve matters: to help increase transparency and accountability; and to provide a more meaningful and satisfying job of work for those giving up their time to be local councillors. The proactive and positive way in which many local authorities have already responded to the ideas set out in the Government's White Paper Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People demonstrates that the Government have correctly identified issues which need to be addressed.
The distinction between executive and scrutiny functions makes a great deal of sense. It is a realistic view of how local authorities of any significant size seek to work in practice although constrained to a degree by current legislation.
I agree that councils as a whole need to face up to modernisation of their processes; and I believe that local government as a whole understands and accepts that. I hope that the Government will be equally tolerant if the outcome at least for a substantial period does not produce a large number of elected mayors. There is at times a feeling that there is a presumption of the outcome of choice. If choice is truly to be choice at local level I hope that that choice is freely exercised.
A degree of evolution based on a lot of experience may be a preferred way for many councils. In my view the success or otherwise of introducing a clear distinction between the executive and the power of scrutiny, and the success in making the work of local executive representatives more meaningful to those doing the work and to the electorate, hinges more than upon the body count of mayors and leaders.
In establishing the effectiveness, efficiency and attractiveness of a new executive structure many important issues will need to be addressed. What will be the relationship between the executive and the full council of a local authority? How will executive members be subject to recall or replacement, if at all? How responsible will the executives be to full councils as well as to the electorate? The way in which the scrutiny committees operate will be critically important to the success and improvement of transparency and accountability. It is important to ensure that the scrutiny committees and the work of local councils are sufficiently attractive for people to wish to be elected councillors and to wish to take on the position of chairs of scrutiny committees if they do not have the prospect of being on executive committees.
How will the scrutiny committees be appointed to ensure a significant degree of independence of mind in the scrutiny process? How well staffed will scrutiny committees be? Can scrutiny committee staff truly be independent of the general officer structure of their local authority?
Those are important matters if the bare bones of the legislation are to be effective. It is well recognised that councils will need to be trained in new skills if the scrutiny process is to be meaningful. But more than training they will need to be willing to adopt independent and challenging roles and stances.

1091
I was interested in the Joint Committee report and the government response on the subject of "whipping" on scrutiny committees. The Joint Committee and the Government appear to agree that "whipping" in this context is primarily a matter for political parties. Some years ago I was accorded the honour of the freedom of the city of Cleveland in Ohio in the United States. That city had a powerful mayor in the style of the current legislation. The elected councillors at that time were all Democrat councillors. There was not a single member of the opposition party. Yet before the council meeting headed by the mayor, the Democrat caucus still met in private to decide the whip on what they would say or do in public. Therefore, mere form is not always the same as substance.
In order to ensure the best outcome, we need the correct structure of relationships, but we also need a framework which gives real weight and influence to a significant number of elected representatives as well as representatives of the executive. It is important to give weight to the community work of elected councillors. For years, many councils have sought ways of strengthening the focus of elected local representatives, representing communities to councils and councils to communities. It is essential to vibrant local government, where people are involved, that councils as well as executives are not marginalised. Despite the Government's intentions in this and other legislation, it would be possible for that sense of marginalisation to occur. I welcome the statement in the Government's response to the Joint Committee's report (paragraph 2.81) which acknowledges the danger and indicates the view that there needs to be full support for councillors in these various roles.
This is an important piece of legislation. Its effect and impact will be felt across our system of local government. Its implementation will depend on a number of important details yet to emerge. Given sensitivity in that direction, the legislation will produce changes for the better for our councils, for our councillors and, most importantly, for the people whom they serve and represent.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, it is knocking on for a quarter of a century since I penned the only words which ever had currency beyond the family kitchen. Those words, famous or infamous according to taste, were, "The party is over." They were delivered by Anthony Crosland, the Secretary of State for the Environment, to whom I was speech writer.
I remember the occasion vividly to this day. We were in the splendid surroundings of Manchester Town Hall. Hundreds of local dignitaries were assembled and the council provided us with Chateau Latour 1965 to drink. Those of your Lordships who are Bordeaux buffs will know that 1965 was a shocking year for Bordeaux. Even Chateau Latour, with its established reputation for making drinkable wine in a bad year, could not balk the climate of 1965. The taste remains with me still!
1092
It was an expensive wine and its purchase was a piece of local government extravagance combined with poor value for money. I hope that like most local authorities Manchester has since repented. Despite the torrent of abuse which descended on us for daring to suggest that it was being a little extravagant, local government, with notorious exceptions, achieves better value for money and is more careful with public money.
However, local government is not flawless. Just as it responded to that speech, it has responded to some of the Government's suggestions for change in ways that do not do it great credit. It is, or has been, a conservative institution. It tends to by hypersensitive to criticism. It is too often inward looking and insufficiently aware of changes in the wider world. There are many exceptions in many local authorities to those generalisations, but it is still true. That is why so many of the powers of local government were eroded, particularly under the previous government, without popular opinion saying, "Enough!" Local government was not sufficiently popular.
I believe that we need to get away from the old desperate dualism, localism versus centralism; total control for local authorities against central control. We must move to something different; that is, a third way. It contains a large role for local government, but not for an unchanged, unmodernised local government. For local government today, the watchword must be "modernise or die". The reason I strongly welcome the Bill before the House tonight is that it is one of modernisation, giving local government new opportunities to handle its business and affairs in a better and more productive way; to modernise before it dies.
Having made those general remarks—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Very good!
Lord Lipsey: I hope that my noble friend will find the rest of the speech as much to his taste. However, on the basis of a conversation I had with him the other day, I am not sure he will.
I want to turn to elected mayors— concept for which I have long had considerable enthusiasm—and particularly to the system of election. The Government have opted for a good system for the election of the mayor; it is the supplementary vote system such as is being used for the election of the mayor of London. It is good because, broadly, it ensures that a mayor will have a mandate. Voters will have a second choice as well as a first choice and therefore in almost every case a mayor will have the support of a majority of those who bothered to vote in his or her area. That is a good system and much better than the system used to elect Members at the other end of this building. Out of 659 Members of Parliament, 312 were elected only by a minority of voters in their constituency—but we shall let that pass.
Incidentally, it is not the best system. I should prefer the system which ensures that everyone is elected with a majority; that is the alternative vote. I see the noble Baroness nodding encouragingly so perhaps I might be

1093
more encouraging. The correct technical term for that system—I mastered such terms as a member of the Jenkins Commission—is a single transferable vote in a single member constituency. I am pleased to have the support of the Benches opposite and no doubt we shall consider the issue further in Committee.
However, there is a larger flaw. In the London election, the mayor will be chosen by a supplementary vote, but the assembly which stands behind him is elected on a more proportional system; a reformed electoral system. There is nothing in the Bill which will change the make-up of the councils which stand behind elected mayors.
When one considers the anomalies of the present system. it is scary. In Wandsworth, which is a Conservative borough, in the 1998 election the Conservative share of the vote was 52.7 per cent and they won 50 out of 61 seats. In Newham, which is a Labour borough, Labour's share of the vote was 57.3 per cent and they won all 60 seats. Labour controlled Croydon is not Labour controlled in terms of voters, because 46.9 per cent of the electorate voted for the Conservatives and 38.5 per cent for Labour. But Labour have a majority of seven seats there.
That is not a party prejudice; it is a rotten electoral system having rotten results. I believe that this House should take the opportunity to seek to improve the Bill. I hope that the Government are becoming more open minded about that prospect.
I am sorry now to turn to a matter of unnatural practices; indeed, unnatural acts. They are the Acts of 1986 and 1988, which put Section 28 on the statute book. I respond to the sincerity of the speeches made predominantly from the other side of the House in favour of Section 28. I understand the strong human emotions which they reflect. I cannot say the same in every case about how well informed the speakers are. I heard the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, who unfortunately has not been able to stay to hear the other side of the argument, saying that there was no homosexuality among animals. The Canadian biologist, Brian Bagemihi, has recently produced a book, entitled Biological Exuberance, which is all about homosexuality in animals. I am told that it shows practices rather kinkier than most human beings get up to and that it is illustrated. Anyone wanting to have a quick look to prove the falsehood of that case can do so.
There is another regard in which I find the arguments, although sincere, naïve. There are always exceptions, but the notion that there was any widespread campaign anywhere in state schools to promote homosexuality is truly bizarre. If there are any schools where homosexuality is promoted, it is the single-sex boarding schools favoured by so many people for the education of their young men. Even so, that does not have much effect because basically people are born with their sexuality.
Although that idea was put forward in all sincerity, it was not adopted by the government of the time in all sincerity; not at all. I talked to Ministers at the time in private and there was no doubt as to what they were
1094
really up to. It was a little sop before the 1987 general election to the closet homophobes of the golf club bar and the regimental dinner. That is what it was; truly about.
I am in politics. I know that one does things to please one's supporters from time to time and that one should be forgiving. But unfortunately, although the Bill achieved nothing concrete—of that I am absolutely sure— result was worse. This was not a victimless crime. The victims of the clause were millions of perfectly normal homosexual people who found that the legislature of this country—their country—had determined to stigmatise their lifestyle, to whip up popular prejudice and to make them feel less at ease with themselves. Anyone who talks to friends who are members of that community know that that is so and that the wound goes deep.
Therefore, of all the many things of which I hope to be proud during this Government's term, I am proudest of all that that clause is now to be wiped from the statute Book by the Government, of whom I am a supporter.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, for not being present to hear his maiden speech.It was clearly extremely effective; a number of people have referred to it in tones of great admiration. I look forward to reading it tomorrow in Hansard.
At this rather late hour, with 23 speeches behind me and, I believe, another nine ahead, I shall do my best to be brief. I am aided in that because I agree so thoroughly with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about Section 28 that I do not need to spend any time on it. I shall therefore concentrate on Part II of the Bill and its effect upon councillors—a subject which was touched on also by the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer.
When one reads the Bill and listens to some of the people who have been promoting it—to use that controversial term—one has the feeling that they do not believe that anyone has ever thought about changing local government before. There are many Members of your Lordships' House from local government who know that that is not the case. There has been continuous change in local government, certainly during the whole of the 12 years that I was in it. Other noble Lords have served in local government for far longer than I have. I see the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who is the classic example of a long-serving councillor, nodding in his place.
It is not true that local councils have been inhibited by legislation from being innovative. That is simply not the case. The question is rather what sort of change one wants to achieve. In my experience, the best lever for change was the shift of the authority of which I was a member—Surrey County Council—to no overall control. As far as I could judge, the people who benefited most from that were not the minority parties, because they were used to working as a group and treating each other as equals, but the non-leading

1095
members of the majority party. They suddenly found themselves of great importance in the running of the council and were treated as such for the first time by the clique which had previously run the county council. That was my observation, although members of that group might have disagreed with me.
Yet it seems to me in reading the Bill that the reinstitution of a clique to run all the decision-making processes of the council and the policy-making processes, as several interventions have made clear, is one of the features of the Bill. Ten people, perhaps one more or less according to how the judgment is made, will take all the decisions in the council. I must say that that reminds me of Surrey County Council when I first joined it.
That concentration of power has been one of the roots of bad governance—I shall put it no more strongly than that—in some of those Labour authorities which have been so severely criticised, and quite rightly, over the past few years. The more power is concentrated, the more it can be abused. The noble Lord said it rather more clearly than that. All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am not suggesting that the executive arm of local authorities as envisaged by the Bill will have absolute power, but they will certainly have a great deal of power. The dangers are plain.
Do we really want change which, once instituted, cannot be modified again in any serious respect without a referendum? In the old days we were able to change the structure of the committees and the way in which local authorities carried out their work. I shall refer to one of those major changes, which was typical of Surrey as of other local authorities, in a minute. We were able to do that and we were not impeded by the cost. For example, it is quite an expensive business to run a referendum. It involves all sorts of rules and regulations which no doubt will be spelled out for us in the Bill.
One of the changes which we and others undertook was based, in our case, on what was at the time I joined the local authority an almost unique local partnership committee or series of local partnership committees. We conducted part of our highways role via partnership committees between the county council and those second-tier authorities which were district councils. Those committees, of one of which I was a member, were in fact decision-taking committees within the overall ambit of council policy. After the review of local government of rather unblessed memory, we responded, as did many other authorities, to the justified criticism by the commission that county government was becoming too remote from its citizens and we instituted a series of decision-taking partnership committees with the local authorities, boroughs and districts which formed the second tier of the two-tier authority.
In the Joint Committee's report, reference is made both to area decision-taking committees, which are quite common in urban boroughs and in some cities, and to that particular form of local decision-taking committee which occurs only in two-tier authorities.
1096
As far as I am aware, the Government have not responded to that element of the Joint Committee's report. They have responded to the local decision-taking committee in the urban areas, but they have not responded to the two-tier type committee to which I am referring. I should like the Minister to respond to that point, if he can, because I believe that it is an important one; it is a good example of partnership and so forth.
Again, from listening to people talking about the Bill one would think that no one had ever thought of partnership, of accountability or of trying to make the decision process more transparent. One would have thought that that was being presented as something new to an astonished world. I can assure anyone who believes that that is the case that it really is not. Long before the Bill was written and, indeed, before the Government were elected, such matters were the driving force which persuaded local authorities to scrutinise their own procedures and make them more effective, more responsive, more open and more in tune with local demands.
I turn now to the role of local councillors in the new system. I support all those who have expressed the fear that there will come about a real division between those councillors who carry out scrutiny in the council and those who carry out decision-making, with most power, as I say, concentrated in the latter. Indeed, they will have not only most of the power but most of the interest as well. After all, people join local councils partly because they are bashed around the head and neck by their friends and political colleagues. They are told, "Please stand. We can't get anyone to stand. You must stand". They reply, "Well, I'll stand so long as there is no chance that I will get elected". Then they are elected and suddenly find that a local authority is fascinating.
People who are elected in that way often become extremely good and devoted councillors. The reason for that is that the job responds to people's desire to act and to get things done for their local community and for individuals in it. I do not see how that particular aspect of being a local councillor will be satisfied by this Bill. I believe that there will be far too many back benchers who do not have that thirst for power and decision-taking and even policy-making. Far too few have a thirst for those things. Reference was made by a previous speaker to the unfortunate situation in which a member of a school governing body was afraid of being found in that situation as a result of the new arrangement because he no longer had direct access to the decision-making part of the council that he used to have. I believe that that is a serious matter. Before the Bill goes into Committee, and preferably tonight if possible, I should like the Minister to respond to that point. I believe it is a concern which has surfaced in a number of speeches from different sides of your Lordships' House.
I believe in a real change and modernisation of local government. I believe in a local government which has the power of local taxation and independence of action—by that I mean independence of central government, even to the extent of being allowed

1097
occasionally to make a mistake. That is something which all governments of all colours increasingly have become unwilling to countenance. I should like to see them backed by PR for elections, which presents the easiest way for voters, first, to kick people off the council, because relatively small shifts in votes will achieve that, and, secondly, to defeat the pretensions of any party, whichever party it is, to create and maintain a single party governance in a local government organisation.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I hope to be brief at this time of the evening, mostly because much has already been said on several of the provisions of the Bill, and partly also with a mind to the fact that I rashly put my name down for the following debate. I fear that we shall be here until midnight at the rate we are going.
I touch on two provisions of the Bill. First, I cannot not give my support to Clause 68, repealing Section 28 of the Local Government Bill. Enough has been said about it, including by my noble friends Lady Gould of Potternewton and Lord Lipsey. Section 28 has no place in a modern, inclusive Britain, and I am pleased that the Government have brought forward the repeal. I look forward to supporting that.
Tonight, I want to focus mostly on Part I of the Bill. The vital role of local government in achieving environmental improvement as part of sustainable development has long been recognised. Local authorities are uniquely placed to deliver across the agenda of economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainable development. That has been recognised at several points. The Government's 1997 manifesto indicated that they would place on councils a new duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. Indeed, the White Paper on modern local government restated the commitment quite strongly. It stated that the duty would put sustainable development at the heart of council decision-making and would provide an overall framework with in which councils must perform all their existing functions. In taking decisions which affect their area or their people, councils must weigh up the likely effects of a decision against the three objectives: economic, social and environmental.
I very much welcome that the Local Government Bill includes a power for local authorities to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. However, the provision is rather weak and watery, on three counts. The provision is now not a duty but a discretionary power, distinctly weaker than the original intentions and very much weaker than the provisions in the Greater London Authority Bill. My concern is that big local authorities will embrace the provision of discretionary power and that poorer local authorities will not.
It is also a rather pick-and-mix provision. Local authorities are being required to take into account the effects of decisions against three objectives, but they are not being required to take into account all three.
1098
For example, they are able to pick just one of the objectives that they choose to embrace. The whole point of sustainable development is, indeed, the integration of those objectives, with win-win-win solutions where all three objectives are achieved. To some extent, it is quite fundamental to the concept of well-being that solutions will be sought in which all three of the objectives complement each other. One cannot have well-being simply on a social scale if one does not also have well-being on an environmental and economic scale.
The third difficulty which I have with Part I is that local authorities have only a discretionary power to prepare a strategy for well-being. Again, the concern will be that progressive local authorities will carry that out but that there is no obligation for the poorer local authorities to do so. They, perhaps, are most in need of being encouraged along the way.
There is also no provision for monitoring and reporting on the well-being strategies, unlike the very strong provisions on monitoring and reporting which have accompanied the best-value provisions. Therefore, although I welcome the idea of the well-being provision being included in the Bill, it is all too wishy-washy and too discretionary. I hope that in Committee the Minister will tidy up the provision in that respect.
Before I sit down, I wish to make a more general point on this issue. When I was preparing to talk tonight, I was a little bemused because I felt that I had written all this before. Those of your Lordships who may have heard me speak may have heard it all said before. The reason for that is that we keep covering the same ground. We had a long debate about the sustainable development duty during our discussions on the Greater London Authority Bill, as we did when we debated the establishment of the regional development agencies. Before I entered your Lordships' House, when I was on the other side, as it were, as chief executive of the RSPB, we were trying to influence the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill to set up the Environment Agency and, at that time, we had a lengthy debate about the sustainable development duty.
It is sometimes referred to as sustainable development, sometimes as well-being and in the Government's recent sustainable development strategy, it was referred to as quality of life. Therefore, there is a range of terminologies. In each of the Bills to which I referred, there were also different terminologies in terms of requiring, exhorting, encouraging, suggesting or hinting to local bodies or government bodies that they might take account, bring into play, take a view on or promote the sustainable development requirement. The language was tortuous. There were powers and duties. Indeed, in Clause 2 there is tortuous language which says that local authorities are to have regard to the effect which the proposed exercise of the power will have on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. I suggest that anyone who is not con fused at this point does not know what is going on.

1099
I am rather tired of debating the different formulations with each new Bill and I am absolutely certain that the Minister is tired of responding to them. Therefore, in this important area, can we not stop arguing about the formulations? Can we not have a standard duty to promote the social, economic and environmental objectives of sustainable development for all public bodies in the future?
8.21 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to take part in a debate on local government. It is extremely impressive for someone of my background to sit here and listen to noble Lords on all sides of the House speaking from their own experience. The first thing I want to say is that we need to respect each other's views from the background from which they are expressed.
Next year, it will be 40 years since I became a member of a local authority. That is a long time. It does not seem it because it has passed quickly. But in 1960 I became a member and subsequently the leader of the London Borough of Enfield for a short time. My general remarks are made in the light of that background. I want to congratulate the Government on taking the time, although they have moved as quickly as possible, to present this House and the other place with an opportunity to consider the situation and for taking stock.
From time to time, I go to the Civic Centre in Silver Street, Enfield. I meet my Labour colleagues and the officers. The world of local government in 1999 is a million miles away from the world of local government in 1960. The staggering thing is that when I was actively involved in that life, which I enjoyed very much, I had no idea of how antiquated and antediluvian it all was. People who have as much experience as I do tell me that over 40 years there have been four or five waves of change. I shall not comment on whether those changes were good or bad. But the job of a councillor for any party in any authority in 1999 is a million miles away from what it was, even in my time. Although that is a long time ago, it is a short time in the history of local government.
We must not be frightened of change. There are people who will automatically decide that something is wrong before they have studied it simply because it involves a change of practice. I know how comfortable it is to be familiar with a practice and an arrangement. The Government and the Minister are to be congratulated on placing before us a number of matters for us to look at in that way.
I agree with the comments about the worry in relation to the apathy of the electorate. I do not suppose that the Government are trumpeting from the roof tops that this is the cure; that this is the answer. They are putting it forward as their latest attempt to try to stimulate an interest in those matters in which ordinary people should be interested.
I listened carefully to what noble Lords opposite said about the importance of Section 28 and its replacement. I understand their attitude and sincerity.
1100
But that is not my view; it is the antithesis of my view. I was in this House during the debates in 1986 and 1987. A great deal of emotion was generated. It is a subject about which people feel passionately in this Chamber. Perhaps in Committee we shall be given more illustrations of that.
However, I am puzzled by the generalisations which are made. Most weekends I go to Edmonton Green. I do that because it has one of the finest markets in the country. That is a plug for the market. Let us suppose that I say to a number of my friends—traders and constituents—"There is a list of five things which the Government are intending to do. Place them in your order of priority". Let us suppose that I explain to them that the economic regeneration of the social and economic environment means tackling jobs or building houses or curing road congestion or improving hospitals or increasing the quality of life. I then say to them, "Incidentally, there is also an intention to deal with the repeal of Section 28 which was put in place allegedly to avoid the promotion of homosexuality". In all honesty, I believe that that would be at the bottom of the list of their priorities.
The real people in the world—and I say, without giving offence, not the people in this Chamber—are bothered about the quality of education for their children or their inability to get their children into the schools of their choice; they are bothered about the fact that they have children who cannot afford to buy a house; they are bothered about the fact that they have a car which they cannot use properly because the roads are full; and they are worried about congestion charges. Therefore, we need to keep in perspective the importance of repealing or retaining Section 28.
I listened carefully to Shaun Woodward. He is not a member of my party but of the party opposite. We know his attitude. We know that he prayed in aid a headmaster who, from his experience—not yours or mine—said that the retention of Section 28 acted as an inhibition on him and his teachers from doing their job properly. On this side of the Chamber, we take no lessons from Members opposite as to our attitude towards the care and protection of children in any aspect of life. If it is wished to make this a party-political point, so be it. But it is not. It goes across the board. Noble Lords should be sincere in their views, should state them and should make the case. But we need to keep the matter in perspective.
I was interested in the Bill's intentions with regard to local councillors and arrangements for mayors. Your Lordships will be able to tell from the way that I speak that I was not born within the sound of Bow Bells. I come from Newcastle-on-Tyne. A few years ago there was a politician called Dan Smith. He introduced the town manager concept into local government. That lasted for a few years. It was a fad. We do not yet know whether a town mayor will be the answer. But that is a matter for the people. By the time that the provisions of this Bill are put into effect, there will be experience to be gained from the Mayor of London exercise. Judgments will be made.

1101
As regards scrutiny and oversight of councillors, no one can make a party point about the culprits in that regard. They are in small and large councils and from the parties of all noble Lords. But the provisions of this Bill are a first-class idea. I recollect that no payments at all were made to councillors or the leader in the 1960s. I certainly support all moves designed to give recompense to those councillors who give up not just one or two nights per week but, if they are serious, four or five nights, 20 or 30 hours in addition to what they already do. Thai disrupts both their domestic and professional arrangements. I note that a provision in the Bill makes arrangements for allowances and pensions, which is a good idea. I wonder when Members of this House will have their expenses and allowances reviewed. Do I hear, "Hear hear"?
Noble Lords: Hear Hear!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hear the cry. We are the only body of legislators not to have had its pensions and allowances reviewed recently. Members and Ministers in the House of Commons and Ministers of this House have had their allowances reviewed, but not Members of this House. Three cheers for the Government for grasping the nettle as part of the Bill.
As regards support for the work of the Government, I have received advice from UNISON, the large trade union, which speaks not exclusively on behalf of the workers, but of its members. It states:
"UNISON … welcomes initiatives to re-vitalise local government and local democracy. We believe we have an important and unique contribution to make to the debate about local political management".
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, in his place. He made a first-class maiden speech. During the war I happened to be wounded and was treated at Winwick Hospital. One of the joys of that memory of 1944 was the people of Leigh. I remember that Callendar Cables, a large firm, and the people of Lancashire were warm in their hospitality to wounded soldiers. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, will be an asset to this House.
I wish the Bill well. I am sure that the Minister will give us many a long night in trying to explain to Members opposite that it is sensible and reasonable. He should be assured that Members on this side of the House give him their full support.
8.31 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I can claim to have been elected to local government even longer than the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I hope that it will not offend him or other noble Lords if I call him my noble friend Lord Graham. We have known each other a long time.
I am tempted, also, to stray to the main body of the Bill. However, at this hour I feel I must concentrate all of my time on Clause 68. I have a special interest in this matter. I must tell your Lordships that it was I who introduced and carried through Section 28 as a Private Member's Bill in the other place in 1987. I fought the
1102
Labour Party's blocking of it and reintroduced it as a clause in the Local Government Bill after this House approved the principle in yet another Bill.
I must warn all colleagues who have spoken tonight that in speaking in support of Section 28 they may well incur considerable wrath, as I did. I did not only incur verbal abuse for my pains but physical abuse too. On one occasion, opponents of Section 28 attacked me outside my constituency office and tried to turn my car over with me inside it. I was saved by the swift arrival of several police cars with sirens blaring.
Why did I bother to go on with it and run such a dangerous gauntlet? I was then Chairman of the Child and Family Protection Group. I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this. This all happened after pressure from the Gay Liberation Front. At that time I took the trouble to refer to their manifesto, which clearly stated:
"We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family".
That was the motivation for what was going on, and was precisely what Section 28 stopped. I was absolutely amazed to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, who, as I noted, stated that the Bill was introduced in the other place and joined to the Local Government Bill for something that was not happening. I was astounded to hear that. I wondered what sort of ivory tower he inhabited. Let us be kind and say, instead, that he was too busy working on his own committees to realise what was going on.
However, I would be surprised to learn that he did not see parents of children in his own local government constituency. Parents certainly came to me and told me what was going on. They gave me some of the books with which little children as young as live and six were being taught. There was The Playbook for Kids about Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done. That book was for children as young as five. I should be surprised if anybody supports that.
Another book called The Milkman's on his Way explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I do not disbelieve a word stated by the noble Baroness. However, what she says is so grotesque that I would be grateful if, before Committee, she could supply copies of the books she mentions. We shall then be able to look at them and no doubt will be as abhorred as she was. From her description it is both obscene and grotesque. I do not believe a word of it, from my experience. My noble friend Lord Harris spoke from his experience and I spoke from mine. Edmonton and Enfield may be

1103
different from Edgbaston and Birmingham. However, I can assure noble Lords that the issues raised in the noble Baroness's part of the world were certainly not raised in mine.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I do not refer to parents from my own constituency but to those from some of the very left-wing boroughs in London. I was keen to get rid of the books but I know they still exist because they were produced to me by parents. I was shown what the children were being taught and told why the parents objected so much.
Another book, which I should have thought everyone would remember, was called Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin. It depicted, on its cover, a little girl of about six years old sitting up in bed with her naked father on one side and his naked lover on the other. I shall quote the exact words used in the book because that, more than anything else, shows the age for which it was intended. It stated:
"Jenny is a little girl. Martin is Jenny's dad and Eric is Martin's lover. They all live happily together".
The book went on to state that Eric, the father, drew Jenny a series of cartoons of two men who were saying:
"I love you Fred"
"I love you too, Bill. Why don't we move in together?"
"That's a good idea".
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Perhaps I may ask for her comments. I am told that the publisher of that very book stated only the other day,
"When Section 28 is successfully repealed, as I believe it will be shortly, we will be rushing to re-publish an updated version of the book. We shall make sure that every school which wants a copy will get a copy."
What does my noble friend have to say about that?
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for drawing my attention and that of the House to what is now being keenly anticipated. It would amaze me if anyone in this House supported what we have just heard. It was those matters which made me introduce Clause 28 and it is important that the House understands that.
I referred earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Haringey council made a video called "How to become a lesbian in 35 minutes". It was intended to be shown in a school for mentally handicapped girls, some of whom were extremely young. In the course of my years as a local councillor I took a great interest in the mentally handicapped children in my area; I served on the boards of schools and had a great deal to do with them. From my experience of those children, it is difficult enough for them to understand normal sexual relations without having homosexuality foisted upon them. I find it horrifying that anyone would support that.
All of that was stopped dead by Clause 28. Clause 28 was introduced for that purpose, and that purpose alone. It was not intended to harm people who, as
1104
adults, decided that that was the way of life for them. Clause 28 had nothing to say about that. It was certainly not my intention at any time to try to marginalise or be unfair to those who choose the homosexual way of life. But I am anxious about little children and feel I have a perfect right to be so.
When Clause 28 was introduced, it was recognised that it was necessary. My provision obtained a big majority in the other place, though the most wild allegations were being made. Some people suggested that it would not allow the production or teaching of Shakespeare in schools. That has been proven to be quite wrong, as were many other allegations. My noble friends Lord Waddington and Lady Blatch made it clear that there was nothing in Clause 28 which could encourage or initiate bullying. We all hate bullying. It happens for a number of reasons and it is the job of the teacher to notice it happening and to stop it. There was no suggestion that Clause 28 encouraged bullying and I utterly reject that allegation. In fact, I am in touch with a number of schools and school governors. I am known to be the initiator of Clause 28 and have had not one complaint that it led to bullying. I am sure that I would have done. Clause 28 was intended solely to protect little children. Those who seek to repeal it now must explain why they seek to withdraw that protection and on what grounds they so deplore normal family life.
In the past week I have received over 1,000 letters and petitions from those who support what is now Section 28. I ask your Lordships, and in particular I ask the Government, to realise that there is a well of public opinion that is extremely anxious that it be abolished. People are anxious that their children should not be subject to that kind of proselytising. I suggested to some of those who wrote to me that they ought to write to their Members of Parliament and tell them their views. Many of them did so and some sent me the replies. The Member of Parliament for Brighton Kemptown said that he understood the concern but had to point out that no prosecutions had ever been brought as a result of Section 28. Does that show it is not successful? I should have thought it showed the reverse.
My noble friend Lord Waddington mentioned Nick Seaton. He is the chairman for the Campaign for Real Education and once said:
"Before Section 28 came into force we were getting considerable numbers of parents complaining to us about the promotion of homosexuality in schools. After Section 28 it almost disappeared as an issue. If Section 28 were to be repealed, it is almost certain that the promotion of homosexuality would become a huge bone of contention between parents and schools".
The interjection from my noble friend proves that that is the case. However, when the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, spoke, she was very soothing and said that there are a whole number of new rules. But when Clause 28 was introduced there were already rules about governors; that what was being taught should be passed by the whole school; but it was still taught. The noble Baroness said that one of the new rules was that there should be no promotion of homosexuality. But if we repeal Section 28 that is

1105
exactly what will happen. The message will be: "Go out and promote homosexuality; go ahead. There is no earthly reason why you should not". And that worries me greatly.
I particularly noticed that at the start of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, called Section 28 "pernicious". I went to the Library and looked up the word in the dictionary. The meaning of the word pernicious is,
"wicked, malicious, causing grave harm".
I feel that the situation is the other way round; that it is wicked to tell children of five and six years old how to commit a homosexual act and encourage them to do so; that it is malicious to approach young mentally handicapped girls with the idea that homosexuality is a good way to proceed. I do not know what could cause more grave harm than to try to promote, as does the book Jenny lives with Eric and Martin, marriage as being outdated; that we should not have a mummy and daddy and can just as well have a daddy and a homosexual lover. I warn the Government that if they proceed with this, they will come up against a great deal of public objection, with which I heartily agree.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as honorary chairman of the Local Government Association, particularly since, prior to the establishment of the parliamentary Joint Committee, I chaired a hearing on behalf of the LGA which took evidence both from local authorities and from partner bodies on the Bill in its draft form. The procedure of having a draft Bill for scrutiny before it comes to Parliament is very useful. I commend the Government on that and congratulate the Joint Committee on its report.
I cannot forbear saying, however, that it is slightly ironic that, having had this slow and careful procedure of the Bill being available in draft in March, the present version is already going to be subject to amendment following the report of the Joint Committee, which we received at the end of last week. Of course, we must wait for the crucial draft regulations and guidance, which will put flesh on the skeleton of the Bill and which will be crucial to how it will work in practice. I suppose we must be patient.
Given the number of speakers and that we have to some extent been having two separate debates today, I propose to keep my remarks brief and confine them to Parts I and II of the Bill—in which I find much to welcome. In particular, I welcome the proposed power to promote the well-being of a local authority's area. It has been common ground for some time that just as there has been a shift in the role of local authorities from being mainly service providers to enablers, so the field of local governance below local authorities has expanded. It is highly desirable that local government should be encouraged to play its role as the democratic community leader in the complex world of local government.
The doctrine of vires, whereby local authorities have to produce statutory authority for any actions they take, has to a large extent inhibited the role of the
1106
community leader—particularly in partnerships with the private sector, where both sides have agreed and wanted to do something but have held back fearing a legal challenge. In 1995–96, the Select Committee on relations between central and local government recommended the sort of power that the Bill will introduce, which is very welcome. I take the point made earlier that the power will to some extent be circumscribed by the limits on local authorities raising their own finance. Nevertheless, that power will produce the statutory basis for community leadership.
During the hearing on the draft Bill that I chaired on behalf of the Local Government Association, I was repeatedly struck and encouraged by the absence of complacency among the witnesses. They did not tell us that what they had been doing for ages past was right and should not change. Almost all of them recognised and accepted the need to modernise their political leadership arrangements and structures. As many of your Lordships know, many local authorities have been doing so in anticipation of the Bill. Many welcomed the draft Bill as it stood but witnesses also expressed two concerns, to which noble Lords have referred today.
First, many witnesses expressed the feeling that none of the three executive models might be suitable for some authorities, such as small local authorities or those without a party political majority. The response to the Joint Committee makes it clear that while the Secretary of State would be able to add other executive models to the three in the Bill, he would not add any that did not involve a split between the executive and scrutiny roles. The question of further models will need further consideration and testing during the passage of the Bill through this House.
I am not saying that our witnesses wanted the status quo. Nor did they say that. They talked about: the status quo plus. They used all sorts of language. The need to modernise was generally accepted but there was a feeling that the executive models would not suit in all circumstances, although they might suit in many of them.
It could even be argued that, if there is doubt, there could be a case—at least for a transitional period of years—for letting different models run in parallel, to see which worked better.
The second concern was that while the proposed arrangements in Part II should lead to executives that in theory can be more efficient, identifiable and accountable, they could in the long run—by appearing to diminish the role of back-bench members—lead to fewer able people being willing to stand for council membership. I am glad that there appears to be agreement on the importance of making scrutiny and overview a genuinely worthwhile job. That is something to which the Government say they attach importance and, in their response to the Joint Committee, they proposed to allow the development of the role and the delegation of executive functions to area committees. Again, we need to give further consideration during the passage of the Bill to establishing good direction of policy through the

1107
executive model or any other, while preserving a genuinely worthwhile role for the back-bencher, or whatever he is called in future.
It is impossible to comment on the regulations and guidance because we have not seen them.
Perhaps it is permissible to conclude by stressing the need for maximum flexibility within an overall policy. Local authorities differ considerably in their needs and aspirations. They should be encouraged to respond to local circumstances wherever possible. Local government is for local people. Central government guidelines and regulations ought to be as flexible as possible except where central control is genuinely necessary. Providing that flexibility will be the surest way to interest people and turn out the local voter.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. My noble friend Baroness Hamwee and I served on the Select Committee to which the noble Lord referred. He is quite right in his description of the evidence that was given. We entitled our report Rebuilding Trust, which was an apt title at the time and is still. It is a title against which we should judge how well the Bill fulfils its intentions.
I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, and a speech from another council leader in your Lordships' House. I have been here just five years and for most of that time I have been the only council leader in the House. For much of that time, more than half the councillors in your Lordships' House were in my own party. I am delighted that is no longer the case and that in this House, at least, we have people who speak with current knowledge and experience of local government. That will prove invaluable as the Bill goes forward.
I repeat and endorse the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee at the start of this debate. As it happens, members of all three Front Benches suffered through the long hours of the Greater London Authority Bill. All of us suffered a huge number of government amendments, often at late notice. We were very tolerant. We understood that there were considerable time pressures and we wanted to see the Bill through. We knew that Ministers were at least as angry, and embarrassed—and, no doubt, so were their officials.
I must put the Government on notice that we are not prepared to go through that process again with this Bill. The same excuses do not apply. The very day after the Bill was published, in a Written Answer in the other place, it was announced that the Government intended to bring forward substantial amendments to reflect their response to the Joint Committee report. But, at that time, none of us had seen the response to the Joint Committee's report, even though it was published last July. With some pressure from the Ministers, for which we are grateful, that response was finally published on Thursday afternoon.
1108
However, I had the somewhat bizarre experience of going to the Printed Paper Office and being told that, although they had the Government's response, they could not give it to me, or anyone else, because they had not been authorised to release it. I do not wish to embarrass the Minister, but I believe he discovered the limitations of his powers that afternoon because he was not able to authorise that release. All this took place on the last sitting day before the Second Reading debate of a Bill which we have been told is not actually the Bill that the Government are going to take through this House. That is extremely unsatisfactory; indeed, we should not have to put up with it.
In case the Minister has forgotten, I shall repeat the request that my noble friend made earlier for assurances on when we will get all— not just one or two—of the Government's amendments as a package. Can the Minister tell us when we will get those amendments? Can he assure us that we will have them 14 days before the Committee stage begins, so that, this time, we can give proper and due consideration to the Government's real Bill, not the one that is before us today? Can the noble Lord also confirm that these amendments relate only to, or primarily to, Parts II and III of the Bill? Alternatively, will we see amendments to other parts of the legislation of which we are not yet even aware? That is the end of my whinge; but it is a serious one. I know that the Government Front Bench will take it as such.
I turn now to the Bill. A Second Reading debate should be about the principles of the legislation. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, just said, we have actually had two debates going on almost in parallel here for, perhaps, understandable reasons. The intention of the Bill is to promote the community leadership role of local government. We have heard talk about partnership committees and know that they have existed in one form or another in many authorities over the years. I was amused to hear the noble Lord, Lord Smith, refer to the leaders' forum in his local authority. We have a similar forum in my local authority, but we do not call it "the leaders' forum" and we do not have it over dinner; we call it the "breakfast forum". Perhaps that reflects the difference between a Labour-controlled authority and one controlled by the Liberal Democrats.
The other intention of the Bill is to ensure that local government is modern—a most over-used word that I am coming to resent more and more. Indeed, it must be modern, effective, transparent and, above all, accountable in its decision-making processes. In other words, the Bill's intention is, or should be, to revitalise local democracy. It is against those criteria that we have to judge the likely effects of the legislation.
I strongly support the proposals that are coming from elsewhere to modernise the electoral arrangements so as to bring a 19th-century system into the 21st century. I am strongly in favour of that aim. However, I do not believe that difficulty in voting is the reason for low turnouts at elections in this country. There may be some people who find it difficult or impossible to get to the polling station, but not 65 per cent of the electorate. If people want to vote in this

1109
country the vast majority of them can do so. Therefore, desirable though these changes are, that is not the reason for low turnouts.
It will not surprise noble Lords to know that I strongly support the change to a fairer voting system. I was impressed to note today that the calls we have heard in today's debate for such a system have come from Benches other than the Liberal Democrat Benches; indeed, such calls came mostly from the Government's own Benches. I take some heart from that fact. If we were ever to see any form of PR in this country, I always believed that it would come first to local government. However, I am now beginning to wonder whether it will ever come to local government.
Local government is ideally suited to a proportional system. If any single measure could break up the one-party state, to which the Government seem to object—though, personally, I have no objection to some one-party states, especially in the London borough of Sutton—it will be a proportional voting system. That, too, will go some way towards making voters feel that their vote is not wasted. However, important though it is, not even I believe that PR is the panacea to revitalise local democracy. What we need to revitalise local democracy is an entirely different relationship between local government and central government and, above all, between local government and local people.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee has occasionally referred to my liking for referring to "spheres" rather than tiers of government. It is not an original thought; indeed, it is fairly common in Europe and was, I believe, adopted i n South Africa. But it is not a matter of playing with words; it is an important difference in attitude. The word "tiers" implies a hierarchy. It suggests that local government is somehow lower than central government. That is reinforced by the huge number of people who go from, and sometimes use, local government as a stepping stone into the House of Commons. When one talks about "spheres" of government, one is recognising that each different form of government has its own part to play in the total governance of the country. It is a very important difference in attitude and not just a matter of playing with words. Those are the principles—the criteria, if you like—on which we need to judge this Bill, and decide to what extent they will be achieved.
I start with Part I, which deals with what I would call the power of promoting well-being; in other words, economic, social and environmental well-being. That is welcomed. We are very pleased to see that provision and will support it. However, that still reinforces the idea of tiers rather than spheres. That is the essential difference between this power and the power of general competence that we seek. A power of general competence would say that local government may do all those things that it wishes to do, unless there is some prohibition by Parliament to prevent it from so doing. This power is the other way round and that is the important difference. Nevertheless, this is still a welcome step forward.
However, it may be an empty step. As others have said, the power is all very well: but if you have the power without the resources it is very limiting. I do not
1110
call for more money from the Government. I sometimes wince when my colleagues in local government continually ask for more money from central government. I want more power and more ability for local government to raise its own resources. I want it to be able to convince its own taxpayers and charge payers that what it wants to do is what they want it to do. That is what we need and that is what we should be getting through this power.
Part II of the Bill is considerably more troublesome. I find it a lot more difficult. That is not because I have a great problem in understanding or even, to some extent, agreeing with the executive and scrutiny split. Part II concentrates so much on the process and so little on the outcomes. The role of Parliament arid of government should be to say, "These are the outcomes we want from government. This is what we want local government to achieve". If the Government really trusted local government, they would set those targets—those outcomes—and say to them, ''You determine the process for achieving those targets in cooperation and consultation with your local partners and local people. What is important is not how you get there but where you get to". I believe that that is one of the essential weaknesses of Part II of this Bill.
I shall talk for a moment about my own local authority in the London borough of Sutton. I am no longer leader there, which makes it a little easier for me to talk about it. My party is now in its fourth term of office there. That is a fairly unusual experience for the Liberal Democrats, even these days. It is even more unusual in London, which is not generally considered to be natural Liberal Democrat territory.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Tope: My Lords, I said that it was unusual, but not unique. What is unique is that at the previous two London borough elections the Liberal Democrats in my borough polled over 50 per cent of the vote. Therefore we have a popular mandate, albeit not one that justifies our having 85 per cent of the seats.
Every two years since 1987 we have commissioned MORI to take a residents' attitude survey. For their interest rather than ours, the first question always concerns overall satisfaction. We have just had the latest results for 1999. I note that in the table showing the results for authorities over the past five years the London borough of Sutton features three times in the best five results. However, we are not complacent. We have undertaken our own restructuring. We have adopted an executive and a separate scrutiny role. We did that with all-party agreement. We consulted the public on this matter earlier this year. Other noble Lords have said that the public are not necessarily most excited at being consulted on council structures and that that is not a natural turn on for the electorate. The consultation was issued with a covering letter signed by the three party leaders. We put forward Sutton's model, which is a little different from that proposed by the Government, and we put forward the Government's three models. Some 2,800 households

1111
in what is a relatively small London borough responded to that consultation, and 80 per cent of them supported our proposals.
Although we have a heavy party majority, our executive is all party and it meets in the open. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will say whether it is the Government's intention that when this Bill becomes law we shall throw the Labour Party off our executive committee, as it will not be happy if that has to happen. If it happens shortly before the 2002 London borough elections, I shall probably be slightly happier than that party.
There are concerns about the scrutiny role which we need to address. I believe that it is an important role. I agree with what others have said; namely, that councillors need to value that crucially important role. However, in my experience most councillors wish to be not necessarily members of the executive but at least to have a proper and effective say in decisions that will be taken by the executive, wherever that executive is and whoever it comprises. That is echoed in concerns that have been expressed by the right reverend Prelate with regard to the Churches, and indeed other bodies, governors and so on, who are represented on committees under old structures. That is most obvious in the case of education committees where church, teacher and parent governor representatives have a statutory right. They may have a useful role on a scrutiny body but they want to be on the decision-making body. I have yet to hear of anyone dealing satisfactorily with that difficulty.
My next point—I believe that this is extremely important—is that local authorities should have the resources to be able to give distinct and separate support to the scrutiny committee. If councillors are back-benchers, as many have called them, less experienced, have less time—and, let us be honest, some may have less ability—but are effectively to carry out the scrutiny role they need professional support, advice and guidance to be able to do so. That advice and guidance cannot be given fairly by those who are being scrutinised. That is an important issue.
As regards area committees, I was delighted to see that the Government have recognised that they can have a value and a role. I hope that the Minister can say more tonight about what the Government mean in their response by keeping,
"clear corporate accountability for executive functions".
Will all councillors in an area be able to serve on the area committee and take the executive decisions that that committee is empowered to take regardless of where they happen to be in the executive/scrutiny split? If we are told that, it may go a little way to help councillors who are not on the executive.
The Minister would be surprised if I did not mention recall of the mayor. We disagreed on this issue on a number of occasions when we discussed the GLA Bill. I note in their response that the Government have carefully considered this matter. Among their objections is a principled one as an elected mayor,
"
would be unique among those in the UK directly elected"
1112
who could be replaced in some other way. I suspect that is true but I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether any other directly elected office anywhere in the UK will have the personal power that a directly elected mayor will have. It is a unique role and we need unique provisions to be able to deal with what I hope will be a small number of cases where the mayor truly loses the confidence of his or her local community. We can all imagine—perhaps we do not need too much imagination—how such circumstances could arise. There has to be some way of dealing with such a situation—and we need to find that way before it happens, not afterwards.
Part III of the Bill has not attracted a great deal of attention—although there was one very good speech on it. That is perhaps because we all welcome it. It is the part which deals with ethical standards. Despite some quite properly well-publicised and extremely unfortunate and unpleasant cases, local government generally in this country is remarkably free of corruption. It may well be that that is because local government has very little power in this country and is not worth corrupting, but I like to think that it is for higher reasons.
Part IV deals with elections. I cannot help but agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about electoral systems. When he replies, I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little more about what the Government intend with the power they will be given when the Bill is enacted. They have the power to change the electoral timetable. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is the Government's intention to impose such changes, or simply to have power to respond to local wishes for such changes to take place. Again, that is a very important difference.
The parallel debate which has been going on has been about Clause 68. I have spoken on the subject of Section 28 on many occasions; I have no doubt that I will do so again on many occasions during the progress of the Bill. I think that tonight it has all been said in some excellent speeches, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Gould, with whom I agree entirely. I was astonished to hear speakers from the Conservative Benches suggesting that the Government had been trying to slip this in unobtrusively so that nobody would notice. I occasionally think that the Government are naive—but not that naive. Given that the Conservative Party apparently believes that this was coming in surreptitiously, we all owe the Conservative Party a debt for such noble self-sacrifice in drawing such great public attention to the provisions of the Bill. It was not necessary. It is astonishing that it has got rid of its most effective London spokesman—I did not agree with what he said, but he was certainly effective—on an issue such as this.
I will say a lot more about this on another occasion; time is getting on now. It was also a manifesto commitment of the Liberal Democrats to repeal Section 28. We strongly welcome the Government's courage in grasping the nettle and including it in the Bill. It is an extremely important measure. I understand very well its importance but I hope, none

1113
the less, that it will not dominate the proceedings of the Bill, which is about many other important measures as well. But we will give it our support.
In conclusion, l resent very strongly the suggestion that if we question some of the provisions of Part II of the Bill we must be against change; that somehow we are anti-modernists or dinosaurs. It is very difficult for a Liberal Democrat to feel himself or herself to be a dinosaur. We are not against change; we are strongly in favour of change. We want change that makes local government truly more open and transparent; that makes it more effective and more locally accountable in its decision-making. We want change that builds trust, not only between central and local government but between local government and local people. That is how we will judge the Bill and why we have grave doubts that Part II, as drafted, will bring about the changes we want.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it has been a long and interesting debate. As has been said, it is a debate which, in a way, is in two parts. I feel somewhat in a minority in that I am not one who has ever been involved in local government, unlike most noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who made a very interesting maiden speech. We hope very much to hear more about his experiences in local government.
However, I was brought up in a family where both my father and mother were involved in local government. Sadly, had my father now been doing the job that he was then, he would not have had the time to be involved in local government. That is possibly a factor which puts off people from being involved in local government these days. I do not know the answer but I am absolutely certain that the pace of modern life and the pressure of work does not allow many people who might have been able to take part in local government now to do so.
The Bill is said to be a great deal about modernisation or to be "modern"; I think the Minister used that word at least half a dozen times. I wonder whether everything needs to be modernised; whether "modern" is necessarily always right. I remember that when I was younger modern architecture was all the rage. That modern architecture gave us Marsham Street, Centre Point and some of the tower blocks that one sees around London and in other cities. I do not believe that anyone would wish that on anyone else. So I hope that when we talk about modernisation we will go for something better than the present system.
The Bill was carefully examined by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I am glad that a number of noble Lords who served on that committee have been able to speak in our debate today. As has been said, the committee reported a little over four months ago—at the end of July. However, the Government responded to the committee only last Thursday, the last sitting day before the Second Reading debate today.
1114
In his opening remarks the Minister said that amendments would be tabled to take account of the recommendations of the Joint Committee. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in hoping that those amendments will be tabled rapidly so that we can examine them. However, I must point out that the Government had plenty of time to incorporate the amendments in the Bill before it was introduced in this House. Of course we all know why they did not. The draftsman and officials were kept busy drafting the 900 amendments required for the Greater London Authority Bill. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the Minister will either confirm or deny that accusation.
Large parts of the Bill depend upon draft regulations and guidance, in particular Part II of the Bill. Can the Minister say whether those draft regulations and guidance will be laid before the House prior to the Committee stage? It is important that we see those in good time, otherwise consideration of the Bill will be quite difficult.
As has been said, Part I of the Bill deals with the promotion of economic, social and environmental well-being. However, the Government say one thing and do another. Offering the power to promote such objectives is a popular idea, yet under Clause 3(2) a local authority is not allowed to raise any money for that purpose. At the same time, the next subsection states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision preventing local authorities from doing, by virtue of section 2(1) anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order".
In other words, local authorities can do it, but only if the Secretary of State approves of it. Similarly, in Clause 4, which provides for the preparation of a strategy under this part, the local authority,
"may consult or seek the participation of such persons as they consider appropriate".
But it then states that local authorities,
"must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State".
Yet again more power is to remain at the centre. Where is the European Charter of Local Self-Government to which the Government have signed up? Does this clause not go very much against the spirit, if not the words, of that charter?
We regret that in Part II no so-called fourth option has been provided as a fallback position to streamline the existing committee structures. We believe that Part II is too prescriptive by offering only three options and not offering the fourth one, which is the status quo modified. That appears to be change for the sake of change. Although the Government say they believe that things will work better this way, I hope that in Committee we shall be able to probe the evidence that that will be the case.
My noble friend Lady Young referred in particular to referendums. The Bill provides that a petition signed by at least 5 per cent of the electorate is required to hold a referendum, or that the Secretary of State can require local authorities to hold a referendum. I should make it absolutely clear that we on this side of the

1115
House are not generally in favour of referendums. But if we are to have referendums, provision should be made to ensure that there must be a minimum turnout and a minimum majority in favour of any change. We do not wish to see a repeat of the referendum held for the Greater London mayor where such a small number of people voted that it could not be said to be representative of the wishes of the majority. We believe that regulations concerning referendums should be the subject of primary legislation.
Clause 11 provides:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations specify—
(a) functions of local authorities which may not be the subject of executive arrangements".
Presumably those are the quasi-judicial functions of local authorities: planning, licensing and so forth. However, we should like to be told what those functions might be before we proceed much further with the Bill.
Clause 15 deals with pre-decision scrutiny—or rather it does not deal with pre-decision scrutiny, only post-decision scrutiny. We would favour the scrutiny committees being able to consider matters pre-decision rather post-decision. How will the executive system work in a council where there is no overall control or where there may be a number of independent councillors or "ratepayer" councillors?
Part III of the Bill, dealing with ethical standards, is to be welcomed, but it is something of a sledgehammer to crack a nut and could be described as legislation to clear up the Labour Party's own mess in certain parts of the country. Is it really necessary? We shall certainly not oppose it, but I ask the Minister for an assurance that nothing in Part III prohibits, in a serious case of fraud, a criminal investigation by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, or prevents criminal charges being laid. So far as I can see, it deals only with the possibility of censure or disqualification of councillors. Would it not be a good idea to have attached to this part of the Bill some financial penalties as well?
Part IV of the Bill deals with elections. It is clear from the White Paper, Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People, that the Government favour a move towards annual elections—three years out of four for unitary authorities, metropolitan districts and London boroughs, and election by halves every other year for shire districts and counties. The Government's Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill go on to reaffirm that preference. I wonder whether that will have any bearing on the low turn-out at elections, which was referred to by a number of noble Lords, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. I should have thought that the possibility of throwing out the whole council at one time if people did not approve of what it was doing would increase the likely turnout rather than the ability to tamper at the edges by having a marginal vote only.
I do not believe there is any evidence that turnout increases under the proposed system. I should be grateful if the Minister could let us know whether there
1116
is any evidence of that. We believe that it would be far better to leave such matters for local choice by local councils or county councils, as happens at the moment. By the way, if there are to be mayors for fixed terms and councils for different terms, that will undoubtedly lead to some confusion and possible difficulty.
Lastly, I turn to what has occupied a good deal of the debate today. I regret that Clause 68 is in the Bill. It muddies the waters of what is otherwise an interesting Bill. Clause 68 repeals Section 28. From these Benches we oppose the repeal of Section 28. We want to divert more resources into improving education. Public money should be spent on raising standards in schools and not furthering a particular minority agenda. We have heard some powerful speeches from this side of the House on the subject. I note particularly the speeches of my noble friends Lady Knight of Collingtree and Lady Blatch, my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, and my noble friends Lady Seccombe, Lord Waddington and Lady Young. We shall undoubtedly come back to this issue at the Committee stage and I fear that dealing with it will take a considerable time.
We do not believe that Section 28 provides any legal impediment to teachers tackling bullying. However, we favour amending the section to address teachers' concerns on the issue. We believe that that would be possible. We are listening to teachers, parents and other interested parties on the subject.
We also find it strange that the Government want to repeal Section 28 at the same time as David Blunkett, the Secretary of State for Education, has ordered that schools should teach the importance of marriage. How can schools promote homosexuality and marriage at the same time? The Government have yet to explain what they will and will not allow local authorities to do.
I look forward to the Committee stage. There is considerable work to be done, particularly as there will be a raft of government amendments that we have not yet seen. I echo the words of the noble Lord. Lord Tope. I hope that we shall be able to see them in good time, bearing in mind that we break for the Christmas Recess next week and return at the beginning of January. None of us wants to have to spend Christmas examining the amendments. We would rather examine them before Christmas if possible, or, if not, there must be a suitable gap between the tabling of them and the Committee stage.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate on a Bill which will make a substantial difference to the way in which local government is conducted. I should like to commend two or three aspects of the debate: first, the speech of my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, which demonstrated his breadth and length of experience in local government, which will, I hope, inform remaining debates on the Bill and the other debates that we shall doubtless have on local government.

1117
Although it may be considered invidious, I should like also to single out the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. I commend him both on his remarks today and on the work that he did in promoting a Bill which unfortunately fell in another place. During its passage, many of these concepts and ideas were pursued and that stands us in good stead. I know that the noble Lord has a few doubts about aspects of this Bill, but local government is the richer for his having pursued his earlier proposals.
I also want to record my thanks to the Joint Committee, and particularly to those committee members who have spelt out their concerns in this debate.
I had better address two amendments before coming to the meat of the Bill. The first relates to the procedural issues that were raised mainly by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but also by his noble friend Lady Hamwee at the beginning of the debate. That is why we are in a situation whereby further amendments will be required before the Bill is considered by this House in Committee, so as to introduce into the Bill responses to the Joint Committee report and the Government's reaction to it.
I do not think it is completely fair to compare the situation in regard to this Bill with that of the GLA Bill. I quietly had a little sympathy with noble Lords during proceedings on the GLA Bill—not as regards the substance but the procedure. However, that Bill had passed through the other House and amendments came before this House on Report and at Third Reading. The concerns expressed then were legitimate. The Bill with which we are now dealing comes before this House first. There will be amendments. However, I assure the noble Lord that, as far as is reasonably possible, we shall produce all the substantive amendments to which I have referred in time for the Committee stage. I am not in a position to give an absolute assurance that every amendment will be there, but we shall do substantially better than we did on the GLA Bill, albeit that that Bill had already passed through the other House.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may press the Minister further on this matter. "In time for the Committee stage" could mean the day before the Committee stage begins. I made the point at the beginning of the debate that this is not merely a whinge. We are concerned to have a useful Committee stage, not one which is in effect a Second Reading, postponing the Committee type work until Report stage. My request for a 14-day period from the tabling of the amendments to the Committee stage was a very serious point.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I sought to assure the House that as far as possible all of the amendments would he tabled in reasonable time for Committee stage. I note the noble Baroness's definition of "reasonable time". No doubt my noble friend the Government Chief Whip has also noted it. I cannot give an absolute assurance that every single amendment that we want to make to the Bill—my
1118
noble friend the Government Chief Whip never hears such remarks—will be tabled in that timescale. However, I shall do my best to meet the requirements of the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have expressed concern.
It was important for us to take fully into account the report of the Joint Committee which was produced during the Summer Recess. We wanted to take account not only of the report of that committee but of local government and other interested parties before we drew up our response. In part that is the reason why the response has been somewhat later than noble Lords would have wished. I regret that the necessary amendments were not available at the time the first print of the Bill was produced.
We have also been asked whether all of the regulations stipulated under the Bill will be available in time for Committee stage. We are keen to ensure that the House has the opportunity to give adequate consideration to the amendments. As to those, the main substantive amendments will be to Parts II and III of the Bill. There may be some technical amendments to the other parts. There is one substantive issue related to allowances which falls outside those parts of the Bill. As far as concerns regulations, it would be unusual if all such measures under a Bill were produced before the Committee stage of the first House which considered it. Nevertheless, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that, as our response to the report of the Joint Committee indicates, the regulations concerned with executive functions, policy framework and petitions will be available in time for Committee stage. Others will be produced during the passage of the Bill, as is normal practice. I hope that that reassures the House that as far as possible we seek to accommodate noble Lords in providing as good a basis for consideration of this Bill as we can.
The other issue that I must address initially relates to the repeal of Section 2A—in other words, Section 28—by Clause 68 of the Bill. My comments on the contributions on this aspect of the Bill are perhaps made more in sorrow than in anger. I admit that there is a degree of anger also involved. I do not believe that in this respect there will be much of a meeting of minds. I respect the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, and others who were involved in the original introduction of Section 28. I am aware that she can quote anxieties. Nevertheless, I recall that at the time colleagues and friends in the gay community felt very strongly that hysteria about these issues was being whipped up. I believe that it was wrong for the government at that time to respond to that hysteria and it is wrong for noble Lords to seek to defend that position.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I believe it is completely ludicrous to suggest that this Government have slipped the repeal of Section 28 into this Bill. It has been Labour Party policy ever since it was introduced, and was referred to by the Labour Party spokesperson throughout the election and since, that we intend to take the opportunity to seek this repeal. The reality is that, whatever the words and perhaps the

1119
intention of Section 28, the effect not only on the gay community but the bringing up and education of our children has been very damaging. It causes confusion, as my noble friend Lady Massey said. That confusion seriously inhibits substantial numbers of teachers, as my noble friend Lady Gould said, from providing help and support for young people who are confused about their sexuality. They believe they are gay, they know they are gay, or they are being picked upon by others because they think that they are gay. It has inhibited a large number of teachers, governors and education authorities from providing the independent advice and guidance that those children need.
Those children and young people growing up in our society do not have to be taught homosexuality. Some will be gay. Some will know gay people within their own families and friends with whom they have close friendships and relationships. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country are growing up knowing people who are gay and wanting to know more about how they should respond to them. Their own parents, friends and siblings may well act in that capacity. Yet the section inhibits the way in which our authorities can deal with that situation.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, in contemplating changes in the future, does the Minister recognise that there is a worry about the need to support marriage as the cornerstone of our society? There are concerns among a large number of parents that it is under threat.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe the fact that we tell young people that there are relationships in life other than marriage undermines the institution of marriage.
I do not know whether noble Lords ever watch television on Saturday nights. They probably have better things to do. However, last Saturday's episode of "Casualty" portrayed the family of a young boy. His father had left and his mother had engaged in a lesbian relationship. That boy was seriously confused. But at the end of the episode—the issue was dealt with sensitively—not only was the homophobic father seriously reconciled but also the young boy at least understood some of the situation. It was not ideal for him. It was not the optimum situation for him. It was not what he would have wanted. But neither was it the end of the world because for the first time someone had taken the time to explain the situation to him. That explanation, that sensitive way of dealing with these things, is what a lot of our teachers, regrettably, and probably not on the literal reading of Section 28, now feel that they are inhibited from doing.
That is why we say that that provision allows more homophobic bullying in our schools, not because it directly causes that bullying but because teachers and others in authority are more inhibited than they should be about doing something about it. That is why, without ascribing any malign motivation, I believe that in effect it has become a pernicious piece of legislation. The number of assaults, self-inflicted
1120
wounds and suicide attempts among young gay people, referred to by the right reverend Prelate and others, bears witness to that.
I believe that it is time to put that section behind us and to approach the subject in a more adult and mature way. Our society is diverse. This Bill is about diversity in our communities as a whole. The gay community is part of that diversity and young people need to understand about it. In no way do I believe that that undermines the institution of marriage where marriage is strong and where the community supports that marriage. But I believe that young people need to know that there are other equally loving circumstances to which they have to react in their lives. Whether noble Lords opposite like it or not, some of those young people will grow up to be gay and we should nurture them as well as other members of our society.
I turn to what six minutes ago I said was the meat of the Bill. It provides a new and central part of reforming the system of governance in this country. Local government is a vital part of that. The provision for a power of well being will give local authorities powers to carry out actions which are of benefit to their communities in a way in which they have been inhibited previously.
The power has been criticised for not going far enough, but it is a substantial—probably the biggest—enlargement of local authority powers for many years. Some people are calling for a general competence, but I do not believe that had we called it a general competence it would have been unrestricted. Clearly, restrictions as regards finances and the role of local authorities must be in the Bill. It is important that we get away from labels and move on to make a reality of the new power of well-being.
Another criticism is that the provision should be a duty rather than a power. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made that observation, as did my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. It is true that the White Paper proposed a duty to provide community well-being. We have taken the view, which is supported by the Local Government Association, that imposing another duty could be the wrong way of allowing the authorities the powers they need to improve the well-being of the communities they serve. We want to free authorities and give them flexibility to be able to take action to meet community needs. Giving them the power and leaving them flexibility in the way they operate seems to us the sensible way forward.
Again, I refer to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. It is important that the sustainability of wellbeing runs through the social, environmental and economic aspects of well-being. I can assure the House that that is the way in which the Government are approaching these matters.
It is not true that the councils will not be able to spend on pursuing this power. The power restricting expenditure is not to restrict them from deploying their budgets in this regard, but it is a reserve power which may be used to prevent the new power being used in a way which might damage regional or national

1121
interests. We hope that with all our reserve powers that will not be used. The restriction on finances in Clause 3(2) to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred is simply to safeguard the position that councils cannot levy taxes on business or individuals without specific powers being granted to them by Parliament. That applies in this as in all areas of local government.
The important point about the well-being provision is that it places local authorities in a position in which they can truly engage in the kind of community leadership to which the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred. But in order to do so we need not only a change in powers but also in structures. I join my noble friend Lord Woolmer of Leeds and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in paying tribute to the dedication, achievements and probity of local governments in this country. But the structure needs to be changed. The committee structure is being changed in practice. People have to invent new procedures in order to cut through the Victorian structure which we have inherited. As my noble friend Lady Thornton said, it is important now to address that structure.
The present structure has been unresponsive. In some cases, it is obscure and opaque, as my noble friend Lord Harris said. As was said by my noble friend Lord Filkin, who has a lifetime of experience serving such councils, it does not always lead to efficiency or transparency of decisions. It is all important that the structure reflects the purpose of the council. The purpose of the council is twofold: to take strategic decisions in order to deliver services to the community and also to scrutinise the way in which those decisions are taken. We believe that the provisions in the Bill to provide for the separation of powers are a sensible way forward. By and large, the Local Government Association agrees with that, as do most people in local authorities.
That does not mean that that is a complete break with the actions of local authorities over the past few years in terms of establishing quasi-executive structures. My noble friend Lord Lipsey said that over 30 years ago we indicated that the party was over and that concentration on efficient management of local authorities was more important than grand gestures. Obviously he has not received the hospitality of Manchester City Council recently to know that in that city as elsewhere those lessons have been well and truly learnt. Nevertheless, the structure is still inhibiting the next stage of transformation into efficient deliveries of both democracy and services.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the provisions for new constitutions are not enough on their own, but we need a more thoroughgoing approach to the relationship between councils and those whom they govern. I entirely agree with that. That is the basis of our whole approach, including our approach to this Bill. What lies behind the Bill, as set out in the White Paper, is a programme taking 10 years or more. It is a radical agenda which will be addressed in a comprehensive way to make good the deficiencies of local government. It includes a best-value regime, the
1122
promotion of well-being and the new ethical framework. The constitution based on a new separation of powers is one of the most important aspects of the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, both voiced fears that back-bench councillors could become second-class citizens as a result of the separation of powers. As my noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Smith have pointed out, the group who will form the scrutiny committees is absolutely vital to the health of democracy and the operation of the council. Its members will probably spend less time in committees and council meetings than at present, but they will be developing a much closer relationship with local people and the council will benefit as a result.
It is even possible that, in that context, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, might have been able to serve as a councillor effectively on one of the scrutiny committees, even if the rest of his time was taken up in other duties. It is important that we widen the number of people currently involved in council matters. Local councillors need to be able to bring local needs to the council and to their decisions. It is important that the separation does not lead to any second-class structure. It is probably unwise to believe that it would.
There will be an increased independence of the councillors who form the scrutiny side and, indeed, in the eyes of Members of another place that scrutiny may be rather undeveloped. Powerful scrutiny committees are already no longer the bottom of the pyramid compared with Ministers and the executive. I assure noble Lords present that even my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister takes very seriously indeed his duties when appearing before the honourable Member for Crewe on the Environment, Transport and the Regions Committee. That will be writ large in the local government dimension.
I repeat that decisions must be taken to reflect what people want. They must be taken efficiently but be subject to effective scrutiny. We have been criticised for providing only three models in the Bill. I could make the relatively cheap point that at present there is only one model and that the Bill provides a fairly wide broadening of the scope of choice that applies at local level. However, within those three structures there is a further possibility for flexibility in a number of respects.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others were concerned that we should perhaps consider other models. The terms of the Bill provide that the Secretary of State might consider other models in certain circumstances. We are by no means closing our minds completely on that point. However, we believe that the clear separation of powers is indicated by the three models; that the clear basis for an efficient running of the council lies within those three options; and that most authorities will be capable of choosing one of those three options as the way in which they want to carry their authority forward.

1123
In our response to the Joint Committee we made it clear that we do not believe that the status quo is an option. I believe that it would be true to say that the vast majority of speakers in this debate have indicated that they do not want the status quo; that we need to develop a new form of local government for the 21st century.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others made a number of comments on the way in which we would conduct referendums for the institution of a mayor. I can tell the noble Lord that regulations which describe how that will happen will be made available as soon as possible. However, as in all forms of local government, it is also the case that local government legislation and regulations under local government legislation provide the basis for election in that context. It is not the equivalent of legislation for Scotland and Wales. Perhaps I should stress here the importance of the proposed electoral commission which will need to consider those matters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seemed to be concerned less with the method of acquiring a mayor and more with the issue of how we would get rid of him once he was there. I do not propose to go over the arguments which we had during the GLA Bill. Someone who is directly elected by the people should not be removed by another group of politicians. That remains my case. The legal requirements of the mayor and the ability to remove a mayor who has infringed the legal requirements are clearly stated. Therefore, should the mayor transgress, a judicial means exists of removing him. However, a political means of removing the mayor through an impeachment procedure does not seem to me to be sensible. As I said during the GLA Bill, the recent experience of the greatest democracy in the world does not indicate that impeachment is a sensible process in those circumstances.
A number of questions were asked about the role of back-bench councillors and the structure under which we might operate the executive. Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young, indicated that they were concerned about the single-party nature of a cabinet or an executive. I can assure noble Lords that it will be a matter, first, for the electorate and subsequently for the council to make the decisions as to whether the executive should be a single party, a coalition or politically balanced. Executives can continue to be politically balanced if the council so wishes. Therefore, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the Sutton Labour councillors can stay for as long as he wants and for as long as they wish to.
I move now to the issue of area committees, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. In our response we indicated that the Government are in favour of decentralised structures and that the Government intend that the legislation should allow the delegation of executive functions by the executive to area committees within the context of a systematic scheme for delegation. The Government intend to put forward amendments in Committee to that effect. Again, to address the point
1124
made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, all councillors from an area would therefore serve on such area committees.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Thomas, also raised the question of joint partnership committees between different tiers of government and between counties, districts and, indeed, parishes. We recognise the importance of allowing partnership committees to continue to work together. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill will allow such working arrangements to continue and to be built upon.
The right reverend Prelate raised the question of church representation on education committees. I can reassure him that church and parent-governor representatives will continue to play an important role and to have the statutory right to sit and vote on overview and scrutiny committees which deal with education.
The noble Baroness and others raised the question of privacy in meetings of the executive. The proposals will of course allow private meetings of the executive, as noble Lords have observed. Noble Lords have conceded also that such meetings already take place under the current structure and that it is at those meetings that the real decisions are made. That is so not only in the case of Cleveland, Ohio, which was referred to tactfully by my noble friend Lord Woolmer. There are many councils throughout the land where a group makes a decision behind closed doors which binds the council. Indeed, that is almost invariably the case. The executive will now be able to have private meetings and therefore be part of the formal structure. But those private meetings will be publicly accountable. The decisions must be recorded; explanations must be given for those decisions; and it will be necessary to record and make available advice from officials on which those decisions were based. So our proposals do not provide for greater secrecy. They provide for less secrecy than is the case in practice currently.
A number of questions were asked about more frequent elections. The provisions on the face of the Bill will be enabling provisions. Noble Lords rightly referred back to the White Paper with regard to our preferences in that area. However, that will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and the provisions will enable the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations which will ensure more frequent elections than is currently the case in some authorities.
As regards other election matters, a number of noble Lords asked about electoral reform. That is not currently provided in the Bill. No doubt we shall debate those matters at various stages of the Bill's passage and beyond. The Government have no intention of bringing forward amendments to that effect for the Committee stage, much as some of my noble friends and others may wish to see that.
I move on quickly to the ethical framework. I am grateful for the support for that, in particular from my noble friend Lady Thornton who emphasised the importance of that part of the Bill in cleaning up the

1125
image and actuality of local government. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that nothing in those provisions would restrict the ability to bring criminal prosecutions.
I move on now to welfare services. The intention is to bring together the various forms of funding and services which are currently available to the more vulnerable groups of people in our community so that they are more understandable, accessible and flexible to their needs. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and others that the Government recognise the importance and value of sheltered housing and there is no intention of structuring that new, more co-ordinated form of support in a way which would be to the detriment of those who depend on sheltered housing.
I have well over-stretched my time. I am sorry that throughout the debate, we have entered into some controversy on Section 28. I hope that we can recognise the importance of changing the situation and more particularly that we can support the main objectives of this Bill; namely, to bring to local democracy in our country a more efficient, accountable, transparent and—dare I say it? —more modern system of local government which can take us into the 21st century. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Digital Broadcasting to the Deaf and Hard Hearing
10.2 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johnsrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they consider will be the impact of the digital broadcasting revolution on the 8.7 million deaf and hard-of-hearing people who live in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have tabled this Question to give the Government the opportunity to tell the House what they consider will be the impact of the digital broadcasting revolution on the 8.7 million deaf and hard-of-hearing people who live in the United Kingdom. What policies are the Government pursuing to ensure that hearing-impaired people are not excluded from the digital revolution?
It is right that any discussion about digital TV should consider the level of accessible broadcasting. It is right as a matter of principle. After all, everybody loses out when hearing-impaired people do not have the opportunity to participate fully in society. The media, particularly TV, are largely responsible for forming the cultural reference points of society. The programmes we watch on TV and video are very much the topics of everyday conversation at home and at work. Subtitles and signing mean that hearing-impaired people can keep in touch. Limited access can leave them culturally excluded and socially sidelined. It is also common sense to promote the importance of seizing the opportunities offered by technical advances to maximise the use of good quality subtitling and signing.
1126
It is also good commercial common sense to develop subtitling. If cable and satellite operators fail to capture this market, most people will subscribe to digital terrestrial television as switch off looms. That may be good for DTT but not for digital television overall.
Before I venture further I should pay heed to the warning given by King Lear about scurvy politicians who pretend to see the things they do not. I readily confess that unlike others in this House, I am a novice on these issues. I thank those who try to help me to become a little less ill informed and must state that any errors in my speech are mine alone.
I am grateful to the Deaf Broadcasting Council, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the British Deaf Association for their briefings. I also thank Chris Higgs, at the ITFC, the biggest independent subtitling facility in the whole of Europe, and Ruth Griffiths at the BBC. They showed me their subtitling facilities. One cannot fail to be impressed by the commitment and dedication of the subtitlers to their task.
The first subtitled programme appeared m the United States in 1971 but research into subtitling here began only in the mid-1970s when the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, contacted the University of Southampton about the whole issue. I am delighted that he is taking part in the debate today. Indeed, I am delighted to be able to wish him a happy birthday and even more delighted that the timing of the debate just squeezes into his birthday period.
Technical innovations over the years have improved the quality and speed of subtitling output. However, we cannot expect voice recognition software to provide an automatic subtitling service in future without the human intervention of editing. I thought at first that subtitles and signing should be easier to provide in the digital age, though at a cost. I have learnt that it is far more complex than I ever imagined. Different viewers have different requirements and different priorities. However, it is not just a question of subtitles, whether open or closed, full or edited, but of signing too, and what kind of signing: by human being or by Simon, the virtual human signer, a system currently being developed and facing quite a few problems.
I learnt about the technical difficulties of digital subtitling and the lack of awareness among the public about how to access the subtitles. I learnt of the extraordinary difficulty of just doing the job of a subtitler. Typing is only the beginning. The real art is in editing the text for clarity. It must be done sensitively so that none of the original meaning is lost. Add to that the skills of synchronising the subtitles with the soundtrack, making clear who is saying what to whom, even when they are not on screen, and timing the subtitles so that they coincide with camera shots. No wonder it takes up to 15 hours to subtitle one half-hour programme.
Those who subtitle live programmes are lucky if they get even a few minutes advance notice of the script and have to work at breakneck speed. estimate that at

1127
present I am speaking at about 130 words per minute. Subtitlers have to cope in news sessions with anything up to 250 words per minute. I hope Hansard will not have to face that speed from me today.
It is, indeed, a difficult task faced by those who produce subtitles. However, it is not a case of everything being so difficult that one does nothing. It is so important that we must take action to increase the quality and quantity of subtitling and signing. What is the current situation? What might be done by broadcasters and the Government to improve it, preferably without further regulation?
The Broadcasting Act 1996 and an associated order require 5 per cent of programmes to be signed each week on digital terrestrial television by the 10th anniversary of their launch. There is no requirement in law, or the ITC code, as to how sign language is delivered. The British Deaf Association makes the point that broadcasters should make a mix of provision allowing the maximum number of deaf people to enjoy their programmes. This should include at least some programmes "presented in" as opposed to "interpreted into" sign language.
Statutory requirements also mean that the new digital terrestrial television programme providers must subtitle 5 per cent of their programmes in the first year, rising to 50 per cent in year 10. Those targets, when averaged with the analogue simulcasts' targets, bring the overall accessible output for hearing impaired people to 11 per cent for this year. With many more digital channels expected, it is feared that that percentage is unlikely to improve with the result that choice will be reduced proportionately. Of course, digital satellite and cable channels are not legally required to subtitle anything at all. But because the 1996 Broadcasting Act applies to all DTT services, it means that those Sky channels must provide subtitling for 5 per cent of their programmes.
The BBC adopted the recommendation in the Davies Report that DTT subtitling targets should be 50 per cent of digital output for each new programme provider by the fifth year of digital broadcasting and 100 per cent by the 10th year. That is an improvement on the requirements set by the ITC, which allows broadcasters 10 years to achieve subtitling for 50 per cent of output. But it is surely right to expect the BBC to lead the way because it is funded by the licence fee. Deaf people pay the full licence fee and rightly expect to get full access.
The RNID played its part this year in issuing a voluntary charter and inviting broadcasters to sign up to it. It believes that the charter seeks a way forward in partnership so that digital services are progressively made available to the widest range of the viewing public. It believes that an agreed form of best practice should be adopted across the broadcasting and subtitling industries to improve the quality and increase the provision of subtitling. I appreciate the points put forward by broadcasters that the targets and requirements set in the charter may conflict with some of the regulations set by the ITC. But the RNID also argues that any BBC video or DVD where the
1128
original programme is shown with subtitles should be marketed with closed caption subtitles. It also asks that the Government, the ITC and Hearing Concern work together to establish a practice of consistent, independent monitoring of subtitling provision.
My questions to the Government therefore are as follows. With regard to the charter, what is the Government's response to the issuing of the charter and to its voluntary nature? Do the Government agree that the introduction of a digital licence fee is especially untenable for the deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers? Do the Government accept the RNID recommendation that all BBC channels should have parity of subtitling output before analogue switch off is implemented? Are the Government considering an increase in the levels of subtitling on DTT set by regulation in order to bring forward the date at which parity exists between analogue and digital services?
I understand that the Government say that they will carry out a review of subtitling in November 2000. I am rather puzzled about that. Can the Minister say why subtitling and signing are not now being considered as part and parcel of the major review of broadcasting which the Government announced will take place in the new year in order to produce a Green or White Paper before the next general election? Is there a specific reason why the subtitling review is being left until later?
I believe that we must find a way of improving both the quantity and quality of subtitling and signing in the digital age. Technology has given us some opportunities. I know that human beings are needed to make a reality of seizing those opportunities. Tonight I thank all noble Lords for taking part in the debate and look forward to the Minister's response.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, that was a fine speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and I congratulate her. It was comprehensive, shrewd, to the point and precisely what was required on this occasion. I thank her also for her choice of subject. It is not everyone who chooses the rather unpopular subject of deafness and hard of hearing people, but it is a subject that merits consideration by the House.
One of today's vogue phrases is "social exclusion" by which is meant people who are too poor to participate in society's activities. As the noble Baroness implied, there can be no greater social exclusion than that of profoundly deaf people when there is no subtitling on television. I have personal experience of that because for 28 years I was totally deaf. When I lost my hearing in 1968, there was practically no subtitling on television. That great media became for me totally irrelevant and, because my wife was as loyal as she was, it became irrelevant to her because she would not switch on the television. Two people were deprived of television because of total deafness, mainly because the broadcasting authorities did not subtitle programmes.
Regardless of how clever the programmes were—and I have been a television producer myself for eight years—and how fascinating the discussions were, I had

1129
no access to television. The silently moving lips were meaningless to me. The moving pictures without descriptions were also meaningless. That is the measure of the issue that we are debating tonight.
Any failure by the broadcasting authorities fully to subtitle all programmes means that deaf and hard of hearing people are excluded. There is no doubt that television is the paramount means of communicating news and information as well as entertainment, so that is a serious loss.. As such, it is a diminution of the human rights of deaf and hard of hearing people.
I did manage to get some improvements to the last two Broadcasting Bills and in discussions with the Independent Television Commission after the last Broadcasting Act, I secured some increase in the inadequate proposals for digital television. The ITC, to its great credit, was responsible and helpful. Provisions for digital television are still inadequate and will mean that as digital television progresses, deaf and hard of hearing people will be left way behind.
I have been concerned with and involved in subtitles for many years. After the 1970s, when there were virtually no subtitles, the BBC pioneered the work admirably. It deserves great credit for that pioneering work, which was followed by the ITV companies. Today, the ITC caption targets are for 55 per of programmes on terrestrial television to be subtitled and 80 per cent after five years. That is a considerable advance on the early days. Those figures are nowhere near perfect and much remains to be done—but the BBC and the ITV companies deserve credit for that increase in subtitles, which in some cases is greater than the statutory requirements, and for the standards on analogue television.
However, the problem lies with digital terrestrial television and digital cable and satellite television. The digital revolution, on which so many high hopes are pinned, will pass deaf and hard of hearing people by unless urgent action is taken. The new digital programme providers only subtitle 5 per cent—rising to 50 per cent as late as the tenth year. For deaf and hard of hearing people, to wait 10 years for a mere 50 per cent of digital television programmes to be subtitled is insulting. Only 5 per cent in the first year. What happens to the remaining 95 per cent? Does it not matter? Are deaf people to be deprived of 95 per cent just because people say, "We are giving you 5 per cent subtitling" How preposterous; how absurd. What a deprivation of human rights. How casually we all take this 5 per cent. It is scandalous. I am amazed that the House of Commons and the House of Lords readily accept the situation.
A major problem and, as I said, a scandalous one in so far as it concerns deaf people is the fact that digital, cable and satellite television channels are not legally required to subtitle anything at all. They have no obligation whatever to do so. How can Parliament let that situation exist? All the other channels have a statutory requirement, while cable and satellite have no legal obligation whatever. Why should deaf people have the right to subtitling on some channels but not
1130
on others? Why should some broadcasters have statutory liability to provide subtitles while others do not? It is absolutely ludicrous.
I am not making a party point—although perhaps I am—but these inconsistencies are the clear responsibility of the last Tory government; there is no doubt about that. They are manifestly crazy, bizarre and farcical, as well as being very damaging to deaf people. I recognise that there can be problems because satellite programmes can come from anywhere in the world, but I believe that they can be overcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned the RNID, of which I am president, although I should have declared that interest earlier. I am still rather deaf, even though I have the cochlear implant. Recently I went with James Strachan, the chief executive of RNID, to see the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith, to discuss what we would do about subtitling on cable and satellite television. The Minister was very helpful and said that he had on several occasions made clear his concern to the major cable and satellite broadcasters about the poor level of subtitling and expressed his keenness that they should provide more subtitling. The Secretary of State also said that there is likely to be broadcasting legislation early in the next Parliament to keep up with the fast-changing broadcasting industry and to ensure that regulation is relevant and effective. He assured me that the department would be carefully considering the provision of services for people with sensory disabilities.
The cable and satellite companies would be very wise to note the Minister's remarks. However, they would be very unwise to assume that we are simply going to wait for another broadcasting Bill. We are not going to wait. I give them clear notice of what I personally intend to do. I shall involve as many noble Lords and MPs as I possibly can. The excuse that it is difficult for cable and satellite companies to be able to afford subtitles because they are short of money is a very thin one. They should not have been granted licences if they could not afford to provide access for all viewers. I believe that their licences should be taken away if those companies cannot fulfil their responsibilities to all viewers.
If cable and satellite television companies believe that they can be so dismissive of deaf people and their rights of access to television, they must think again. I give them a very clear warning. Their failure to match the BBC and ITV with subtitling will be one of the first cases that I shall refer to the new Disability Rights Commission when it starts in April. The Disability Discrimination Act says that "reasonable" provision must be made by all service providers. I do not believe for a second that denying deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers the right to television programmes will be seen in any way as "reasonable" by the courts. This matter would certainly go before the courts.
As digital television advances, we need a far more careful assessment of what provision is made by the broadcasters, especially cable and satellite. They ought to appreciate the commercial benefits—as the noble

1131
Baroness rightly said—provided by deaf and hard of hearing viewers, but, if they do not, we should campaign to get them to fulfil their clear moral responsibilities. We need to debate them frequently. We need to keep in touch with Ministers, inform the Select Committee, inform the Independent Television Commission and use the full rigour of the new law of the Disability Discrimination Act to force television companies if they are unwilling voluntarily to provide subtitles. We need regular monitoring of their output so that when we attack them the campaigns will be well informed and pressed home effectively.
Today marks the end of the easy time for broadcasters, especially cable and satellite broadcasters. From now on we shall scrutinise them and, if they fail, we shall take the appropriate action accordingly.
10.25 p.m.
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, has raised a subject which is of extreme importance to the 8.7 million deaf people in this country and, by the natural function of age, to the many more who will be afflicted by this agonising handicap.
I must declare two interests. First, as a result of an incident in 1944 I am disabled in the hand, spine and legs, but fortunately not in the head. Secondly, I was chairman of the BBC for 10 years, which might raise in some minds the question whether or not I was damaged in the head! In the head are centred the three fundamental senses: hearing, seeing and speaking.
Although I have no personal experience of loss of hearing I have some knowledge of the loss of sight as I was dropped by the Germans in a prison camp for the blind, quite by mistake incidentally. However, for reasons that I shall not bore your Lordships with, it undoubtedly saved my life. It also gave me a vivid understanding of the pain, frustration and, I would almost say torture, of the loss of one of these vital senses.
Twice I shared a small room with two 23 year-olds, one a British Gurkha officer blinded by the blast of a shell and the other an American flying officer rapidly losing his sight after his plane had been shot down in flames. The courage with which they faced this appalling personal tragedy lives with me still.
There is no point in arguing which is better or worse, to be deaf, dumb or blind. They are all devastating and, what is more, they are permanent. We are concerned with the deaf although I shall make some reference—I hope with noble Lords' agreement—to the blind. The onset of digital television and radio is an immense step forward in the provision of radio and television services and in the quality of those services. The advantages are threefold. First, the picture is much clearer, more distinct and immeasurably better. Secondly, the sound improves in equal measure. Thirdly, the number of channels is massively multiplied, although I accept that some may not think that is an advantage.
1132
As we have already heard, there are 8.7 million deaf people in this country. The RNID estimates that by the year 2001 over 43 per cent of the population aged 50 or over will suffer from some degree of hearing loss. Some 20 per cent of licence paying households will include some who suffer from loss of hearing. The whole point of the BBC is that it should cater for the whole population regardless of age, taste or health. That is why the BBC is funded by a universal poll tax, currently £101. The issue is whether sufficient is being done to cater for the deaf and, if I may say so, the blind.
Broadly speaking there are three ways in which the deaf can be helped. They are all expensive. The first and most effective is subtitling; the second is closed signing; and the third is audio description, which means a description is given of what is going on in a programme. It is in its early stages and is not really relevant to this debate.
Our discussion today has been simplified by the excellent report, The Future Funding of the BBC, under the chairmanship of Gavyn Davies. It is a masterly document. It raises many issues, about which of course we may have differing views. But no doubt there will be a debate on this report in your Lordships' House in the new year.
The report examined what concessions had been made for the deaf. There is no financial concession on the licence fee, and even the RNID believes that that is appropriate. Digital needs to be inclusive of the whole population. It has great potential for improving services to those with these crippling disabilities. It is the responsibility of a universally compulsorily funded BBC to take the lead in such action. The report unhesitatingly condemns the present arrangements as wholly inadequate and recommends major improvements.
To its credit, the BBC has rapidly accepted this criticism and reassessed its targets in line with the recommendations—keeping the BBC where it is already, ahead of independent television in this area. However, I was told only today that that is not correct. I am not really concerned at the moment whether ITC is ahead of the BBC or the BBC is ahead of ITC. The BBC, in its position as a national broadcaster, should be leading the way.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, what is important is that we need more subtitling. That is the critical issue. It is not cheap. It should not be forgotten that it is not a cheap operation. I think that the objective at the moment that has been accepted by all—certainly by the BBC—is to achieve subtitling of 50 per cent of all programmes within five years and of 100 per cent within 10 years. Already the BBC is beating its self-selected targets; I am confident that it will also measure up to these.
More than £2 million has been invested in subtitling in the past two years; the annual running costs are just over £2 million. These costs will increase further. The concentration is on subtitling because that is the most straightforward and effective system. The BBC—and no doubt ITC—will continue with signing. But that is

1133
very expensive and much more complicated because individuals each have their own system; there is no common language in signing.
I confirm also the noble Baroness's tribute to those people who work on the subtitling. I also had the opportunity of seeing them. They are very dedicated people, doing an extremely difficult and arduous job. They deserve our thanks and appreciation.
Although it is not strictly within our remit, I should like to make some further reference to the blind. Very little has been done for the blind. Of course they have the advantage of radio, which I have always believed to be a superb service, where, as the children say—and I have letters to confirm it—the picture is so much better.
Nevertheless, the loss of sight is an appalling, cruel and permanent handicap. Hitherto, the only concession made to the blind was a discount of £1.25 on a licence fee of £101. The report recommends—rightly in my view—that this should be increased to up to 50 per cent and not restricted, as the current discount is, to households which contain only the blind. That is most welcome.
Nevertheless, in spite of what I have just said, I must confess that I have a slight feeling that if the Government are prepared to remit the licence fee for everyone over the age of 75—and that is 3 million households, including, incidentally, my own—they might consider doing the same for the 348,000 permanently blinded people, or should at least plan to do so in future. There is a slight contrast between 348,000 of the permanently blind and some 3 million households. I suggest to the Minister that that is something the Government might well consider.
However, spurred on by Mr Gavyn Davies and his colleagues, great efforts are now being made to take larger and more compassionate steps to improve the position of both the deaf and the blind. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, strongly outlined that point.
I admit that I feel a sense of guilt that I did not do this while I was chairman of the BBC. But the reason for that was simple. From the moment I became chairman in October 1986, I had one clear objective which dominated every decision that I took and I was ably and generously supported by my colleagues on the board of governors and the board of management. That objective was to deliver the BBC, at the end of my chairmanship, with its channels and licence fee intact. Now that that has been achieved, I believe that it is appropriate—indeed, it is necessary—to correct some of the unfortunate anomalies.
I am extremely glad that this issue has been highlighted by this excellent report which will cost the BBC and all other broadcasters money. However, no doubt the new director-general, who has already demonstrated a concern for the issues of health, will examine carefully the allocation of his resources. Of course, it is not necessarily practical to compare budgets in one area with budgets in another, but I believe that there is something bizarre in the report from the Select Committee in the other place that BBC News 24 will cost £53.9 million this year when it has
1134
fewer than 10,000 people watching its digital channels without subscribing to pay television, although no doubt pay television itself will increase those numbers. I think that that is a point worth considering.
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, as will many of the deaf, and I believe also the blind, for raising the issue in the public mind. As our world becomes more prosperous, those who have lost their sight, hearing or speech should occupy a higher place in our priorities. They deserve no less.
10.37 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence, knowing that I must declare my interest as the current Vice-Chairman of the BBC. My diffidence arises from following the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, and listening to his remarks calling into question the rightness of one's head.
We are of course at the edge of the digital age and we have seen the huge new wealth of entertainment, information and education, in particular in terms of public service broadcasts. Digital broadcasting will enable greater creativity, involvement in citizenship and an opportunity for inclusive access to education and lifelong learning. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ashley that the 8.7 million deaf and hard of hearing must be able to share in this wealth through subtitling and signing, and eventually through audio description.
As regards subtitling, the BBC has adopted targets as demanding as any of those laid down for UK broadcasting as a whole. Indeed, it has regularly exceeded its targets. Overall, its subtitling level is nearly 57 per cent of output across BBC1 and BBC2, 60 per cent of output on Digital BBC1 and BBC2 and 30 per cent on BBC Choice. The total number of hours of subtitling has risen by 57 per cent in two years and the budget has increased by 30 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, pointed out, the target is for digital to have 50 per cent subtitling in five years and 100 per cent in 10 years. At the moment we are well ahead of that objective.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, referred to the need for the public to understand the subtitling services that are available. Indeed, during a recent BBC deaf awareness week, there was an opportunity, through trailers shown across the services, to provide information on the subtitling service. Of course, TV output with British sign language interpretation is also important. There is a need for that to be developed on the digital as well as the analogue service.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussey, referred to audio description, which is the system whereby descriptive narrative can be delivered alongside the main soundtrack, as small and inconsequential. There have been a number of false starts and false investments in the system—there was a rather unsuccessful European scheme—and so far there has been the lack of a practical and cost effective approach on analogue television. The advent of digital technology provides a new opportunity and there is now a need to see the

1135
industry set technical standards and for there to be an affordable and assured supply of receiver modules. There has recently been a pilot on BBC2 and there will be a full service from May next year. It is modest at the moment—2 per cent rising to 10 per cent over the next 10 years—but it is a rich new service that is made possible by digital technology.
It is fundamental that the deaf and hard of hearing share in the digital revolution. Much has been done, and much more will be done, but I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, that the technology requires investment. It would be unseemly now and at this time of night to make a naked plug for more money, but I remind your Lordships that the licence fee review is under way. I believe that the case is compelling for sufficient funding to be provided to ensure inclusive access for all to the necessary benefits—they are not luxuries—of digital services and to ensure inclusive access to opportunities for lifelong learning to enable everyone, deaf and non-deaf alike, to be involved in citizenship in the digital age.
10.41 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, following on from four such distinguished speakers, most of what I originally intended to say has, as is inevitable, already been said. However, there are one or two points that I should like to make. I should declare an interest in that I have used a hearing aid since 1971. At that time, when it was prescribed for me, I was told that at some stage I would become totally deaf and hear nothing. However, I am delighted to say that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, told me today that, with modern advances in medicine, that is not inevitable. That is a great relief.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley, pointed out that, with the demographic change taking place in this country, an increasing number of people will suffer from deafness or will be hard of hearing. One of the advantages I have with my National Health Service hearing aid is that it can pick up sounds from the induction loop. I use it in the Chamber because the induction loop here is absolutely splendid. The hearing aid is also useful in churches and in some theatres where an induction loop is fitted. I understand that one can get a portable induction loop system to put on a table if one is in the middle of a conference. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who has spoken on this subject in the past, is nodding his head vigorously.
With the advances in television and radio design and construction, why cannot an induction loop be fitted to modern televisions and radios so that their signals can be picked up by those who wear hearing aids? That should be possible. It would be similar to the one that is portable and can be put on a table. It would also mean that those who are hard of hearing and need at the moment to turn up the volume of their television or radio will not irritate their neighbours, particularly in blocks of flats, because they will not need to turn up the sound to the same extent. It can all be done on the induction loop.
1136
I wonder what effect the Disability Discrimination Act will have in that respect. Will there be a case against manufacturers who do not cater for those who are deaf or hard of hearing and who need to wear a hearing aid? Also, are the Government satisfied that purchasers of televisions are provided with adequate and suitable literature to make certain that they are able to operate the Teletext system effectively and receive the subtitling? I must admit to being an idiot where technology is concerned. I have considerable difficulty in following all kinds of technical instructions.
The other point that I want to raise relates to guides to television programmes. I do not buy the Radio Times or TV Times; I receive my information from the local paper, whose editors are kind enough to include a freebie. But I have never seen any indication in that guide as to what programmes are subtitled. Would it not be wise to include such an indication in the guide, particularly in relation to television? I should like also to back up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. What is being done to make certain that cable and satellite television carry subtitling?
10.46 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the process of preparing for this debate has been something of a learning curve. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her wonderful description of all the parts of this world of broadcasting with which I am not totally familiar. I must admit that the RNID laid its hand rather heavily on this debate—and a good thing too. However, I must apologise to both the RNID and the RNIB for confusing them at a conference fringe meeting last September when I gave out the wrong name. Dyslexics have a terrible problem with names and initials and it came to the fore then.
Having got that public apology out of the way, I want to say that it is obvious that, with a new form of broadcasting and new types of technology, we now have the opportunity to right what is clearly a wrong. As was pointed out by a number of speakers, and most clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, we have an opportunity to make sure that we understand this world. Every time we talk about disability, we find ourselves stepping almost magically through doors to new worlds where the perception of day-to-day reality is always changing. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has helped us on this occasion to go through one of those doors. We are dealing with a kind of exclusion from everyday experience which must hit people very hard, especially when we consider the fact that someone with a hearing impairment will find social interaction on a day-to-day basis at best difficult. Even those who have hearing only through certain ranges and, with modern hearing aids, can interact normally still often miss points. I know that from personal experience. We must attempt to deal with that difficulty. It may be expensive and difficult, but we now have the technical ability and, I hope, in the Disability Discrimination Act the legal necessity of solving the problem.

1137
When I began to study this subject and to receive briefing on it, I was slightly shocked to discover that the BBC was not the front runner. I think I can safely say that the ITV networks were crowing justifiably over the fact that they had slightly better figures. I expect the BBC to be at least as good as any other broadcaster because it is publicly funded. To give credit where credit is due, normally it is. However, if it has been overtaken it should ensure that at least it matches others in the field. The fact is that both groups claim that they are beating self-imposed and statutory targets.
The notion "could do better" seems to loom rather large here. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, put it, it is ridiculous that someone should wait 10 years to have full access to something which is a major part of life. Evidently, it can be done quicker. Whether a carrot or stick drives them to achieve that target I do not know. However, this is a good opportunity for this part of Parliament to say that it is prepared to wield the stick.
The BBC faces an extra problem in that it seeks more licence money for digital broadcasting, which is not a matter to which I am opposed. I know that every single disability group to whom one talks claims that it has the biggest client base in the country. The dyslexics and the RNID can probably challenge that claim. If the BBC is failing in this department then potentially a section of the community will be cut off from a large part of the activities of that public service, and that must be addressed rapidly. I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply to the debate he will be able to say how the Government are applying gentle or perhaps firm pressure to deal with that. Unless we encourage this process we are preventing a section of our society from achieving interaction with others and one result will be social exclusion.
I do not believe that I can add to the technical debate on the figures and how this can be achieved for the simple reason that I do not have a sufficiently good grasp of it. The fact remains that if people are talking about this it must be possible. Generally, if one tells people that they shall do something as part of their basic function it is amazing how often they take it in their stride after an indeterminate amount of moaning and groaning ah out it. The whole idea of public service broadcasting and its requirement to achieve certain aims is not something that people like very much until they get on with it and realise that often it has financial benefits. The great growth in costume drama that is seen by many groups does not seem to affect viewing figures. I said to someone, "Just imagine Dickens without being able to understand the words". The reply that I received from behind a paper was, "Yes, it sounds wonderful, doesn't it?" Unless one brings in people one will not achieve anything.
In conclusion, we are not being told enough about how to access any written information that is being produced on this matter. I believe it was suggested that it should be once a week at prime time on the BBC. One can give it the same amount of push as the advertising of other programmes. There is one guiding light. When one starts to notice it as something in which one is not interested and leaves the room that is
1138
probably when the BBC, or whoever else is concerned with it, has got it right. One is perhaps going slightly into overkill if on the same day an individual says, "Oh, no, not again", and makes himself yet another cup of tea. But perhaps the goal is achieved when it begins to be noticed by those who do not need it. I cannot remember once turning on a television set and seeing that piece of information. I suggest that at the very least the BBC, and ITV for that matter, can address these problems straightaway.
Having said that, I very much hope that tonight we shall hear that the Government guide broadcasters to achieve as quickly as possible the provision of 100 per cent better information, through television, to the deaf and those who are hard of hearing. Whether we like it or not, television is a vital part of the media and our society and will remain so.
10.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will not think that I am currying favour when I say that this is the kind of debate which is particularly helpful to government and is a feature of this House at its best. This is not a debate in which anyone has been scoring points—party political or any other points. It is a debate in which we have attracted among the speakers those with a great deal of expertise, and have learnt from their personal experience. That is enormously valuable.
I agree profoundly with the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who spoke of the problems of cultural and social exclusion. As the noble Baroness knows, they are dear to the heart of Chris Smith and his colleagues in the Department for Culture. The more she presses us to give effect to our ideals the better it will be. She is also right to say that there are perfectly sound commercial reasons for broadcasters to improve the services, both analogue and digital, for the 8.7 million deaf and hard of hearing people in this country. That 8.7 million forms a very large minority. They are customers for advertised products and services. If the broadcasters ignore them, they do so at considerable financial peril. If that lesson goes back to them from this debate, then something valuable is achieved, even if nothing else were achieved.
I congratulate the noble Baroness on the research that she undertook for her speech. Quite rightly, she drew attention to the difficulties in producing subtitles and the very great skills required to produce them efficiently and effectively. The noble Baroness did not talk about the difficulties of signing and audio-description. In view of the balance of the subject matter of the debate, I hope that the House will forgive me if I concentrate on subtitling.
Increasingly, there is some recognition of broadcasters' obligations to disabled people. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Ashley, in his capacity as chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group, on his initiative. I understand that he has invited two broadcasters, both of whom are blind. to speak at a meeting of the all-party group tomorrow

1139
evening. I know that the blind are not strictly speaking the subject matter of today's debate, but it was justifiable for the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley, to draw attention to the relevance of broadcast services being accessible to the blind also.
We have made clear that in the digital era it is important that all sections of society should have access not only to the current free-to-air services but to new additional services. We believe that people with disabilities could derive real benefit from the new and sophisticated services that digital television offers. That includes the possibility of a separate channel for signing and audio-description. We hope that when analogue services are switched over to digital every home in the United Kingdom with a television set and a telephone will have guaranteed basic access to the Internet and interactivity to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred. That is particularly valuable for people who are housebound.
I find the issue of subtitling targets as set by the Broadcasting Act 1996 difficult to set out. I shall not attempt to expound them. I had them put into a table. Even there it is a complex procedure. Basically the 1996 Act required the ITC to draw up a code on promoting the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons who are deaf or hard of hearing with targets on subtitling and signing laid down in the Act and by order. The Act set a target that not less than 50 per cent of programme hours broadcast in any programme service should be titled with other targets for signing.
The ITC has set interim targets which, together with the final target, run to 2004. The BBC and Channel 4 have in broad terms agreed to match those targets. We intend to review the targets next November because it will be two years after the start of digital terrestrial television and we will have clearer ideas of progress and possibilities in that area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether that could have been brought forward into the wider review. That review could easily take longer because it is a legislative review. We wish to settle the review of subtitling targets as soon as possible. Indeed, that was what Chris Smith told my noble friend Lord Ashley at their recent meeting, to which my noble friend referred. We agree that the review must include specific reference to subtitling targets.
The commission's code was published in February 1997 and the ITC has stated that it will keep arrangements under review so that it stays abreast of technical developments.
My noble friend Lord Ashley referred to monitoring the targets. Compliance with the code is a licence condition for all digital programme service licence holders and the commission will monitor progress towards meeting those requirements. Under the 1996 Act, it has the power to impose sanctions, including fines, on licensees who do not comply with the code.
The analogue broadcaster's obligations also apply to the simulcast digital services, which are an overwhelmingly major part of the digital services now
1140
available. The ITC has set the target of 80 per cent of Channel 3 programmes by 2005. Channel 5 is required to subtitle 50 per cent of its programmes by 2002 and Channel 4 has agreed to match the Channel 3 target. The BBC aims to achieve subtitling of peak-time output on BBC1 and BBC2 by 2001 and 80 per cent of all output by 2004.
Reference was rightly made to the Davies report, which recommends that targets for the subtitling of the new digital services should be substantially increased so that 50 per cent of programmes are subtitled in the next five years and 100 per cent by 2009, which is within the window of likely switchover from analogue television. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, the BBC has agreed to implement this recommendation.
Clearly, we have not published our conclusions on the Davies report, but we shall do so in January 2000. Of course, in considering the report we shall take account of the needs of all sectors of society, including those with disabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Hussey, argued for a reduction on the colour television licence fee. He will remember that the Davies report recommends a 50 per cent reduction in the fee for those registered blind. That, too, is a matter we shall consider when publishing our conclusions in January.
As regards the switchover from analogue to digital, I must acknowledge to my noble friend Lord Ashley that with the targets which have been set, and which we can legally enforce, it may well be that people who are deaf or hard of hearing will have to delay their own switchover during the period in which digital output has a lower level of signing. Of course during that period they will be able to stay with analogue television. We have stipulated two criteria to be set before the switchover takes place: under the availability test—
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I was assured by the BBC that if deaf and hard-of-hearing people were to switch over to digital TV tomorrow, the same amount of subtitling would be available as is currently available on analogue TV. I should not like the wrong message to go out, but the BBC assured me on that point today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two parts to that point. There will certainly be the same amount of subtitles available on the simulcast programmes; that is, the programmes which are the same as those provided on analogue TV, but I do not believe that that is the case for the new digital programmes which the BBC will be providing. I do not believe that there is any disagreement on that matter.
The second criterion after availability is affordability, which means that prices must be within the reach of people on low or fixed incomes. The affordability test will include also take-up of digital equipment, which 95 per cent of consumers must have. I must emphasise that the switchover will be emphasised on those criteria, not on dates, although we have forecast a date of 2006–2010.

1141
A number of noble Lords referred to the need for better information on the availability of subtitling in particular. We have asked broadcasters, manufacturers and retailers to work together to provide clear and objective information about digital TV. That applies also to analogue TV. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, my understanding is that the Radio Times— which he does not buy—includes information on which programmes have subtitles. It may be that he will have to have a small further outlay each week in addition to his free local paper.
While addressing the noble Lord, perhaps I may say also that my understanding about digital loops is that when they are available in a room they are plugged into the television set and that is how improved hearing is provided. That is clearly rather more efficient than including a digital loop in all television sets including those for people who do not need them. It is clearly in the broadcasters' interests to provide as much valid information about subtitling and signing as possible.
My noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to the application of the Disability Discrimination Act, which requires that there should be a balance of cost with provision. How that will be interpreted in the broadcasting area is a matter still to be worked out. My noble friend Lord Ashley also singled out the cable and satellite broadcasters, as did a number of other noble Lords,
1142
for having no formal requirements to provide subtitling and signing services. We have made clear our concern at the apparently poor level of subtitling to the cable and satellite broadcasters. We are keen that they should provide more, including on their digital services.
In response to the first question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, we very much support the RNID initiative for a voluntary charter on broadcast subtitling to improve access for deaf and hard of hearing viewers. The RNID sent a consultation document to all major broadcasters: to Hearing Concern, to the broadcasting council for the deaf and to other interested parties. We have encouraged all broadcasters to respond positively to the RNID initiative.
Clearly, there are some areas in which we have powers to force things forward. When the opportunity arises, we shall certainly do so. There are some areas where we do not have those powers. Our powers consist only of encouragement and threats about taking future powers. However, whatever our powers may be, I can assure your Lordships that we take the problem extremely seriously. We propose to use whatever powers and influence we have to ensure that the social and cultural exclusion of the deaf and hard of hearing in the broadcasting area is reduced and eliminated as quickly as is humanly possible.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eleven o'clock.

  EDS: Government Contracts
  EDS: Government Contracts
  Parliamentary and Crown Copyright: Public Access to Information
  Parliamentary and Crown Copyright: Public Access to Information
  Capital Market Liberalisation
  Capital Market Liberalisation
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Country Assessments
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Country Assessments
  Crime Fighting Fund: Bidding Guidelines
  Crime Fighting Fund: Bidding Guidelines
  Tibet and Inner Mongolia: World Bank Project
  Tibet and Inner Mongolia: World Bank Project
  National Curriculum: Food and Nutrition Component
  National Curriculum: Food and Nutrition Component
  Road Policy: De-trunking
  Road Policy: De-trunking
  National Beds Inquiry
  National Beds Inquiry
  Female Genital Mutilation
  Female Genital Mutilation
  British Fluoridation Society: Government Financial Contribution
  British Fluoridation Society: Government Financial Contribution
  Community Pharmacy Strategy
  Community Pharmacy Strategy
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act: Sections 17 and 18
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act: Sections 17 and 18
  Glufosinate Ammonium
  Glufosinate Ammonium
  Food Safety: WTO Trade Negotiations
  Food Safety: WTO Trade Negotiations